The Outcomes of App-Based Health Coaching to Improve Dietary Behavior Among Nurses in a Tertiary Hospital: Pilot Intervention Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: At the workplace, health care workers face multiple challenges in maintaining healthy dietary behaviors, which is the major factor behind obesity. A hospital-wide mass health screening exercise showed an increasing trend in the prevalence of obesity and median BMI from 2004 to 2019, as well as a higher crude obesity rate among shift workers. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of mobile app-based health coaching and incentives for achieving weight loss from better dietary choices among hospital nurses. METHODS: We conducted a pilot study from June 2019 to March 2020, involving the use of a health-coaching app by 145 hospital nurses over 6 months. Weight and BMI were self-reported, and food scores were calculated. Data among overweight nurses, shift work nurses, and incentive groups were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 61 nurses were included in the final analysis. Of these 61 nurses, 38 (62%) lost weight. The median percentage weight loss was 1.2% (IQR 0%-2.9%; P<.001), and the median decrease in BMI was 0.35 (IQR -0.15 to 0.82; P<.001), but they were not clinically significant. The median improvement in the food score was 0.4 (IQR 0-0.8). There was no difference between the incentive and nonincentive groups. A total of 49 (34%) participants engaged for ≥8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated an association between the use of app-based health coaching and the attainment of some weight loss in nurses, without a significant improvement in the food score. Incentives may nudge on-boarding, but do not sustain engagement.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".