Efficacy of a Commercial Weight Management Program Compared With a Do-It-Yourself Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Given the prevalence of obesity, accessible and effective treatment options are needed to manage obesity and its comorbid conditions. Commercial weight management programs are a potential solution to the lack of available treatment, providing greater access at lower cost than clinic-based approaches, but few commercial programs have been rigorously evaluated. Objective: To compare the differences in weight change between individuals randomly assigned to a commercial weight management program and those randomly assigned to a do-it-yourself (DIY) approach. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 1-year, randomized clinical trial conducted in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom between June 19, 2018, and November 30, 2019, enrolled 373 adults aged 18 to 75 years with a body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 25 to 45. Assessors were blinded to treatment conditions. Interventions: A widely available commercial weight management program that included reduced requirements for dietary self-monitoring and recommendations for a variety of DIY approaches to weight loss. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the difference in weight change between the 2 groups at 3 and 12 months. The a priori hypothesis was that the commercial program would result in greater weight loss than the DIY approach at 3 and 12 months. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: The study include 373 participants (272 women [72.9%]; mean [SD] BMI, 33.8 [5.2]; 77 [20.6%] aged 18-34 years, 74 [19.8%] aged 35-43 years, 82 [22.0%] aged 44-52 years, and 140 [37.5%] aged 53-75 years). At 12 months, retention rates were 88.8% (166 of 187) for the commercial weight management program group and 95.7% (178 of 186) for the DIY group. At 3 months, participants in the commercial program had a mean (SD) weight loss of -3.8 (4.1) kg vs -1.8 (3.7) kg among those in the DIY group. At 12 months, participants in the commercial program had a mean (SD) weight loss of -4.4 (7.3) kg vs -1.7 (7.3) kg among those in the DIY group. The mean difference between groups was -2.0 kg (97.5% CI, -2.9 to -1.1 kg) at 3 months (P < .001) and -2.6 kg (97.5% CI, -4.3 to -0.8 kg) at 12 months (P < .001). A greater percentage of participants in the commercial program group than participants in the DIY group achieved loss of 5% of body weight at both 3 months (40.7% [72 of 177] vs 18.6% [34 of 183]) and 12 months (42.8% [71 of 166] vs 24.7% [44 of 178]). Conclusions and Relevance: Adults randomly assigned to a commercial weight management program with reduced requirements for dietary self-monitoring lost more weight and were more likely to achieve weight loss of 5% at 3 and 12 months than adults following a DIY approach. This study contributes data on the efficacy of commercial weight management programs and DIY weight management approaches. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03571893.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".