A randomized controlled trial of a theory-based weight-loss program for couples.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Weight gain occurs during marriage, yet obesity treatment is focused on individuals. Outcomes may be improved by targeting joint weight loss and the interpersonal milieu that fosters spousal interdependence. Self-determination theory (SDT) posits that autonomy-supportive environments (e.g., promote meaningful choice, minimize control) produce better health outcomes. This trial tested an SDT-informed weight-loss intervention intended to facilitate autonomy support in couples. METHOD: Sixty-four couples were randomized to standard behavioral weight loss (BWL) that couples attended together or to a SDT-informed weight-loss intervention (SDT-WL) that aimed to bolster autonomy support (AS). Groups met weekly for 6 months with assessments at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Percent weight loss at 6 and 12 months was 10.4% ± 6.5% and 9.2% ± 8.2%. No differences were observed between the BWL and SDT-WL conditions in percent weight loss or changes in AS. Across conditions, higher baseline AS predicted greater weight loss at 6 and 12 months (ps <.001). Increases in AS over time predicted greater weight loss at 6 and 12 months (ps ≤ .02). Post hoc moderation analysis indicated that only participants with low (but not high) baseline AS achieved greater gains in AS at 12 months in SDT-WL than in the BWL conditions (p < .02). CONCLUSIONS: Although no differences were found between conditions on weight loss or changes in autonomy support behavior, autonomy support from one's spouse predicted weight loss in both couples-based weight-loss approaches. For couples with low levels of AS, an SDT-informed approach was effective at increasing this desirable interpersonal behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".