Counselor Efficiency at Providing Feedback in a Technology-Based Behavioral Weight Loss Intervention: Longitudinal Analysis (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Feedback for participants’ self-monitoring is a crucial and costly component of technology-based weight loss interventions. Detailed examination of interventionist time when reviewing and providing feedback for online self-monitoring data is lacking. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to longitudinally examine the time counselors spent providing feedback on participant self-monitoring data (ie, diet, physical activity, weight) in a 12-month technology-based weight loss intervention. We hypothesized that counselors would compose feedback for participants more quickly over time. METHODS The time the lay counselors (N=10) spent reviewing self-monitoring records and providing feedback to participants via email was longitudinally examined for all counselors across the three years of study implementation. Descriptives were observed for counselor feedback duration across counselors by 12 annual quarters (ie, 3-month periods). Differences in overall duration times by each consecutive annual quarter were analyzed using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS There was a decrease in counselor feedback duration from the first to second quarter (mean 53 to 46 minutes; P<.001), and from the second to third (mean 46 to 30 minutes; P<.001). A trend suggested a decrease from the third to fourth quarter (mean 30 to 26 minutes; P=.053), but no changes were found in subsequent quarters. Consistent with the hypothesis, counselors may be increasing their efficiency in providing feedback; across 12 months, counselors spent less time reviewing participant self-monitoring and composing feedback (decreasing from mean 53 to 26 minutes). CONCLUSIONS Counselors used increasingly less time to review online self-monitoring data and compose feedback after the initial 9 months of study implementation. Results inform counselor costs for future technology-based behavioral weight loss interventions. For example, regardless of increasing counselor efficiency, 25-30 minutes per feedback message is a high cost for interventions. One possibility for reducing costs would be generating computer-automated feedback. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02063178; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02063178
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".