The Relationship Between How Participants Articulate Their Goals and Accomplishments and Weight Loss Outcomes: Secondary Analysis of a Pilot of a Web-Based Weight Loss Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In behavioral weight loss interventions, participants are asked to set weekly goals to support long-term habits that lead to weight loss. Although participants are asked to set and accomplish weekly goals, we do not know how often they do this and whether doing so is associated with weight loss. Web-based weight loss interventions allow for the analysis of participant engagement data, including how participants articulate their goals and accomplishments. OBJECTIVE: Using engagement data from a web-based weight loss intervention, we examined whether participants articulating their goals and accomplishments in measurable and repeating terms were associated with greater weight loss. METHODS: Adults with overweight or obesity received a 12-week Facebook-delivered weight loss intervention based on the Diabetes Prevention Program Lifestyle Intervention. Participants replied to conversation threads that queried about their goals and accomplishments. Two independent coders classified participants' posts that articulated goals or accomplishments as measurable or repeating. Crude and age-adjusted linear regression models were used to examine the relationship between the frequency of post type and percent weight loss. RESULTS: . Over 12 weeks, participants shared a median of 4 (IQR 1-8) posts that reported goals and 10 (IQR 4-24) posts that reported accomplishments. Most participants shared ≥1 post with a goal (n=43, 81%) and ≥1 post with an accomplishment (n=47, 89%). Each post reporting a goal was associated with 0.2% greater weight loss (95% CI -0.3% to 0.0%). Sharing ≥1 post with a repeating goal was associated with an average of 2.2% greater weight loss (95% CI -3.9% to -0.4%). Each post with a repeating goal was associated with an average of 0.5% greater weight loss (95% CI -1.0% to 0.0%). Sharing ≥1 post with measurable and repeating goals was associated with an average of 1.9% greater weight loss (95% CI -3.7% to -0.2%). Sharing each post with an accomplishment was associated with an average of 0.1% greater weight loss (95% CI -0.1% to 0.0%). Every post with an accomplishment that was repeating was associated with an average of 0.2% greater weight loss (95% CI -0.3% to 0.0%). Sharing other types of goals and accomplishments was not associated with weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: In a web-based weight loss intervention, stating goals in repeating or both measurable and repeating terms was associated with greater weight loss, but simply stating them in measurable terms was not. For accomplishments, only those articulated in repeating terms were associated with greater weight loss. Posts about one-time goals and accomplishments represent an opportunity to encourage planning for future behaviors. Future research should examine if stating goals and accomplishments in repeating terms signals habit formation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".