Kristy Zwickert1, Elizabeth Rieger2, Jessica Swinbourne3, Clare Manns3, Claire McAulay3, Alice A Gibson3, Amanda Sainsbury3, Ian D Caterson3. 1. Research School of Psychology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. Electronic address: kristy.zwickert@anu.edu.au. 2. Research School of Psychology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 3. The Boden Institute of Obesity, Nutrition, Exercise and Eating Disorders, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Text-message and e-mail are emerging as potential methods for improving weight outcomes among obese individuals. The optimal volume, frequency, and timing of such interventions are unknown. This study investigated the effect of adjunct technological support on weight and psychological variables after a 3-month cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) group intervention. METHODS:Sixty obese adults were randomised to a CBT programme plus intensive (text-message and e-mail; CBT+ITS) or minimal (text-message only; CBT+MTS) technological support. Assessments occurred at baseline, 3-, 6-, 9-, and 15-months. Outcome variables included weight (kg), body mass index (kg/m2), waist circumference (cm), binge-eating tendencies, weight self-efficacy, and weight control cognitions and behaviours. RESULTS:CBT+ITS (n=31) and CBT+MTS (n=29) participants lost 5.2% (±1.1) and 4.7% (±1.1) of their baseline weight by 3-months, 8.4% (±1.2) and 6.4% (±1.1) by 6-months, 9.6% (±1.3) and 6.4% (±1.3) by 9-months, and sustained a 7.5% (±1.3) and 5.1% (±1.3) loss at 15-months, respectively. There were no significant differences between intensive and minimal support, however, the CBT+ITS group showed a marginal advantage across all anthropometric measures. CONCLUSIONS: A low intensity text-message support programme is just as effective as higher intensity technological support for maintaining weight loss in obese adults. This represents a low-cost means of aiding weight loss maintenance without reliance on extended face-to-face treatment. Crown
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Text-message and e-mail are emerging as potential methods for improving weight outcomes among obese individuals. The optimal volume, frequency, and timing of such interventions are unknown. This study investigated the effect of adjunct technological support on weight and psychological variables after a 3-month cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) group intervention. METHODS: Sixty obese adults were randomised to a CBT programme plus intensive (text-message and e-mail; CBT+ITS) or minimal (text-message only; CBT+MTS) technological support. Assessments occurred at baseline, 3-, 6-, 9-, and 15-months. Outcome variables included weight (kg), body mass index (kg/m2), waist circumference (cm), binge-eating tendencies, weight self-efficacy, and weight control cognitions and behaviours. RESULTS: CBT+ITS (n=31) and CBT+MTS (n=29) participants lost 5.2% (±1.1) and 4.7% (±1.1) of their baseline weight by 3-months, 8.4% (±1.2) and 6.4% (±1.1) by 6-months, 9.6% (±1.3) and 6.4% (±1.3) by 9-months, and sustained a 7.5% (±1.3) and 5.1% (±1.3) loss at 15-months, respectively. There were no significant differences between intensive and minimal support, however, the CBT+ITS group showed a marginal advantage across all anthropometric measures. CONCLUSIONS: A low intensity text-message support programme is just as effective as higher intensity technological support for maintaining weight loss in obese adults. This represents a low-cost means of aiding weight loss maintenance without reliance on extended face-to-face treatment. Crown
Authors: Stephan C Bischoff; Rocco Barazzoni; Luca Busetto; Marjo Campmans-Kuijpers; Vincenzo Cardinale; Irit Chermesh; Ahad Eshraghian; Haluk Tarik Kani; Wafaa Khannoussi; Laurence Lacaze; Miguel Léon-Sanz; Juan M Mendive; Michael W Müller; Johann Ockenga; Frank Tacke; Anders Thorell; Darija Vranesic Bender; Arved Weimann; Cristina Cuerda Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 6.866
Authors: G Jiskoot; S H Benneheij; A Beerthuizen; J E de Niet; C de Klerk; R Timman; J J Busschbach; J S E Laven Journal: Reprod Health Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 3.223
Authors: Brianna S Fjeldsoe; Ana D Goode; Philayrath Phongsavan; Adrian Bauman; Genevieve Maher; Elisabeth Winkler; Jennifer Job; Elizabeth G Eakin Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Job G Godino; Natalie M Golaszewski; Greg J Norman; Cheryl L Rock; William G Griswold; Elva Arredondo; Simon Marshall; Julie Kolodziejczyk; Lindsay Dillon; Fred Raab; Sonia Jain; Maggie Crawford; Gina Merchant; Kevin Patrick Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 11.069