MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884655343 · doi:10.2196/10471

The Association Between Engagement and Weight Loss Through Personal Coaching and Cell Phone Interventions in Young Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial

2018· article· en· W2884655343 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pao‐Hwa Lin, Steven C. Grambow, Stephen Intille, John A. Gallis, Tony Lazenka, Hayden B. Bosworth, Corrine I. Voils, Gary G. Bennett, Bryan C. Batch, Jenifer Allen, Leonor Corsino, Crystal C. Tyson, Laura P. Svetkey

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteHealth Services Research and DevelopmentU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsPsychological interventionmHealthCoachingRandomized controlled trialMobile phoneWeight lossIntervention (counseling)Health coachingPsychologyPhoneBehavior changeAssociation (psychology)GerontologyPhysical therapyMedicineObesitySocial psychologyPsychotherapistComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Understanding how engagement in mobile health (mHealth) weight loss interventions relates to weight change may help develop effective intervention strategies. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the (1) patterns of participant engagement overall and with key intervention components within each intervention arm in the Cell Phone Intervention For You (CITY) trial; (2) associations of engagement with weight change; and (3) participant characteristics related to engagement. METHODS: The CITY trial tested two 24-month weight loss interventions. One was delivered with a smartphone app (cell phone) containing 24 components (weight tracking, etc) and included prompting by the app in predetermined frequency and forms. The other was delivered by a coach via monthly calls (personal coaching) supplemented with limited app components (18 overall) and without any prompting by the app. Engagement was assessed by calculating the percentage of days each app component was used and the frequency of use. Engagement was also examined across 4 weight change categories: gained (≥2%), stable (±2%), mild loss (≥2% to <5%), and greater loss (≥5%). RESULTS: Data from 122 cell phone and 120 personal coaching participants were analyzed. Use of the app was the highest during month 1 for both arms; thereafter, use dropped substantially and continuously until the study end. During the first 6 months, the mean percentage of days that any app component was used was higher for the cell phone arm (74.2%, SD 20.1) than for the personal coaching arm (48.9%, SD 22.4). The cell phone arm used the apps an average of 5.3 times/day (SD 3.1), whereas the personal coaching participants used them 1.7 times/day (SD 1.2). Similarly, the former self-weighed more than the latter (57.1% days, SD 23.7 vs 32.9% days, SD 23.3). Furthermore, the percentage of days any app component was used, number of app uses per day, and percentage of days self-weighed all showed significant differences across the 4 weight categories for both arms. Pearson correlation showed a negative association between weight change and the percentage of days any app component was used (cell phone: r=-.213; personal coaching: r=-.319), number of apps use per day (cell phone: r=-.264; personal coaching: r=-.308), and percentage of days self-weighed (cell phone: r=-.297; personal coaching: r=-.354). None of the characteristics examined, including age, gender, race, education, income, energy expenditure, diet quality, and hypertension status, appeared to be related to engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Engagement in CITY intervention was associated with weight loss during the first 6 months. Nevertheless, engagement dropped substantially early on for most intervention components. Prompting may be helpful initially. More flexible and less intrusive prompting strategies may be needed during different stages of an intervention to increase or sustain engagement. Future studies should explore the motivations for engagement and nonengagement to determine meaningful levels of engagement required for effective intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01092364; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01092364 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/72V8A4e5X).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207