Alexander S Young1,2,3, Amy N Cohen4,5, Richard Goldberg6,7, Gerhard Hellemann5, Julie Kreyenbuhl6,7, Noosha Niv5,8, Nancy Nowlin-Finch5,9, Rebecca Oberman4, Fiona Whelan5. 1. VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA. ayoung@ucla.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. ayoung@ucla.edu. 3. VA Greater Los Angeles, MIRECC, 11301 Wilshire Blvd, 210A, Los Angeles, CA, 90073, USA. ayoung@ucla.edu. 4. VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. VA Capitol Healthcare Network Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center (VISN 5 MIRECC), Baltimore, MD, USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry, Division of Psychiatric Services Research, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 8. VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, USA. 9. Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:People with serious mental illness have high rates of obesity and related medical problems, and die years prematurely, most commonly from cardiovascular disease. Specialized, in-person weight management interventions result in weight loss in efficacy trials with highly motivated patients. In usual care, patient enrollment and retention are low with these interventions, and effectiveness has been inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether computerized provision of weight management with peer coaching is feasible to deliver, is acceptable to patients, and is more effective than in-person delivery or usual care. DESIGN: Mixed-methods randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred seventy-six overweight patients with serious mental illness receiving care at a Veterans Administration medical center. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to 1) computerized weight management with peer coaching (WebMOVE), 2) in-person clinician-led weight services, or 3) usual care. Both active interventions offered the same educational content. MAIN MEASURES: Body mass index; and feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. KEY RESULTS: At 6 months, in obese patients (n = 200), there was a significant condition by visit effect (F = 4.02, p = 0.02). The WebMOVE group had an average estimated BMI change from baseline to 6 months of 34.9 ± 0.4 to 34.1 ± 0.4. This corresponds to 2.8 kg (6.2 lbs) weight loss (t = 3.2, p = 0.001). No significant change in BMI was seen with either in-person services (t = 0.10, p = 0.92), or usual care (t = -0.25, p = 0.80). The average percentage of modules completed in the WebMOVE group was 49% and in the in-person group was 41% (t = 1.4, p = 0.17). When non-obese patients were included in the analyses, there was a trend towards a condition by visit effect (F = 2.8, p = 0.06). WebMOVE was well received, while the acceptability of in-person services was mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized weight management with peer support results in lower weight, and can have greater effectiveness than clinician-led in-person services. This intervention is well received, and could be feasible to disseminate.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:People with serious mental illness have high rates of obesity and related medical problems, and die years prematurely, most commonly from cardiovascular disease. Specialized, in-person weight management interventions result in weight loss in efficacy trials with highly motivated patients. In usual care, patient enrollment and retention are low with these interventions, and effectiveness has been inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether computerized provision of weight management with peer coaching is feasible to deliver, is acceptable to patients, and is more effective than in-person delivery or usual care. DESIGN: Mixed-methods randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred seventy-six overweight patients with serious mental illness receiving care at a Veterans Administration medical center. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomized to 1) computerized weight management with peer coaching (WebMOVE), 2) in-person clinician-led weight services, or 3) usual care. Both active interventions offered the same educational content. MAIN MEASURES: Body mass index; and feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. KEY RESULTS: At 6 months, in obesepatients (n = 200), there was a significant condition by visit effect (F = 4.02, p = 0.02). The WebMOVE group had an average estimated BMI change from baseline to 6 months of 34.9 ± 0.4 to 34.1 ± 0.4. This corresponds to 2.8 kg (6.2 lbs) weight loss (t = 3.2, p = 0.001). No significant change in BMI was seen with either in-person services (t = 0.10, p = 0.92), or usual care (t = -0.25, p = 0.80). The average percentage of modules completed in the WebMOVE group was 49% and in the in-person group was 41% (t = 1.4, p = 0.17). When non-obesepatients were included in the analyses, there was a trend towards a condition by visit effect (F = 2.8, p = 0.06). WebMOVE was well received, while the acceptability of in-person services was mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized weight management with peer support results in lower weight, and can have greater effectiveness than clinician-led in-person services. This intervention is well received, and could be feasible to disseminate.
Entities:
Keywords:
comparative effectiveness; counseling; information technology; mental illness; obesity
Authors: Richard W Goldberg; Gloria Reeves; Stephanie Tapscott; Deborah Medoff; Faith Dickerson; Andrew P Goldberg; Alice S Ryan; Li Juan Fang; Lisa B Dixon Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Lisa B Dixon; Faith Dickerson; Alan S Bellack; Melanie Bennett; Dwight Dickinson; Richard W Goldberg; Anthony Lehman; Wendy N Tenhula; Christine Calmes; Rebecca M Pasillas; Jason Peer; Julie Kreyenbuhl Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Stephen R Marder; Susan M Essock; Alexander L Miller; Robert W Buchanan; Daniel E Casey; John M Davis; John M Kane; Jeffrey A Lieberman; Nina R Schooler; Nancy Covell; Scott Stroup; Ellen M Weissman; Donna A Wirshing; Catherine S Hall; Leonard Pogach; Xavier Pi-Sunyer; J Thomas Bigger; Alan Friedman; David Kleinberg; Steven J Yevich; Bonnie Davis; Steven Shon Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Michel Jean-Baptiste; Cenk Tek; Ellen Liskov; Umesh Rao Chakunta; Sarah Nicholls; Akm Q Hassan; Kelly D Brownell; Bruce E Wexler Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2007-07-12 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Anjana Muralidharan; Clayton H Brown; Yilin Zhang; Noosha Niv; Amy N Cohen; Julie Kreyenbuhl; Rebecca S Oberman; Richard W Goldberg; Alexander S Young Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2019-11-18
Authors: Tanya T Olmos-Ochoa; Noosha Niv; Gerhard Hellemann; Amy N Cohen; Rebecca Oberman; Richard Goldberg; Alexander S Young Journal: Psychiatr Rehabil J Date: 2019-05-13
Authors: Anjana Muralidharan; Clayton H Brown; Jason E Peer; Elizabeth A Klingaman; Samantha M Hack; Lan Li; Mary Brighid Walsh; Richard W Goldberg Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Alexander S Young; Amy N Cohen; Noosha Niv; Nancy Nowlin-Finch; Rebecca S Oberman; Tanya T Olmos-Ochoa; Richard W Goldberg; Fiona Whelan Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 3.084