BACKGROUND: A challenge in intensive obesity treatment is making care scalable. Little is known about whether the outcome of physician-directed weight loss treatment can be improved by adding mobile technology. METHODS: We conducted a 2-arm, 12-month study (October 1, 2007, through September 31, 2010). Seventy adults (body mass index >25 and ≤40 [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared]) were randomly assigned either to standard-of-care group treatment alone (standard group) or to the standard and connective mobile technology system (+mobile group). Participants attended biweekly weight loss groups held by the Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic. The +mobile group was provided personal digital assistants to self-monitor diet and physical activity; they also received biweekly coaching calls for 6 months. Weight was measured at baseline and at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS:Sixty-nine adults received intervention (mean age, 57.7 years; 85.5% were men). A longitudinal intent-to-treat analysis indicated that the +mobile group lost a mean of 3.9 kg more (representing 3.1% more weight loss relative to the control group; 95% CI, 2.2-5.5 kg) than the standard group at each postbaseline time point. Compared with the standard group, the +mobile group had significantly greater odds of having lost 5% or more of their baseline weight at each postbaseline time point (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% CI, 2.5-18.6). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a personal digital assistant and telephone coaching can enhance short-term weight loss in combination with an existing system of care. Mobile connective technology holds promise as a scalable mechanism for augmenting the effect of physician-directed weight loss treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00371462.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A challenge in intensive obesity treatment is making care scalable. Little is known about whether the outcome of physician-directed weight loss treatment can be improved by adding mobile technology. METHODS: We conducted a 2-arm, 12-month study (October 1, 2007, through September 31, 2010). Seventy adults (body mass index >25 and ≤40 [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared]) were randomly assigned either to standard-of-care group treatment alone (standard group) or to the standard and connective mobile technology system (+mobile group). Participants attended biweekly weight loss groups held by the Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic. The +mobile group was provided personal digital assistants to self-monitor diet and physical activity; they also received biweekly coaching calls for 6 months. Weight was measured at baseline and at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty-nine adults received intervention (mean age, 57.7 years; 85.5% were men). A longitudinal intent-to-treat analysis indicated that the +mobile group lost a mean of 3.9 kg more (representing 3.1% more weight loss relative to the control group; 95% CI, 2.2-5.5 kg) than the standard group at each postbaseline time point. Compared with the standard group, the +mobile group had significantly greater odds of having lost 5% or more of their baseline weight at each postbaseline time point (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% CI, 2.5-18.6). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a personal digital assistant and telephone coaching can enhance short-term weight loss in combination with an existing system of care. Mobile connective technology holds promise as a scalable mechanism for augmenting the effect of physician-directed weight loss treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00371462.
Authors: Philip J Morgan; David R Lubans; Clare E Collins; Janet M Warren; Robin Callister Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Lora E Burke; Molly B Conroy; Susan M Sereika; Okan U Elci; Mindi A Styn; Sushama D Acharya; Mary A Sevick; Linda J Ewing; Karen Glanz Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Marion J Franz; Jeffrey J VanWormer; A Lauren Crain; Jackie L Boucher; Trina Histon; William Caplan; Jill D Bowman; Nicolas P Pronk Journal: J Am Diet Assoc Date: 2007-10
Authors: Linda S Kinsinger; Kenneth R Jones; Leila Kahwati; Richard Harvey; Mary Burdick; Virginia Zele; Steven J Yevich Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2009-06-15 Impact factor: 2.830
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: Alan L Hinderliter; Andrew Sherwood; Linda W Craighead; Pwa-Hwa Lin; Lana Watkins; Michael A Babyak; James A Blumenthal Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Melissa A Napolitano; Jessica A Whiteley; Meghan N Mavredes; Jamie Faro; Loretta DiPietro; Laura L Hayman; Charles J Neighbors; Samuel Simmens Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-06-10 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Niharika N Bhardwaj; Bezawit Wodajo; Keerthi Gochipathala; David P Paul; Alberto Coustasse Journal: Perspect Health Inf Manag Date: 2017-04-01
Authors: Lauren E Huffman; Dawn K Wilson; Heather Kitzman-Ulrich; Jordan E Lyerly; Haylee M Gause; Ken Resnicow Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 1.847