RESUMO
Objective: Free online tools show potential for promoting weight loss at a low cost, but there is limited evidence about how to effectively engage patients with them. To address this, a low-dose, flexible intervention was developed that aims to enhance weight-related discussions with primary care providers (PCPs) and engage patients with an organic (i.e., not researcher-created) weight loss-focused social media community and online self-monitoring tool. Feasibility and acceptability of the intervention was evaluated in a single-arm, 12-week pilot. Methods: PCPs were recruited at two clinics, then PCP's patients with upcoming appointments were identified and recruited. Patients received an interactive online kickoff before their scheduled primary care appointment, then 8 follow-up messages over 12 weeks via email or their electronic health record patient portal. Patients completed assessments at baseline, post-appointment, and week 12. Primary care providers and patients completed semi-structured interviews. Results: All PCPs approached enrolled (n = 6); patient recruitment was on track to meet the study goal prior to COVID-19 restrictions, and n = 27 patients enrolled. Patient satisfaction with the pre-appointment kickoff was high. Twenty-four patients reported discussing weight-related topics at their primary care appointment and all were satisfied with the discussion. Twenty-two patients completed 12-week assessments. Of these, 15 reported engaging with the self-monitoring tool and 9 with the social media community. Patient interviews revealed reasons for low social media community engagement, including perceived lack of fit. On average, patients with available data (n = 21) lost 2.4 ± 4.1% of baseline weight, and 28.6% of these patients lost ≥3% of baseline weight. Primary care providers reported high intervention satisfaction. Conclusions: The intervention and trial design show potential, although additional strategies are needed to promote tool engagement.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to document the use of transparent reporting of hypotheses and analyses in behavioral medicine journals in 2018 and 2008. DESIGN: We examined a randomly selected portion of articles published in 2018 and 2008 by behavioral medicine journals with the highest impact factor, excluding manuscripts that were reviews or purely descriptive. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We coded whether articles explicitly stated if the hypotheses/outcomes/analyses were primary or secondary; if study was registered/pre-registered; if "exploratory" or a related term was used to describe analyses/aims; and if power analyses were reported. RESULTS: We coded 162 manuscripts published in 2018 (87% observational and 12% experimental). Sixteen percent were explicit in describing hypotheses/outcomes/analyses as primary or secondary, 51% appeared to report secondary hypotheses/outcomes/analyses but did not use term "secondary," and 33% were unclear. Registration occurred in 14% of studies, but 91% did not report which analyses were registered. "Exploratory" or related term was used in 31% of studies. Power analyses were reported in 8% of studies. Compared to 2008 (n=120), studies published in 2018 were more likely to be registered and less likely to have explicitly stated if outcomes were primary or secondary. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral medicine stakeholders should consider strategies to increase clarity of reporting, and particularly details that will inform readers if analyses were pre-planned or post-hoc.
