Using the Habit App for Weight Loss Problem Solving: Development and Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reviews of weight loss mobile apps have revealed they include very few evidence-based features, relying mostly on self-monitoring. Unfortunately, adherence to self-monitoring is often low, especially among patients with motivational challenges. One behavioral strategy that is leveraged in virtually every visit of behavioral weight loss interventions and is specifically used to deal with adherence and motivational issues is problem solving. Problem solving has been successfully implemented in depression mobile apps, but not yet in weight loss apps. OBJECTIVE: This study describes the development and feasibility testing of the Habit app, which was designed to automate problem-solving therapy for weight loss. METHODS: Two iterative single-arm pilot studies were conducted to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the Habit app. In each pilot study, adults who were overweight or obese were enrolled in an 8-week intervention that included the Habit app plus support via a private Facebook group. Feasibility outcomes included retention, app usage, usability, and acceptability. Changes in problem-solving skills and weight over 8 weeks are described, as well as app usage and weight change at 16 weeks. RESULTS: Results from both pilots show acceptable use of the Habit app over 8 weeks with on average two to three uses per week, the recommended rate of use. Acceptability ratings were mixed such that 54% (13/24) and 73% (11/15) of participants found the diet solutions helpful and 71% (17/24) and 80% (12/15) found setting reminders for habits helpful in pilots 1 and 2, respectively. In both pilots, participants lost significant weight (P=.005 and P=.03, respectively). In neither pilot was an effect on problem-solving skills observed (P=.62 and P=.27, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Problem-solving therapy for weight loss is feasible to implement in a mobile app environment; however, automated delivery may not impact problem-solving skills as has been observed previously via human delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02192905; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02192905 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6zPQmvOF2).
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".