MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377085620 · doi:10.2196/45057

Patterns and Predictors of Engagement With Digital Self-Monitoring During the Maintenance Phase of a Behavioral Weight Loss Program: Quantitative Study

2023· article· en· W4377085620 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicole T. Crane, Charlotte J. Hagerman, Olivia Z Horgan, Meghan L. Butryn

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSelf-monitoringPsychologyPhase (matter)mHealthWeight lossComputer scienceApplied psychologyClinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyPsychological interventionPsychiatryObesityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Long-term self-monitoring (SM) of weight, diet, and exercise is commonly recommended by behavioral weight loss (BWL) treatments. However, sustained SM engagement is notoriously challenging; therefore, more must be learned about patterns of engagement with digital SM tools during weight loss maintenance (WLM). In addition, insight into characteristics that may influence SM engagement could inform tailored approaches for participants at risk for poor adherence. OBJECTIVE: This study explored patterns of digital SM of weight, diet, and exercise during WLM (aim 1) and examined timing, patterns, and rates of disengagement and reengagement (aim 2). This study also assessed relationships between individual-level factors (weight-related information avoidance and weight bias internalization) and SM engagement (aim 3). METHODS: Participants were 72 adults enrolled in a BWL program consisting of a 3-month period of weekly treatment designed to induce weight loss (phase I), followed by a 9-month period of less frequent contact to promote WLM (phase II). Participants were prescribed daily digital SM of weight, diet, and exercise. At baseline, self-report measures assessed weight-related information avoidance and weight bias internalization. SM adherence was objectively measured with the days per month that participants tracked weight, diet, and exercise. Repeated-measures ANOVA examined differences in adherence across SM targets. Multilevel modeling examined changes in adherence across phase II. Relationships between individual-level variables and SM adherence were assessed with Pearson correlations, 2-tailed independent samples t tests, and multilevel modeling. RESULTS: During WLM, consistently high rates of SM (≥50% of the days in each month) were observed for 61% (44/72) of the participants for exercise, 40% (29/72) of the participants for weight, and 21% (15/72) of the participants for diet. Adherence for SM of exercise was higher than that for weight or diet (P<.001). Adherence decreased over time for all SM targets throughout phase II (P<.001), but SM of exercise dropped off later in WLM (mean 10.07, SD 2.83 months) than SM of weight (mean 7.92, SD 3.23 months) or diet (mean 7.58, SD 2.92 months; P<.001). Among participants with a period of low SM adherence (ie, <50% of the days in a month), only 33% (17/51 for weight, 19/57 for diet) to 46% (13/28 for exercise) subsequently had ≥1 months with high adherence. High weight-related information avoidance predicted a faster rate of decrease in dietary SM (P<.001). Participants with high weight bias internalization had the highest rates of weight SM (P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: Participants in BWL programs have low adherence to the recommendation to sustain daily SM during WLM, particularly for SM of diet and weight. Weight-related information avoidance and weight bias internalization may be relevant indicators for SM engagement. Interventions may benefit from innovative strategies that target participants at key moments of risk for disengagement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207