A Mobile Phone App Designed to Support Weight Loss Maintenance and Well-Being (MotiMate): Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few people successfully maintain lost weight over the longer term. Mobile phones have the potential to deliver weight loss management programs that can encourage self-monitoring while also providing some behavioral therapy to assist users in developing personal skills that may be necessary for improved longer term weight loss maintenance. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate a program supporting weight maintenance, which uses a behaviorally based mobile phone app to manage weight, food, exercise, mood, and stress. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial over 24 weeks, the full version of the app (MotiMate) was compared with a control app (monitoring only; excluding mood and stress) for its effect on weight, diet, and psychological well-being. Both apps had the same visual appearance and were designed to deliver all intervention content without face-to-face contact. The control version included features to track weight, food intake, and exercise with limited feedback and no encouraging/persuasive features. The intervention app included more persuasive and interactive features to help users track their weight, food intake, and physical activity and prompted users to enter data each day through notifications and included a mood and stress workshopping tool. Participants were recruited through advertising and existing databases. Clinic visits occurred at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks. At all visits, the clinical trial manager recorded body weight, and participants then completed a computer-delivered survey, which measured psychological and lifestyle outcomes. Objective app usage data were recorded throughout the trial. RESULTS: =0.7, P=.49). Mixed models suggested no significant changes in weight or psychological outcomes over 24 weeks regardless of condition. Of 61 completers, 53% (32/61) remained within 2% of their starting weight. Significant increases occurred over 24 weeks for satisfaction with life and weight loss self-efficacy regardless of app condition. Diet and physical activity behaviors did not vary by app or week. Negative binomial models indicated that those receiving the full app remained active users of the app for 46 days longer than controls (P=.02). Users of the full version of the app also reported that they felt more supported than those with the control app (P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although some aspects of the intervention app such as usage and user feedback showed promise, there were few observable effects on behavioral and psychological outcomes. Future evaluation of the app should implement alternative research methods or target more specific populations to better understand the utility of the coping interface. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000474651; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=366120.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".