Compliance with telephone-based lifestyle weight loss programs improves low back pain but not knee pain outcomes: complier average causal effects analyses of 2 randomised trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: We conducted a complier average causal effect (CACE) analyses for 2 pragmatic randomised controlled trials. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of telephone-based lifestyle weight loss interventions compared with usual care among compliers. Participants from 2 trials with low back pain (n = 160) and knee osteoarthritis (n = 120) with a body mass index ≥27 kg/m2 were included. We defined adherence to the telephone-based lifestyle weight loss program as completing 60% (6 from 10) of telephone health coaching calls. The primary outcomes for CACE analyses were pain intensity (0-10 Numerical Rating Scale) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire for low back pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index for knee osteoarthritis). Secondary outcomes were weight, physical activity, and diet. We used an instrumental variable approach to estimate CACE in compliers. From the intervention groups of the trials, 29% of those with low back pain (n = 23/80) and 34% of those with knee osteoarthritis (n = 20/60) complied. Complier average causal effect estimates showed potentially clinically meaningful effects, but with low certainty because of wide confidence intervals, for pain intensity (-1.4; 95% confidence interval, -3.1, 0.4) and small but also uncertain effects for disability (-2.1; 95% confidence interval, -8.6, 4.5) among compliers in the low back pain trial intervention compared with control but not in the knee osteoarthritis trial. Our findings showed that compliers of a telephone-based weight loss intervention in the low back pain trial generally had improved outcomes; however, there were inconsistent effects in compliers from the knee osteoarthritis trial. Complier average causal effect estimates were larger than intention-to-treat results but must be considered with caution.
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 | 0.210 | 0.295 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".