RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A Cluster-Randomized Study of Technology-Assisted Health Coaching for Weight Management in Primary Care
JF The Annals of Family Medicine
JO Ann Fam Med
FD American Academy of Family Physicians
SP 392
OP 399
DO 10.1370/afm.3150
VO 22
IS 5
A1 Jay, Melanie R.
A1 Wittleder, Sandra
A1 Vandyousefi, Sarvenaz
A1 Illenberger, Nicholas
A1 Nicholson, Andrew
A1 Sweat, Victoria
A1 Meissner, Paul
A1 Angelotti, Gina
A1 Ruan, Andrea
A1 Wong, Laura
A1 Aguilar, Adrian D.
A1 Orstad, Stephanie L.
A1 Sherman, Scott
A1 Armijos, Evelyn
A1 Belli, Hayley
A1 Wylie-Rosett, Judith
YR 2024
UL http://www.annfammed.org/content/22/5/392.abstract
AB 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.