Five A’s counseling in weight management of obese patients in primary care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial (INTERACT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity is one of the most prevalent health problems in western societies. However, it seems not effectively managed in the healthcare system at present. Originating from smoking cessation a tool called the 5As for obesity management has been drafted and adapted by the Canadian Obesity Network (CON) to improve weight counseling and provider-patient-interaction. This paper describes the rationale and design of the INTERACT study. The objective of the INTERACT study is to evaluate the effectiveness and intervention costs of a 5As eLearning program for obesity management aimed specifically at general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: The INTERACT study is a cluster randomized controlled trial aimed at implementing and evaluating an online-tutorial for obesity management based on the 5As approach in cooperating primary health care practices. Effectiveness of the 5As intervention will be evaluated by assessing patients and doctors perspectives on obesity management in primary care before and after the training. GPs in the intervention group will get access to the 5As obesity management online-tutorial while GPs in the control group will be assigned to a waiting list. Outcome measures for patients and GPs will be compared between the intervention group (treatment as usual + training of the GP) and the control group (treatment as usual). Hierarchical regression models will be used to analyze effects over time pre- and post-intervention. DISCUSSION: The 5As present physicians with a simple mnemonic for patient counseling in the primary care context. While the use of the 5As in weight counseling seems to be associated with improved doctor-patient interaction and motivation to lose weight, intervention studies assessing the effectiveness of a short 5A eLearning tutorial for physicians on secondary outcomes, such as weight development, are lacking. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been registered at the German Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00009241 ; date of registration: 03.02.2016).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".