BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring for weight loss has traditionally been performed with paper diaries. Technologic advances could reduce the burden of self-monitoring and provide feedback to enhance adherence. PURPOSE: To determine if self-monitoring diet using a PDA only or the PDA with daily tailored feedback (PDA+feedback [FB]), was superior to using a paper diary on weight loss and maintenance. DESIGN: The Self-Monitoring and Recording Using Technology (SMART) Trial was a 24-month randomized clinical trial; participants were randomly assigned to one of three self-monitoring groups. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: From 2006 to 2008, a total of 210 overweight/obese adults (84.8% female, 78.1% white) were recruited from the community. Data were analyzed in 2011. INTERVENTION: Participants received standard behavioral treatment for weight loss that included dietary and physical activity goals, encouraged the use of self-monitoring, and was delivered in group sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage weight change at 24 months, adherence to self-monitoring over time. RESULTS: Study retention was 85.6%. The mean percentage weight loss at 24 months was not different among groups (paper diary: -1.94%, 95% CI = -3.88, 0.01; PDA: -1.38%, 95% CI= -3.38, 0.62; PDA+FB: -2.32%, 95% CI= -4.29, -0.35); only the PDA+FB group (p=0.02) demonstrated a significant loss. For adherence to self-monitoring, there was a time-by-treatment group interaction between the combined PDA groups and the paper diary group (p=0.03) but no difference between PDA and PDA+FB groups (p=0.49). Across all groups, weight loss was greater for those who were adherent ≥60% versus <30% of the time (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:PDA+FB use resulted in a small weight loss at 24 months; PDA use resulted in greater adherence to dietary self-monitoring over time. However, for sustained weight loss, adherence to self-monitoring is more important than the method used to self-monitor. A daily feedback message delivered remotely enhanced adherence and improved weight loss, which suggests that technology can play a role in improving weight loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT00277771.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring for weight loss has traditionally been performed with paper diaries. Technologic advances could reduce the burden of self-monitoring and provide feedback to enhance adherence. PURPOSE: To determine if self-monitoring diet using a PDA only or the PDA with daily tailored feedback (PDA+feedback [FB]), was superior to using a paper diary on weight loss and maintenance. DESIGN: The Self-Monitoring and Recording Using Technology (SMART) Trial was a 24-month randomized clinical trial; participants were randomly assigned to one of three self-monitoring groups. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: From 2006 to 2008, a total of 210 overweight/obese adults (84.8% female, 78.1% white) were recruited from the community. Data were analyzed in 2011. INTERVENTION: Participants received standard behavioral treatment for weight loss that included dietary and physical activity goals, encouraged the use of self-monitoring, and was delivered in group sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage weight change at 24 months, adherence to self-monitoring over time. RESULTS: Study retention was 85.6%. The mean percentage weight loss at 24 months was not different among groups (paper diary: -1.94%, 95% CI = -3.88, 0.01; PDA: -1.38%, 95% CI= -3.38, 0.62; PDA+FB: -2.32%, 95% CI= -4.29, -0.35); only the PDA+FB group (p=0.02) demonstrated a significant loss. For adherence to self-monitoring, there was a time-by-treatment group interaction between the combined PDA groups and the paper diary group (p=0.03) but no difference between PDA and PDA+FB groups (p=0.49). Across all groups, weight loss was greater for those who were adherent ≥60% versus <30% of the time (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PDA+FB use resulted in a small weight loss at 24 months; PDA use resulted in greater adherence to dietary self-monitoring over time. However, for sustained weight loss, adherence to self-monitoring is more important than the method used to self-monitor. A daily feedback message delivered remotely enhanced adherence and improved weight loss, which suggests that technology can play a role in improving weight loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT00277771.
Authors: Lora E Burke; Mindi A Styn; Karen Glanz; Linda J Ewing; Okan U Elci; Margaret B Conroy; Susan M Sereika; Sushama D Acharya; Edvin Music; Alison L Keating; Mary Ann Sevick Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Ben S Gerber; Melinda R Stolley; Allison L Thompson; Lisa K Sharp; Marian L Fitzgibbon Journal: Health Informatics J Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Donald A Williamson; Stephen D Anton; Hongmei Han; Catherine M Champagne; Ray Allen; Eric LeBlanc; Donna H Ryan; Katherine McManus; Nancy Laranjo; Vincent J Carey; Catherine M Loria; George A Bray; Frank M Sacks Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2009-10-25
Authors: Frank M Sacks; George A Bray; Vincent J Carey; Steven R Smith; Donna H Ryan; Stephen D Anton; Katherine McManus; Catherine M Champagne; Louise M Bishop; Nancy Laranjo; Meryl S Leboff; Jennifer C Rood; Lilian de Jonge; Frank L Greenway; Catherine M Loria; Eva Obarzanek; Donald A Williamson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-02-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael G Perri; Marian C Limacher; Patricia E Durning; David M Janicke; Lesley D Lutes; Linda B Bobroff; Martha Sue Dale; Michael J Daniels; Tiffany A Radcliff; A Daniel Martin Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-11-24
Authors: Kevin Patrick; Fred Raab; Marc A Adams; Lindsay Dillon; Marian Zabinski; Cheryl L Rock; William G Griswold; Gregory J Norman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2009-01-13 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Lora E Burke; Jun Ma; Kristen M J Azar; Gary G Bennett; Eric D Peterson; Yaguang Zheng; William Riley; Janna Stephens; Svati H Shah; Brian Suffoletto; Tanya N Turan; Bonnie Spring; Julia Steinberger; Charlene C Quinn Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Erica J Ambeba; Lei Ye; Susan M Sereika; Mindi A Styn; Sushama D Acharya; Mary Ann Sevick; Linda J Ewing; Molly B Conroy; Karen Glanz; Yaguang Zheng; Rachel W Goode; Meghan Mattos; Lora E Burke Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2015 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Niharika N Bhardwaj; Bezawit Wodajo; Keerthi Gochipathala; David P Paul; Alberto Coustasse Journal: Perspect Health Inf Manag Date: 2017-04-01
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
Authors: Gabrielle M Turner-McGrievy; Michael W Beets; Justin B Moore; Andrew T Kaczynski; Daheia J Barr-Anderson; Deborah F Tate Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Eleanor B Tate; Donna Spruijt-Metz; Gillian O'Reilly; Maryalice Jordan-Marsh; Marientina Gotsis; Mary Ann Pentz; Genevieve F Dunton Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.046