Peter T Katzmarzyk1, John W Apolzan1, Byron Gajewski2, William D Johnson1, Corby K Martin1, Robert L Newton1, Michael G Perri3, Jeffrey J VanWormer4, Christie A Befort5. 1. Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA. 3. College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. 4. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health, Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, Marshfield, Wisconsin, USA. 5. Department of Population Health, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the results of five weight-loss interventions in primary care settings in underserved patients and to compare the level of pragmatism across the interventions using the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) tool. METHODS: Data from 54 primary care clinics (2,210 patients) were pooled from the Promoting Successful Weight Loss in Primary Care in Louisiana (PROPEL) and Rural Engagement in Primary Care for Optimizing Weight Reduction (REPOWER) cluster-randomized trials. Clinics were randomized to one of five comparators: PROPEL usual care, PROPEL combination of in-clinic and telephone visits, REPOWER in-clinic individual visits, REPOWER in-clinic group visits, or REPOWER telephone group visits. RESULTS: At 24 months, weight loss (kilograms) was -0.50 (95% CI: -1.77 to 0.76), -3.05 (-4.10 to -2.01), -4.30 (-5.35 to -3.26), -4.79 (-5.83 to -3.75), and -4.80 (-5.96 to -3.64) in the PROPEL usual care, REPOWER in-clinic individual visits, REPOWER telephone group visits, REPOWER in-clinic group visits, and PROPEL in-clinic and telephone visits arms, respectively. At 24 months, percentage of weight loss was -0.360 (-1.60 to 0.88), -3.00 (-4.02 to -1.98), -4.23 (-5.25 to -3.20), -4.67 (-5.69 to -3.65), and -4.69 (-5.82 to -3.56), respectively, in the five arms. The REPOWER in-clinic individual visits intervention was the most pragmatic and reflects the current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services funding model, although this intervention produced the least weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant weight loss over 6 months in primary care settings is achievable using a variety of lifestyle-based treatment approaches. Longer-term weight-loss maintenance is more difficult to achieve.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the results of five weight-loss interventions in primary care settings in underserved patients and to compare the level of pragmatism across the interventions using the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) tool. METHODS: Data from 54 primary care clinics (2,210 patients) were pooled from the Promoting Successful Weight Loss in Primary Care in Louisiana (PROPEL) and Rural Engagement in Primary Care for Optimizing Weight Reduction (REPOWER) cluster-randomized trials. Clinics were randomized to one of five comparators: PROPEL usual care, PROPEL combination of in-clinic and telephone visits, REPOWER in-clinic individual visits, REPOWER in-clinic group visits, or REPOWER telephone group visits. RESULTS: At 24 months, weight loss (kilograms) was -0.50 (95% CI: -1.77 to 0.76), -3.05 (-4.10 to -2.01), -4.30 (-5.35 to -3.26), -4.79 (-5.83 to -3.75), and -4.80 (-5.96 to -3.64) in the PROPEL usual care, REPOWER in-clinic individual visits, REPOWER telephone group visits, REPOWER in-clinic group visits, and PROPEL in-clinic and telephone visits arms, respectively. At 24 months, percentage of weight loss was -0.360 (-1.60 to 0.88), -3.00 (-4.02 to -1.98), -4.23 (-5.25 to -3.20), -4.67 (-5.69 to -3.65), and -4.69 (-5.82 to -3.56), respectively, in the five arms. The REPOWER in-clinic individual visits intervention was the most pragmatic and reflects the current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services funding model, although this intervention produced the least weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant weight loss over 6 months in primary care settings is achievable using a variety of lifestyle-based treatment approaches. Longer-term weight-loss maintenance is more difficult to achieve.
Authors: Michael D Jensen; Donna H Ryan; Caroline M Apovian; Jamy D Ard; Anthony G Comuzzie; Karen A Donato; Frank B Hu; Van S Hubbard; John M Jakicic; Robert F Kushner; Catherine M Loria; Barbara E Millen; Cathy A Nonas; F Xavier Pi-Sunyer; June Stevens; Victor J Stevens; Thomas A Wadden; Bruce M Wolfe; Susan Z Yanovski; Harmon S Jordan; Karima A Kendall; Linda J Lux; Roycelynn Mentor-Marcel; Laura C Morgan; Michael G Trisolini; Janusz Wnek; Jeffrey L Anderson; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Biykem Bozkurt; Ralph G Brindis; Lesley H Curtis; David DeMets; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; E Magnus Ohman; Susan J Pressler; Frank W Sellke; Win-Kuang Shen; Sidney C Smith; Gordon F Tomaselli Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Peter T Katzmarzyk; Corby K Martin; Robert L Newton; John W Apolzan; Connie L Arnold; Terry C Davis; Kara D Denstel; Emily F Mire; Tina K Thethi; Phillip J Brantley; William D Johnson; Vivian Fonseca; Jonathan Gugel; Kathleen B Kennedy; Carl J Lavie; Eboni G Price-Haywood; Daniel F Sarpong; Benjamin Springgate Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Raymond Carvajal; Thomas A Wadden; Adam G Tsai; Katherine Peck; Caroline H Moran Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Daphne P Guh; Wei Zhang; Nick Bansback; Zubin Amarsi; C Laird Birmingham; Aslam H Anis Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Peter T Katzmarzyk; Emily F Mire; Corby K Martin; Robert L Newton; John W Apolzan; Eboni G Price-Haywood; Kara D Denstel; Ronald Horswell; San T Chu; William D Johnson Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 5.551