OBJECTIVE: Test the efficacy of SmartLoss, a smartphone-based weight loss intervention, in a pilot study. DESIGN AND METHODS: A 12-week randomized controlled trial. Adults (25 ≤ BMI ≤ 35 kg/m2) were randomized to SmartLoss (n = 20) or an attention-matched Health Education control group (n = 20). SmartLoss participants were prescribed a 1,200 to 1,400 kcal/d diet and were provided with a smartphone, body weight scale, and accelerometer that wirelessly transmitted body weight and step data to a website. In the SmartLoss Group, mathematical models were used to quantify dietary adherence based on body weight and counselors remotely delivered treatment recommendations based on these objective data. The Health Education group received health tips via smartphone. A mixed model determined if change in weight and other endpoints differed between the groups (baseline was a covariate). RESULTS: The sample was 82.5% female. Mean ± SD baseline age, weight (kg), and BMI were 44.4 ± 11.8 years, 80.3 ± 11.5 kg, and 29.8 ± 2.9 kg/m2, respectively. One participant was lost to follow-up in each group before week 4. Weight loss was significantly (P < 0.001) larger in the SmartLoss (least squares mean ±SEM: -9.4 ± 0.5%) compared with the Health Education group (-0.6 ± 0.5%). CONCLUSIONS: SmartLoss efficaciously promote clinically meaningful weight loss compared with an attention-matched control group. Smartphone-based interventions might prove useful in intervention dissemination.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Test the efficacy of SmartLoss, a smartphone-based weight loss intervention, in a pilot study. DESIGN AND METHODS: A 12-week randomized controlled trial. Adults (25 ≤ BMI ≤ 35 kg/m2) were randomized to SmartLoss (n = 20) or an attention-matched Health Education control group (n = 20). SmartLoss participants were prescribed a 1,200 to 1,400 kcal/d diet and were provided with a smartphone, body weight scale, and accelerometer that wirelessly transmitted body weight and step data to a website. In the SmartLoss Group, mathematical models were used to quantify dietary adherence based on body weight and counselors remotely delivered treatment recommendations based on these objective data. The Health Education group received health tips via smartphone. A mixed model determined if change in weight and other endpoints differed between the groups (baseline was a covariate). RESULTS: The sample was 82.5% female. Mean ± SD baseline age, weight (kg), and BMI were 44.4 ± 11.8 years, 80.3 ± 11.5 kg, and 29.8 ± 2.9 kg/m2, respectively. One participant was lost to follow-up in each group before week 4. Weight loss was significantly (P < 0.001) larger in the SmartLoss (least squares mean ± SEM: -9.4 ± 0.5%) compared with the Health Education group (-0.6 ± 0.5%). CONCLUSIONS: SmartLoss efficaciously promote clinically meaningful weight loss compared with an attention-matched control group. Smartphone-based interventions might prove useful in intervention dissemination.
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: Amy D Rickman; Donald A Williamson; Corby K Martin; Cheryl H Gilhooly; Richard I Stein; Connie W Bales; Susan Roberts; Sai Krupa Das Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2011-07-08 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Carl Pieper; Leanne Redman; Susan Racette; Susan Roberts; Manju Bhapkar; James Rochon; Corby Martin; William Kraus; Sai Das; Donald Williamson; Eric Ravussin Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Donald A Williamson; Catherine M Champagne; David Harsha; Hongmei Han; Corby K Martin; Robert Newton; Tiffany M Stewart; Donna H Ryan Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2008-03-26 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Dori M Steinberg; Deborah F Tate; Gary G Bennett; Susan Ennett; Carmen Samuel-Hodge; Dianne S Ward Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Robert M Siegel; Matthew Haemer; Roohi Y Kharofa; Amy L Christison; Sarah E Hampl; Lydia Tinajero-Deck; Mary Kate Lockhart; Sarah Reich; Stephen J Pont; William Stratbucker; Thomas N Robinson; Laura A Shaffer; Susan J Woolford Journal: Child Obes Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 2.992
Authors: Bruno Urrea; Satish Misra; Timothy B Plante; Heval M Kelli; Sanjit Misra; Michael J Blaha; Seth S Martin Journal: Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med Date: 2015-12
Authors: L Anne Gilmore; Monica C Klempel; Corby K Martin; Candice A Myers; Jeffrey H Burton; Elizabeth F Sutton; Leanne M Redman Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2017-03-24 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Valery L Feigin; Bo Norrving; Mary G George; Jennifer L Foltz; Gregory A Roth; George A Mensah Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 42.937