Summary: Objective: Emerging adults ages 18–25 are at high risk for obesity, but are markedly underrepresented in behavioural weight loss (BWL) programs and experience lower engagement and retention relative to older adults.Purpose: To utilize a mixed methods approach to inform future efforts to effectively recruit and engage this high‐risk population in BWL programs.Methods: We used a convergent parallel design in which quantitative and qualitative data were given equal priority. Study 1 (N = 137, age = 21.8 + 2.2, BMI = 30.1 + 4.7) was a quantitative survey, conducted online to reduce known barriers and minimize bias. Study 2 (N = 7 groups, age = 22.3 + 2.2, BMI = 31.5 + 4.6) was a qualitative study, consisting of in person focus groups to gain greater depth and identify contextual factors unable to be captured in Study 1.Results: Weight loss was of interest, but weight itself was not a central motivation; an emphasis on overall lifestyle, self‐improvement and fitness emerged as driving factors. Key barriers were time, motivation and money. Recruitment processes should be primarily online with messages tailored specifically to motivations and preferences of this age group. Preferences for a program were reduced intensity and brief, hybrid format with some in‐person contact, individual level coaching, experiential learning and peer support. Key methods of promoting engagement and retention were autonomy and choice, money and creating an optimal default.Conclusions: An individually tailored lifestyle intervention that addresses a spectrum of health behaviours, promotes autonomy and emphasizes activity and fitness may facilitate recruitment and engagement in this population better than traditional BWL protocols.

Background: A diagnosis of cancer may increase mortality salience and provoke death-related distress. Primary brain tumor (PBT) patients may be at particular risk for such distress given the certainty of tumor progression, lack of curative treatments, and poor survival rates. This study is the first to examine the prevalence of death-related distress and its correlates in PBT patients. Methods: Adult PBT patients (N = 105) enrolled in this cross-sectional study and completed the Death Distress Scale (subscales: Death Depression, Death Anxiety, Death Obsession), Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7, and Patient Health Questionnaire–9. Prevalence and predictors of death-related distress, and the relationships of demographic variables to clusters of distress, were explored. Results: The majority of PBT patients endorsed clinically significant death-related distress in at least one domain. Death anxiety was endorsed by 81%, death depression by 12.5%, and death obsession by 10.5%. Generalized anxiety was the only factor associated with global death-related distress. Cluster analysis yielded 4 profiles: global distress, emotional distress, resilience, and existential distress. Participants in the resilience cluster were significantly further out from diagnosis than those in the existential distress cluster. There were no differences in cluster membership based on age, sex, or tumor grade. Conclusions: PBT patients appear to have a high prevalence of death-related distress, particularly death anxiety. Further, 4 distinct profiles of distress were identified, supporting the need for tailored approaches to addressing death-related distress. A shift in clusters of distress based on time since diagnosis also suggest the need for future longitudinal assessment.