Weight Loss Trajectories in Healthy Weight Coaching: Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As global obesity prevalence continues to increase, there is a need for accessible and affordable weight management interventions, such as web-based programs. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to assess the outcomes of healthy weight coaching (HWC), a web-based obesity management program integrated into standard Finnish clinical care. METHODS: HWC is an ongoing, structured digital 12-month program based on acceptance and commitment therapy. It includes weekly training sessions focused on lifestyle, general health, and psychological factors. Participants received remote one-on-one support from a personal coach. In this real-life, single-arm, prospective cohort study, we examined the total weight loss, weight loss profiles, and variables associated with weight loss success and program retention in 1189 adults (963 women) with a BMI >25 kg/m² among participants of the program between October 2016 and March 2019. Absolute (kg) and relative (%) weight loss from the baseline were the primary outcomes. We also examined the weight loss profiles, clustered based on the dynamic time-warping distance, and the possible variables associated with greater weight loss success and program retention. We compared different groups using the Mann-Whitney test or Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and the chi-squared test for categorical variables. We analyzed changes in medication using the McNemar test. RESULTS: Among those having reached the 12-month time point (n=173), the mean weight loss was 4.6% (SE 0.5%), with 43% (n=75) achieving clinically relevant weight loss (≥5%). Baseline BMI ≥40 kg/m² was associated with a greater weight loss than a lower BMI (mean 6.6%, SE 0.9%, vs mean 3.2%, SE 0.6%; P=.02). In addition, more frequent weight reporting was associated with greater weight loss. No significant differences in weight loss were observed according to sex, age, baseline disease, or medication use. The total dropout rate was 29.1%. Dropouts were slightly younger than continuers (47.2, SE 0.6 years vs 49.2, SE 0.4 years; P=.01) and reported their weight less frequently (3.0, SE 0.1 entries per month vs 3.3, SE 0.1 entries per month; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive web-based program such as HWC is a potential addition to the repertoire of obesity management in a clinical setting. Heavier patients lost more weight, but weight loss success was otherwise independent of baseline characteristics.
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 | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".