Kathryn M Ross1, Rena R Wing1. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Weight Control & Diabetes Research Center, Alpert Medical School of Brown University and the Miriam Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the proliferation of newer self-monitoring technology (e.g., activity monitors and smartphone apps), their impact on weight loss outside of structured in-person behavioral intervention is unknown. METHODS: A randomized, controlled pilot study was conducted to examine efficacy of self-monitoring technology, with and without phone-based intervention, on 6-month weight loss in adults with overweight and obesity. Eighty participants were randomized to receive standard self-monitoring tools (ST, n = 26), technology-based self-monitoring tools (TECH, n = 27), or technology-based tools combined with phone-based intervention (TECH + PHONE, n = 27). All participants attended one introductory weight loss session and completed assessments at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. RESULTS:Weight loss from baseline to 6 months differed significantly between groups P = 0.042; there was a trend for TECH + PHONE (-6.4 ± 1.2 kg) to lose more weight than ST (-1.3 ± 1.2 kg); weight loss in TECH (-4.1 ± 1.4 kg) was between ST and TECH + PHONE. Fewer ST (15%) achieved ≥5% weight losses compared with TECH and TECH + PHONE (44%), P = 0.039. Adherence to self-monitoring caloric intake was higher in TECH + PHONE than TECH or ST, Ps < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest use of newer self-monitoring technology plus brief phone-based intervention improves adherence and weight loss compared with traditional self-monitoring tools. Further research should determine cost-effectiveness of adding phone-based intervention when providing self-monitoring technology.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Despite the proliferation of newer self-monitoring technology (e.g., activity monitors and smartphone apps), their impact on weight loss outside of structured in-person behavioral intervention is unknown. METHODS: A randomized, controlled pilot study was conducted to examine efficacy of self-monitoring technology, with and without phone-based intervention, on 6-month weight loss in adults with overweight and obesity. Eighty participants were randomized to receive standard self-monitoring tools (ST, n = 26), technology-based self-monitoring tools (TECH, n = 27), or technology-based tools combined with phone-based intervention (TECH + PHONE, n = 27). All participants attended one introductory weight loss session and completed assessments at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. RESULTS:Weight loss from baseline to 6 months differed significantly between groups P = 0.042; there was a trend for TECH + PHONE (-6.4 ± 1.2 kg) to lose more weight than ST (-1.3 ± 1.2 kg); weight loss in TECH (-4.1 ± 1.4 kg) was between ST and TECH + PHONE. Fewer ST (15%) achieved ≥5% weight losses compared with TECH and TECH + PHONE (44%), P = 0.039. Adherence to self-monitoring caloric intake was higher in TECH + PHONE than TECH or ST, Ps < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest use of newer self-monitoring technology plus brief phone-based intervention improves adherence and weight loss compared with traditional self-monitoring tools. Further research should determine cost-effectiveness of adding phone-based intervention when providing self-monitoring technology.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Christine A Pellegrini; Steven D Verba; Amy D Otto; Diane L Helsel; Kelliann K Davis; John M Jakicic Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: J E Donnelly; B K Smith; L Dunn; M M Mayo; D J Jacobsen; E E Stewart; C Gibson; D K Sullivan Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2007-02-27 Impact factor: 5.095
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: 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: Sara L Shuger; Vaughn W Barry; Xuemei Sui; Amanda McClain; Gregory A Hand; Sara Wilcox; Rebecca A Meriwether; James W Hardin; Steven N Blair Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Stephanie R Partridge; Kevin McGeechan; Lana Hebden; Kate Balestracci; Annette Ty Wong; Elizabeth Denney-Wilson; Mark F Harris; Philayrath Phongsavan; Adrian Bauman; Margaret Allman-Farinelli Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 4.773
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: J Murphy; T Uttamlal; K A Schmidtke; I Vlaev; D Taylor; M Ahmad; S Alsters; P Purkayastha; S Scholtz; R Ramezani; A R Ahmed; H Chahal; A Darzi; A I F Blakemore Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Kelly Glazer Baron; Jennifer Duffecy; Mark A Berendsen; Ivy Cheung Mason; Emily G Lattie; Natalie C Manalo Journal: Sleep Med Rev Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 11.609
Authors: Michael C Robertson; Margaret Raber; Yue Liao; Ivan Wu; Nathan Parker; Leticia Gatus; Thuan Le; Casey P Durand; Karen M Basen-Engquist Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 3.046