OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of an Internet behavioral weight loss program; and determine if adding periodic in-person sessions to an Internet intervention improves outcomes. METHODS:481 healthy overweight adults (28% minority) were randomized to one of 3 delivery methods of a behavioral weight loss program with weekly meetings: Internet (n=161), InPerson (n=158), or Hybrid (Internet+InPerson, n=162). Outcome variables were weight at baseline and 6 months and percent of subjects achieving a 5 and 7% weight loss. The study took place in two centers in Vermont and Arkansas from 2003 to 2008. RESULTS: Conditions differed significantly in mean weight loss [8.0 (6.1) kg vs. 5.5 (5.6) kg vs. 6.0 (5.5) kg], for InPerson, Internet, and Hybrid respectively, p<0.01, n=462). Weight loss for InPerson was significantly greater than the Internet and Hybrid conditions (p<0.05). Although the proportion reaching a 5% weight loss did not differ, the proportion losing 7% did differ significantly (56.3% vs. 37.3% vs. 44.4% for InPerson, Internet, and Hybrid respectively, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that the Internet is a viable alternative to in-person treatment for the delivery and dissemination of a behavioral weight-control intervention. The addition of periodic in-person sessions did not improve outcomes. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of an Internet behavioral weight loss program; and determine if adding periodic in-person sessions to an Internet intervention improves outcomes. METHODS: 481 healthy overweight adults (28% minority) were randomized to one of 3 delivery methods of a behavioral weight loss program with weekly meetings: Internet (n=161), InPerson (n=158), or Hybrid (Internet+InPerson, n=162). Outcome variables were weight at baseline and 6 months and percent of subjects achieving a 5 and 7% weight loss. The study took place in two centers in Vermont and Arkansas from 2003 to 2008. RESULTS: Conditions differed significantly in mean weight loss [8.0 (6.1) kg vs. 5.5 (5.6) kg vs. 6.0 (5.5) kg], for InPerson, Internet, and Hybrid respectively, p<0.01, n=462). Weight loss for InPerson was significantly greater than the Internet and Hybrid conditions (p<0.05). Although the proportion reaching a 5% weight loss did not differ, the proportion losing 7% did differ significantly (56.3% vs. 37.3% vs. 44.4% for InPerson, Internet, and Hybrid respectively, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that the Internet is a viable alternative to in-person treatment for the delivery and dissemination of a behavioral weight-control intervention. The addition of periodic in-person sessions did not improve outcomes. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Lawrence J Appel; Catherine M Champagne; David W Harsha; Lawton S Cooper; Eva Obarzanek; Patricia J Elmer; Victor J Stevens; William M Vollmer; Pao-Hwa Lin; Laura P Svetkey; Sarah W Stedman; Deborah R Young Journal: JAMA Date: 2003 Apr 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sushama D Acharya; Okan U Elci; Susan M Sereika; Edvin Music; Mindi A Styn; Melanie Warziski Turk; Lora E Burke Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Kate Lambourne; Richard A Washburn; Cheryl Gibson; Debra K Sullivan; Jeannine Goetz; Robert Lee; Bryan K Smith; Matthew S Mayo; Joseph E Donnelly Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Robert I Berkowitz; Margaret R Rukstalis; Chanelle T Bishop-Gilyard; Reneé H Moore; Christine A Gehrman; Melissa S Xanthopoulos; William J Cochran; Delroy Louden; Thomas A Wadden Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2013-06-08
Authors: Michael D Jensen; Donna H Ryan; Caroline M Apovian; Jamy D Ard; Anthony G Comuzzie; Karen A Donato; Frank B Hu; Van S Hubbard; John M Jakicic; Robert F Kushner; Catherine M Loria; Barbara E Millen; Cathy A Nonas; F Xavier Pi-Sunyer; June Stevens; Victor J Stevens; Thomas A Wadden; Bruce M Wolfe; Susan Z Yanovski; Harmon S Jordan; Karima A Kendall; Linda J Lux; Roycelynn Mentor-Marcel; Laura C Morgan; Michael G Trisolini; Janusz Wnek; Jeffrey L Anderson; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Biykem Bozkurt; Ralph G Brindis; Lesley H Curtis; David DeMets; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; E Magnus Ohman; Susan J Pressler; Frank W Sellke; Win-Kuang Shen; Sidney C Smith; Gordon F Tomaselli Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ashley F Haggerty; Andrea Hagemann; Matthew Barnett; Mark Thornquist; Marian L Neuhouser; Neil Horowitz; Graham A Colditz; David B Sarwer; Emily M Ko; Kelly C Allison Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Bonnie Spring; Jennifer M Duncan; E Amy Janke; Andrea T Kozak; H Gene McFadden; Andrew DeMott; Alex Pictor; Leonard H Epstein; Juned Siddique; Christine A Pellegrini; Joanna Buscemi; Donald Hedeker Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 21.873