Annals of family medicine · 2024
A Cluster-Randomized Study of Technology-Assisted Health Coaching for Weight Management in Primary Care.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jay Melanie R, Wittleder Sandra, Vandyousefi Sarvenaz, Illenberger Nicholas, Nicholson Andrew, Sweat Victoria, Meissner Paul, Angelotti Gina, Ruan Andrea, Wong Laura, Aguilar Adrian D, Orstad Stephanie L, Sherman Scott, Armijos Evelyn, Belli Hayley, Wylie-Rosett Judith
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We undertook a trial to test the efficacy of a technology-assisted health coaching intervention for weight management, called Goals for Eating and Moving (GEM), within primary care.
METHODS: This cluster-randomized controlled trial enrolled 19 primary care teams with 63 clinicians; 9 teams were randomized to GEM and 10 to enhanced usual care (EUC). The GEM intervention included 1 in-person and up to 12 telephone-delivered coaching sessions. Coaches supported goal setting and engagement with weight management programs, facilitated by a software tool. Patients in the EUC arm received educational handouts. We enrolled patients who spoke English or Spanish, were aged 18 to 69 years, and either were overweight (body mass index 25-29 kg/m2) with a weight-related comorbidity or had obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2). The primary outcome (weight change at 12 months) and exploratory outcomes (eg, program attendance, diet, physical activity) were analyzed according to intention to treat.
RESULTS: We enrolled 489 patients (220 in the GEM arm, 269 in the EUC arm). Their mean (SD) age was 49.8 (12.1) years; 44% were male, 41% Hispanic, and 44% non-Hispanic Black. At 12 months, the mean adjusted weight change (standard error) was -1.4 (0.8) kg in the GEM arm vs -0.8 (1.6) kg in the EUC arm, a nonsignificant difference (P = .48). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Exploratory analyses showed that the GEM arm had a greater change than the EUC arm in mean number of weekly minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity other than walking, a finding that may warrant further exploration.
CONCLUSIONS: The GEM intervention did not achieve clinically important weight loss in primary care. Although this was a negative study possibly affected by health system resource limitations and disruptions, its findings can guide the development of similar interventions. Future studies could explore the efficacy of higher-intensity interventions and interventions that include medication and bariatric surgery options, in addition to lifestyle modification.
METHODS: This cluster-randomized controlled trial enrolled 19 primary care teams with 63 clinicians; 9 teams were randomized to GEM and 10 to enhanced usual care (EUC). The GEM intervention included 1 in-person and up to 12 telephone-delivered coaching sessions. Coaches supported goal setting and engagement with weight management programs, facilitated by a software tool. Patients in the EUC arm received educational handouts. We enrolled patients who spoke English or Spanish, were aged 18 to 69 years, and either were overweight (body mass index 25-29 kg/m2) with a weight-related comorbidity or had obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2). The primary outcome (weight change at 12 months) and exploratory outcomes (eg, program attendance, diet, physical activity) were analyzed according to intention to treat.
RESULTS: We enrolled 489 patients (220 in the GEM arm, 269 in the EUC arm). Their mean (SD) age was 49.8 (12.1) years; 44% were male, 41% Hispanic, and 44% non-Hispanic Black. At 12 months, the mean adjusted weight change (standard error) was -1.4 (0.8) kg in the GEM arm vs -0.8 (1.6) kg in the EUC arm, a nonsignificant difference (P = .48). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Exploratory analyses showed that the GEM arm had a greater change than the EUC arm in mean number of weekly minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity other than walking, a finding that may warrant further exploration.
CONCLUSIONS: The GEM intervention did not achieve clinically important weight loss in primary care. Although this was a negative study possibly affected by health system resource limitations and disruptions, its findings can guide the development of similar interventions. Future studies could explore the efficacy of higher-intensity interventions and interventions that include medication and bariatric surgery options, in addition to lifestyle modification.