Design and Methods of a Synchronous Online Motivational Interviewing Intervention for Weight Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While Internet-based weight management programs can facilitate access to and engagement in evidence-based lifestyle weight loss programs, the results have generally not been as effective as in-person programs. Furthermore, motivational interviewing (MI) has shown promise as a technique for enhancing weight loss outcomes within face-to-face programs. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the design, intervention development, and analysis of a therapist-delivered online MI intervention for weight loss in the context of an online weight loss program. METHODS: The MI intervention is delivered within the context of a randomized controlled trial examining the efficacy of an 18-month, group-based, online behavioral weight control program plus individually administered, synchronous online MI sessions relative to the group-based program alone. Six individual 30-minute MI sessions are conducted in private chat rooms over 18 months by doctoral-level psychologists. Sessions use a semistructured interview format for content and session flow and incorporate core MI components (eg, collaborative agenda setting, open-ended questions, reflective listening and summary statements, objective data, and a focus on evoking and amplifying change talk). RESULTS: The project was funded in 2010 and enrollment was completed in 2012. Data analysis is currently under way and the first results are expected in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first trial to test the efficacy of a synchronous online, one-on-one MI intervention designed to augment an online group behavioral weight loss program. If the addition of MI sessions proves to be successful, this intervention could be disseminated to enhance other distance-based weight loss interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01232699; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01232699.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".