| Title |
A Quasi-Experiment to Assess the Impact of a Scalable, Community-Based Weight Loss Program: Combining Reach, Effectiveness, and Cost
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-016-3971-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul A. Estabrooks, Kathryn E. Wilson, Todd J. McGuire, Samantha M. Harden, NithyaPriya Ramalingam, Lia Schoepke, Fabio A. Almeida, Amy L. Bayer |
| Abstract |
Primary care addresses obesity through physician oversight of intensive lifestyle interventions or referral to external programs with demonstrated efficacy. However, limited information exists on community program reach, effectiveness, and costs across different groups of participants. To evaluate a scalable, community weight loss program using reach, effectiveness, and cost metrics. Longitudinal pre-post quasi-experiment without control. Enrolled participants in Weigh and Win (WAW), a community-based weight loss program. A 12-month program with daily social cognitive theory-based email and/or text support, online access to health coaches, objective weight assessment through 83 community-based kiosks, and modest financial incentives to increase program reach. Number of participants, representativeness, weight loss achievement (3%, 5% of initial weight lost), and cost of implementation. A total of 40,308 adults (79% women; 73% white; BMI = 32.3 ± 7.44, age = 43.9 ± 13.1 years) enrolled in WAW. Women were more likely than men to enroll in the program and continue engagement beyond an initial weigh-in (57% vs. 53%). Based on census data, African Americans were over-represented in the sample. Among participants who engaged in the program beyond an initial weigh-in (n = 19,029), 47% and 34% of participants lost 3% and 5% of their initial body weight, respectively. The average duration for those who achieved 5% weight loss was 1.7 ± 1.3 years. African American participants were more likely to achieve 5% weight loss and remain enrolled in the program longer compared to non-African American participants (2.0 ± 1.3 vs. 1.6 ± 1.2 years). Implementation costs were $2,822,698. Cost per clinically meaningful weight loss for African Americans ($257.97/3% loss; $335.96/5% loss) was lower than that for Hispanics ($318.62; $431.10) and Caucasians ($313.65; $441.87), due to the higher success rate of that subgroup of participants. Weigh and Win is a scalable technology-supported and community-based weight loss program that reaches a large number of participants and may contribute to reducing health disparities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 101 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 18% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 30 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 10% |
| Psychology | 6 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 35 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 January 2024.
All research outputs
#801,261
of 25,252,667 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#640
of 8,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,532
of 314,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#8
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,252,667 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.