BACKGROUND: Mobile dietary self-monitoring methods allow for objective assessment of adherence to self-monitoring; however, the best way to define self-monitoring adherence is not known. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to identify the best criteria for defining adherence to dietary self-monitoring with mobile devices when predicting weight loss. DESIGN: This was a secondary data analysis from two 6-month randomized trials: Dietary Intervention to Enhance Tracking with Mobile Devices (n=42 calorie tracking app or n=39 wearable Bite Counter device) and Self-Monitoring Assessment in Real Time (n=20 kcal tracking app or n=23 photo meal app). PARTICIPANTS/ SETTING: Adults (n=124; mean body mass index=34.7±5.6) participated in one of two remotely delivered weight-loss interventions at a southeastern university between 2015 and 2017. INTERVENTION: All participants received the same behavioral weight loss information via twice-weekly podcasts. Participants were randomly assigned to a specific diet tracking method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Seven methods of tracking adherence to self-monitoring (eg, number of days tracked, and number of eating occasions tracked) were examined, as was weight loss at 6 months. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Linear regression models estimated the strength of association (R2) between each method of tracking adherence and weight loss, adjusting for age and sex. RESULTS: Among all study completers combined (N=91), adherence defined as the overall number of days participants tracked at least two eating occasions explained the most variance in weight loss at 6 months (R2=0.27; P<0.001). Self-monitoring declined over time; all examined adherence methods had fewer than half the sample still tracking after Week 10. CONCLUSIONS: Using the total number of days at least two eating occasions are tracked using a mobile self-monitoring method may be the best way to assess self-monitoring adherence during weight loss interventions. This study shows that self-monitoring rates decline quickly and elucidates potential times for early interventions to stop the reductions in self-monitoring.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Mobile dietary self-monitoring methods allow for objective assessment of adherence to self-monitoring; however, the best way to define self-monitoring adherence is not known. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to identify the best criteria for defining adherence to dietary self-monitoring with mobile devices when predicting weight loss. DESIGN: This was a secondary data analysis from two 6-month randomized trials: Dietary Intervention to Enhance Tracking with Mobile Devices (n=42 calorie tracking app or n=39 wearable Bite Counter device) and Self-Monitoring Assessment in Real Time (n=20 kcal tracking app or n=23 photo meal app). PARTICIPANTS/ SETTING: Adults (n=124; mean body mass index=34.7±5.6) participated in one of two remotely delivered weight-loss interventions at a southeastern university between 2015 and 2017. INTERVENTION: All participants received the same behavioral weight loss information via twice-weekly podcasts. Participants were randomly assigned to a specific diet tracking method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Seven methods of tracking adherence to self-monitoring (eg, number of days tracked, and number of eating occasions tracked) were examined, as was weight loss at 6 months. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Linear regression models estimated the strength of association (R2) between each method of tracking adherence and weight loss, adjusting for age and sex. RESULTS: Among all study completers combined (N=91), adherence defined as the overall number of days participants tracked at least two eating occasions explained the most variance in weight loss at 6 months (R2=0.27; P<0.001). Self-monitoring declined over time; all examined adherence methods had fewer than half the sample still tracking after Week 10. CONCLUSIONS: Using the total number of days at least two eating occasions are tracked using a mobile self-monitoring method may be the best way to assess self-monitoring adherence during weight loss interventions. This study shows that self-monitoring rates decline quickly and elucidates potential times for early interventions to stop the reductions in self-monitoring.
Authors: Santosh Kumar; Wendy J Nilsen; Amy Abernethy; Audie Atienza; Kevin Patrick; Misha Pavel; William T Riley; Albert Shar; Bonnie Spring; Donna Spruijt-Metz; Donald Hedeker; Vasant Honavar; Richard Kravitz; R Craig Lefebvre; David C Mohr; Susan A Murphy; Charlene Quinn; Vladimir Shusterman; Dallas Swendeman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Florence Jimoh; Elizabeth K Lund; Linda J Harvey; Catherine Frost; W James Lay; Mark A Roe; Rachel Berry; Paul M Finglas Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Margaret Raber; Yue Liao; Anne Rara; Susan M Schembre; Kate J Krause; Larkin Strong; Carrie Daniel-MacDougall; Karen Basen-Engquist Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2021-08-20 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Megan A McVay; Kellie B Cooper; Marissa L Donahue; Montserrat Carrera Seoane; Nipa R Shah; Fern Webb; Michael Perri; Danielle E Jake-Schoffman Journal: Obes Sci Pract Date: 2022-02-23
Authors: Erin L Van Blarigan; Stacey A Kenfield; June M Chan; Katherine Van Loon; Alan Paciorek; Li Zhang; Hilary Chan; Marissa B Savoie; Andrea Grace Bocobo; Vivian N Liu; Louis X Wong; Angela Laffan; Chloe E Atreya; Christine Miaskowski; Yoshimi Fukuoka; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Alan P Venook Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Marina Gonzalez-Ramirez; Angela Cejudo-Lopez; Mauricio Lozano-Navarrete; Elena Salamero Sánchez-Gabriel; M Alfonso Torres-Bengoa; Manuel Segura-Balbuena; Maria J Sanchez-Cordero; Mercedes Barroso-Vazquez; Francisco J Perez-Barba; Ana M Troncoso; M Carmen Garcia-Parrilla; Ana B Cerezo Journal: Front Nutr Date: 2022-04-19
Authors: Mirey Karavetian; Cosette Fakih El Khoury; Rik Crutzen; Jos M G A Schols; Ruud J G Halfens Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 5.428