Ashley F Haggerty1, Andrea Hagemann2, Matthew Barnett3, Mark Thornquist3, Marian L Neuhouser3, Neil Horowitz4, Graham A Colditz2, David B Sarwer5, Emily M Ko1, Kelly C Allison6. 1. Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. 3. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA. 4. Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 5. College of Public Health and Center for Obesity Research and Education, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of technology-based weight loss interventions for endometrial cancer (EC) survivors with obesity. METHODS:EC survivors with obesity (n = 196) from three medical centers completed assessments for knowledge of obesity as a risk for EC and interest in weight management. Forty-one women were randomized to a 6-month intervention: telemedicine with Wi-Fi scales, text messaging (texting), or enhanced usual care (EUC). Changes in anthropometrics and psychosocial measures were analyzed. RESULTS: One-third of survey participants lacked awareness that obesity increased the risk of EC, and 40% misclassified their body mass. There were no significant differences in weight loss across interventions (mean = -4.4 kg, SD = 6.5 kg). Telemedicine showed improvements in physical health and cancer-related body image (Ps = 0.04) compared to texting and in sexual functioning compared to EUC (P = 0.03). Total physical activity was increased in EUC compared with telemedicine (P = 0.01), and vigorous physical activity was increased in EUC compared with both interventions (P = 0.01-0.03); walking significantly increased in texting compared with telemedicine (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:Technology-based lifestyle interventions in EC survivors with obesity were accessible and resulted in weight loss and improved quality of life. EUC also produced weight loss, demonstrating a potential for beginning weight management with information on specific diet and exercise goals.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of technology-based weight loss interventions for endometrial cancer (EC) survivors with obesity. METHODS:EC survivors with obesity (n = 196) from three medical centers completed assessments for knowledge of obesity as a risk for EC and interest in weight management. Forty-one women were randomized to a 6-month intervention: telemedicine with Wi-Fi scales, text messaging (texting), or enhanced usual care (EUC). Changes in anthropometrics and psychosocial measures were analyzed. RESULTS: One-third of survey participants lacked awareness that obesity increased the risk of EC, and 40% misclassified their body mass. There were no significant differences in weight loss across interventions (mean = -4.4 kg, SD = 6.5 kg). Telemedicine showed improvements in physical health and cancer-related body image (Ps = 0.04) compared to texting and in sexual functioning compared to EUC (P = 0.03). Total physical activity was increased in EUC compared with telemedicine (P = 0.01), and vigorous physical activity was increased in EUC compared with both interventions (P = 0.01-0.03); walking significantly increased in texting compared with telemedicine (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Technology-based lifestyle interventions in EC survivors with obesity were accessible and resulted in weight loss and improved quality of life. EUC also produced weight loss, demonstrating a potential for beginning weight management with information on specific diet and exercise goals.
Authors: Cora L Craig; Alison L Marshall; Michael Sjöström; Adrian E Bauman; Michael L Booth; Barbara E Ainsworth; Michael Pratt; Ulf Ekelund; Agneta Yngve; James F Sallis; Pekka Oja Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: David B Sarwer; Kelly C Allison; Lauren M Gibbons; Jessica Tuttman Markowitz; Deborah B Nelson Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2006 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Donna H Ryan; Mark A Espeland; Gary D Foster; Steven M Haffner; Van S Hubbard; Karen C Johnson; Steven E Kahn; William C Knowler; Susan Z Yanovski Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2003-10
Authors: Bess H Marcus; Beth A Lewis; David M Williams; Shira Dunsiger; John M Jakicic; Jessica A Whiteley; Anna E Albrecht; Melissa A Napolitano; Beth C Bock; Deborah F Tate; Christopher N Sciamanna; Alfred F Parisi Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-05-14
Authors: Kevin Patrick; Fred Raab; Marc A Adams; Lindsay Dillon; Marian Zabinski; Cheryl L Rock; William G Griswold; Gregory J Norman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2009-01-13 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Subhjit Sekhon; L Stewart Massad; Andrea R Hagemann; Rebecca Dick; Andrea Leon; Abigail S Zamorano; Premal H Thaker; Carolyn K McCourt; David G Mutch; Matthew A Powell; Lindsay M Kuroki Journal: Gynecol Oncol Rep Date: 2019-08-10
Authors: Selina Khoo; Najihah Mohbin; Payam Ansari; Mahfoodha Al-Kitani; Andre Matthias Müller Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: John A Batsis; Auden C McClure; Aaron B Weintraub; David F Kotz; Sivan Rotenberg; Summer B Cook; Diane Gilbert-Diamond; Kevin Curtis; Courtney J Stevens; Diane Sette; Richard I Rothstein Journal: Obes Sci Pract Date: 2019-10-17
Authors: Quynh Pham; Jason Hearn; Bruce Gao; Ian Brown; Robert J Hamilton; Alejandro Berlin; Joseph A Cafazzo; Andrew Feifer Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2020-09-02
Authors: Amanda R Schwartz; David B Bartlett; Johanna L Johnson; Gloria Broadwater; Meghan Channell; Kimberly C Nolte; Patricia A Wilkes; Kim M Huffman; Angeles Alvarez Secord Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 6.244