Anna Y Kharmats1,2, Chan Wang2, Laura Fuentes3, Lu Hu2, Tina Kline3, Kevin Welding3, Lawrence J Cheskin4,5. 1. Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. New York University Grossman School of Medicine, Department of Population Health, New York, NY, USA. 3. Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health, Behavior & Society, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. George Mason University, College of Health and Human Services, Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, Fairfax, VA, USA. 5. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Text-messaging interventions can reach many individuals across a range of socioeconomic groups, at a low cost. Few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of text-messaging weight loss interventions have been conducted in United States. METHODS: From September of 2016 to September of 2018, we conducted a two-parallel group, superiority, RCT of a 16-week text-messaging, weight loss intervention in Baltimore, Maryland, in overweight and obese adults younger than 71, who were able to receive text-messages. Our objective was to assess the effect of receiving the message content only (in printed documents distributed at baseline and week 8), versus receiving messages via short messaging service (SMS) on weight loss (primary outcome), body mass index, perceived exercise benefits and barriers, self-efficacy, and physical activity (PA). The random allocation sequence was equally balanced intervention groups by gender and age groups. Participants were randomized after the baseline assessment. Then, participants and most study staff were unblinded. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 8-, 16-, and 42-week post randomization. We performed intention-to-treat analysis using mixed linear regression models. RESULTS: Of the 155 adults randomized (printed messages =77, SMS =78), 87.1% were women, 53.5% were African Americans, and 93.5% non-Hispanic. Participants who completed at least one follow-up assessment were included in regression analyses (n=145, printed messages =74, SMS =71). Compared to baseline, at the 42-week assessment, the average percent weight loss was 1.23 for the SMS group (P=0.006) and 0.86 for the printed messages group (P=0.047). Both groups experienced small reductions in weight (printed messages: -0.96 kg, P=0.022; SMS: -1.19 kg, P=0.006), BMI (printed messages: -0.32, P=0.035; SMS: -0.52, P=0.002), and percent energy from fat consumption (printed messages: -1.43, P=0.021; SMS: -2.14, P≤0.001). No statistically significant between groups differences were detected for any of the study outcomes. SMS response rates were not statistically significantly associated with study outcomes. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: A semi-tailored SMS weight loss intervention among overweight and obese adults was not statistically superior in efficacy to paper-based messaging. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04506996. 2022 mHealth. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Text-messaging interventions can reach many individuals across a range of socioeconomic groups, at a low cost. Few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of text-messaging weight loss interventions have been conducted in United States. METHODS: From September of 2016 to September of 2018, we conducted a two-parallel group, superiority, RCT of a 16-week text-messaging, weight loss intervention in Baltimore, Maryland, in overweight and obese adults younger than 71, who were able to receive text-messages. Our objective was to assess the effect of receiving the message content only (in printed documents distributed at baseline and week 8), versus receiving messages via short messaging service (SMS) on weight loss (primary outcome), body mass index, perceived exercise benefits and barriers, self-efficacy, and physical activity (PA). The random allocation sequence was equally balanced intervention groups by gender and age groups. Participants were randomized after the baseline assessment. Then, participants and most study staff were unblinded. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 8-, 16-, and 42-week post randomization. We performed intention-to-treat analysis using mixed linear regression models. RESULTS: Of the 155 adults randomized (printed messages =77, SMS =78), 87.1% were women, 53.5% were African Americans, and 93.5% non-Hispanic. Participants who completed at least one follow-up assessment were included in regression analyses (n=145, printed messages =74, SMS =71). Compared to baseline, at the 42-week assessment, the average percent weight loss was 1.23 for the SMS group (P=0.006) and 0.86 for the printed messages group (P=0.047). Both groups experienced small reductions in weight (printed messages: -0.96 kg, P=0.022; SMS: -1.19 kg, P=0.006), BMI (printed messages: -0.32, P=0.035; SMS: -0.52, P=0.002), and percent energy from fat consumption (printed messages: -1.43, P=0.021; SMS: -2.14, P≤0.001). No statistically significant between groups differences were detected for any of the study outcomes. SMS response rates were not statistically significantly associated with study outcomes. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: A semi-tailored SMS weight loss intervention among overweight and obese adults was not statistically superior in efficacy to paper-based messaging. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04506996. 2022 mHealth. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Obesity; healthy diet; mHealth; text messaging; weight loss intervention
Authors: A F Subar; F E Thompson; V Kipnis; D Midthune; P Hurwitz; S McNutt; A McIntosh; S Rosenfeld Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2001-12-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Craig M Hales; Cheryl D Fryar; Margaret D Carroll; David S Freedman; Yutaka Aoki; Cynthia L Ogden Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Brenda L Minor; Veida Elliott; Michelle Fernandez; Lindsay O'Neal; Laura McLeod; Giovanni Delacqua; Francesco Delacqua; Jacqueline Kirby; Stephany N Duda Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Erin S LeBlanc; Carrie D Patnode; Elizabeth M Webber; Nadia Redmond; Megan Rushkin; Elizabeth A O'Connor Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Frances E Thompson; Douglas Midthune; Geoffrey C Williams; Amy L Yaroch; Thomas G Hurley; Ken Resnicow; James R Hebert; Deborah J Toobert; Geoffrey W Greene; Karen Peterson; Linda Nebeling Journal: J Nutr Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 4.798