The Effects of If‐Then Plans on Weight Loss: Results of the McGill CHIP Healthy Weight Program Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The NIH-developed Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is successful in achieving clinically significant weight loss in individuals with overweight/obesity when delivered one-on-one. The group-based DPP is less effective, with average weight losses of only 3.5%. The objective of this study was to increase weight loss outcomes of the group-based DPP by integrating habit formation tools (i.e., if-then plans). This two-arm randomized controlled trial tested the efficacy of the habit formation-enhanced group-based DPP compared with the standard group-based DPP on changes in body weight (primary outcome). This study presents the 3- and 12-month results of this 24-month trial. METHODS: A total of 208 participants were randomly assigned to the standard or enhanced DPP, and 172 participated. Participants were men and women with overweight/obesity who self-reported less than 200 min/wk of exercise. RESULTS: < 1). Both groups improved in blood pressure and physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: If-then plans did not result in higher weight loss. Both program versions resulted in higher weight loss than the group-based DPP. This may suggest that cognitive behavioral therapy skills of the coaches (clinical psychology doctoral students) was a key factor in treatment outcome.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".