Bonnie Spring1, Angela F Pfammatter1, Sara H Marchese1, Tammy Stump1, Christine Pellegrini2, H Gene McFadden1, Donald Hedeker3, Juned Siddique1, Neil Jordan1,4,5, Linda M Collins6,7. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. Department of Exercise Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 5. Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Edward J. Hines Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois, USA. 6. The Methodology Center, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA. 7. Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Intensive behavioral obesity treatments face scalability challenges, but evidence is lacking about which treatment components could be cut back without reducing weight loss. The Optimization of Remotely Delivered Intensive Lifestyle Treatment for Obesity (Opt-IN) study applied the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to develop an entirely remotely delivered, technology-supported weight-loss package to maximize the amount of weight loss attainable for ≤$500. METHODS: Six-month weight loss was examined among adults (N = 562) with BMI ≥ 25 who were randomly assigned to conditions in a factorial experiment crossing five dichotomous treatment components set to either low/high (12 vs. 24 coaching calls) or off/on (primary care provider reports, text messaging, meal replacements, and buddy training). RESULTS: About 84.3% of participants completed the final assessment. The treatment package yielding maximum weight loss for ≤$500 included 12 coaching calls, buddy training, and primary care provider progress reports; produced average weight loss of 6.1 kg, with 57.1% losing ≥5% and 51.8% losing ≥7%; and cost $427 per person. The most expensive candidate-treatment component (24 vs. 12 coaching calls) was screened out of the optimized treatment package because it did not increase weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: Systematically testing each treatment component's effect on weight loss made it possible to eliminate more expensive but less impactful components, yielding an optimized, resource-efficient obesity treatment for evaluation in a randomized controlled trial.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Intensive behavioral obesity treatments face scalability challenges, but evidence is lacking about which treatment components could be cut back without reducing weight loss. The Optimization of Remotely Delivered Intensive Lifestyle Treatment for Obesity (Opt-IN) study applied the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to develop an entirely remotely delivered, technology-supported weight-loss package to maximize the amount of weight loss attainable for ≤$500. METHODS: Six-month weight loss was examined among adults (N = 562) with BMI ≥ 25 who were randomly assigned to conditions in a factorial experiment crossing five dichotomous treatment components set to either low/high (12 vs. 24 coaching calls) or off/on (primary care provider reports, text messaging, meal replacements, and buddy training). RESULTS: About 84.3% of participants completed the final assessment. The treatment package yielding maximum weight loss for ≤$500 included 12 coaching calls, buddy training, and primary care provider progress reports; produced average weight loss of 6.1 kg, with 57.1% losing ≥5% and 51.8% losing ≥7%; and cost $427 per person. The most expensive candidate-treatment component (24 vs. 12 coaching calls) was screened out of the optimized treatment package because it did not increase weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: Systematically testing each treatment component's effect on weight loss made it possible to eliminate more expensive but less impactful components, yielding an optimized, resource-efficient obesity treatment for evaluation in a randomized controlled trial.
Authors: Ciaran N Kohli-Lynch; Brandon K Bellows; Yiyi Zhang; Bonnie Spring; Dhruv S Kazi; Mark J Pletcher; Eric Vittinghoff; Norrina B Allen; Andrew E Moran Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2021-11-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Danielle E Jake-Schoffman; Susan D Brown; Michael Baiocchi; Jessica L Bibeau; Jennifer Daubenmier; Assiamira Ferrara; Maren N Galarce; Wendy Hartogensis; Frederick M Hecht; Monique M Hedderson; Patricia J Moran; Sherry L Pagoto; Ai-Lin Tsai; Molly E Waring; Michaela Kiernan Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 6.604
Authors: Amanda E Tanner; Kate M Guastaferro; Kelly L Rulison; David L Wyrick; Jeffrey J Milroy; Sandesh Bhandari; Shemeka Thorpe; Samuella Ware; Alicia M Miller; Linda M Collins Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2021-11-18
Authors: Jillian C Strayhorn; Linda M Collins; Timothy R Brick; Sara H Marchese; Angela Fidler Pfammatter; Christine Pellegrini; Bonnie Spring Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Rachel D Wells; Kate Guastaferro; Andres Azuero; Christine Rini; Bailey A Hendricks; Chinara Dosse; Richard Taylor; Grant R Williams; Sally Engler; Charis Smith; Rebecca Sudore; Abby R Rosenberg; Marie A Bakitas; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-11-28 Impact factor: 5.576
Authors: J Graham Thomas; Carly M Goldstein; Dale S Bond; Jason Lillis; Eric B Hekler; Jessica A Emerson; Hallie M Espel-Huynh; Stephanie P Goldstein; Shira I Dunsiger; E Whitney Evans; Meghan L Butryn; Jeff Huang; Rena R Wing Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-11-14 Impact factor: 2.226