Comparison of Internet and Telephone Interventions for Weight Loss Among Cancer Survivors: Randomized Controlled Trial and Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Weight loss interventions have been successfully delivered via several modalities, but recent research has focused on more disseminable and sustainable means such as telephone- or Internet-based platforms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare an Internet-delivered weight loss intervention to a comparable telephone-delivered weight loss intervention. METHODS: This randomized pilot study examined the effects of 6-month telephone- and Internet-delivered social cognitive theory-based weight loss interventions among 37 cancer survivors. Measures of body composition, physical activity, diet, and physical performance were the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Participants in the telephone intervention (n=13) showed greater decreases in waist circumference (-0.75 cm for telephone vs -0.09 cm for Internet, P=.03) than the Internet condition (n=24), and several other outcomes trended in the same direction. Measures of engagement (eg, number of telephone sessions completed and number of log-ins) suggest differences between groups which may account for the difference in outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors in the telephone group evidenced better health outcomes than the Internet group. Group differences may be due to higher engagement in the telephone group. Incorporating a telephone-based component into existing weight loss programs for cancer survivors may help enhance the reach of the intervention while minimizing costs. More research is needed on how to combine Internet and telephone weight loss intervention components so as to maximize engagement and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01311856; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01311856 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6tKdklShY).
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".