Individual versus group therapy for obesity: Effects of matching participants to their treatment preferences.

Renjilian, David A.; Perri, Michael G.; Nezu, Arthur M.; McKelvey, Wendy; Shermer, Rebecca L.; Anton, Stephen D.

doi:10.1037/0022-006x.69.4.717

Cited by 296 publications

(241 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

217

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Seventy-five percent of participants completed this trial despite having no contact with the study personnel during the 12-to 18-month maintenance phase; similar retention rates have been reported for previously conducted weight loss trials. Jakicic et al 25 reported 78% retention after an 18-month behavioral intervention for weight loss, and Renjilian et al 18 reported a 78% retention rate after 6 months, similar to our 18-month retention (75%). Worth noting, these studies did not include a no-contact maintenance period after the active intervention, as our study did.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…[16][17][18][19] Conceptual models such as behavioral choice theory 20 postulate that those who are matched to treatment based on their personal choices will demonstrate better outcomes than those assigned to a treatment that does not match their personal preference. The few studies that have examined the effect of providing participants their preferred weight-loss treatment have produced inconsistent findings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The few studies that have examined the effect of providing participants their preferred weight-loss treatment have produced inconsistent findings. [16][17][18] Moreover, the longest study was only 6 months in duration, thus not permitting an evaluation of the long-term effects of receiving one's preference. Our preliminary study 7 did not take preference into account in the random assignment to diet, and we are unaware of any randomized clinical trials that have examined treatment preference using diets that include a vegetarian option.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A randomized clinical trial of a standard versus vegetarian diet for weight loss: the impact of treatment preference

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: With obesity rampant, methods to achieve sustained weight loss remain elusive. Objective: To compare the long-term weight-loss efficacy of 2 cal and fat-restricted diets, standard (omnivorous) versus lactoovo-vegetarian, and to determine the effect of a chosen diet versus an assigned diet. Design, subjects: A randomized clinical trial was conducted with 176 adults who were sedentary and overweight (mean body mass index, 34.0 kg/m 2 ). Participants were first randomly assigned to either receive their preferred diet or be assigned to a diet group and second, were given their diet of preference or randomly assigned to a standard weight-loss diet or a lacto-ovovegetarian diet. Participants underwent a university-based weight-control program consisting of daily dietary and exercise goals plus 12 months of behavioral counseling followed by a 6-month maintenance phase. Measurements: Percentage change in body weight, body mass index, waist circumference, low-and high-density lipoprotein, glucose, insulin and macronutrient intake. Results: The program was completed by 132 (75%) of the participants. At 18 months, mean percentage weight loss was greater (P ¼ 0.01) in the two groups that were assigned a diet (standard, 8.0% (s.d., 7.8%); vegetarian, 7.9% (s.d., 8.1%)) than in those provided the diet of their choice (standard, 3.9% (s.d., 6.1%); vegetarian, 5.3% (s.d., 6.2%)). No difference was observed in weight loss between the two types of diet. Over the 18-month program, all groups showed significant weight loss. Conclusions: Participants assigned to their dietary preference did not have enhanced treatment outcomes. However, all groups lost weight with losses ranging from 4 to 8% at 18 months.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A randomized clinical trial of a standard versus vegetarian diet for weight loss: the impact of treatment preference

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The interventions continued through September 2012. Detailed descriptions of both the ILI and DSE interventions have been published elsewhere 16, 17. A brief synopsis follows.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The DSE intervention was designed to retain participants in the trial and consisted of educational sessions focused on diet, physical activity and social support 17. Four meetings were offered in year 1, three per year in years 2–4 and one meeting per year thereafter.…”

Section: Diabetes Support and Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost of intervention delivery in a lifestyle weight loss trial in type 2 diabetes: results from the Look AHEAD clinical trial

Rushing

Wing

Wadden

et al. 2017

Obesity Science & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryObjectiveThe Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) trial was a randomized controlled clinical trial to compare the effects of 10 years of intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) with a control condition of diabetes support and education (DSE) on health outcomes in over 5,000 participants with type 2 diabetes. The ILI had significantly greater weight losses than DSE throughout the trial. The goal of this analysis is to describe the cost of delivering the intervention.MethodsThe ILI was designed to promote weight loss and increase physical activity. It involved a combination of group plus individual intervention sessions, with decreasing frequency of contact over the 10 years. The intervention incorporated a variety of strategies, including meal replacement products, to improve weight loss outcomes. The costs of intervention delivery were derived from staff surveys of effort and from records of intervention materials from the 16 US academic clinical trial sites. Costs were calculated from the payer perspective and presented in 2012 dollars.ResultsDuring the first year, when intervention delivery was most intensive, the annual cost of intervention delivery, averaged (standard deviation) across clinical sites, was $2,864.6 ($513.3) per ILI participant compared with $202.4 ($76.6) per DSE participant. As intervention intensity declined, costs decreased, such that from years 5 to 9 of the trial, the annual cost of intervention was $1,119.8 ($227.7) per ILI participant and $102.9 ($33.0) per DSE participant. Staffing accounted for the majority of costs throughout the trial, with meal replacements and materials to promote adherence accounting for smaller shares.ConclusionsThe sustained weight losses produced by the Look AHEAD intervention were supported by intervention costs that were within the range of other weight loss programmes. Future work will include an evaluation of the cost‐effectiveness of the ILI and will contain additional follow‐up data.

show abstract

Extended-Care Programs for Weight Management in Rural Communities

Perri¹,

Limacher²,

Durning³

et al. 2008

Arch Intern Med

Self Cite

233

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Rural counties in the United States have higher rates of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and associated chronic diseases than nonrural areas, yet the management of obesity in rural communities has received little attention from researchers.Methods: Obese women from rural communities who completed an initial 6-month weight-loss program at Cooperative Extension Service offices in 6 medically underserved rural counties (n = 234) were randomized to extended care or to an education control group. The extended-care programs entailed problem-solving counseling delivered in 26 biweekly sessions via telephone or face to face. Control group participants received 26 biweekly newsletters containing weight-control advice.Results: Mean weight at study entry was 96.4 kg. Mean weight loss during the initial 6-month intervention was 10.0 kg. One year after randomization, participants in the telephone and face-to-face extended-care programs regained less weight (mean [SE],1.2[0.7] and 1.2[0.6] kg, respectively) than those in the education control group (3.7[0.7] kg; P =.03 and .02, respectively). The beneficial effects of extended-care counseling were mediated by greater adherence to behavioral weight-management strategies, and cost analyses indicated that telephone counseling was less expensive than face-to-face intervention.Conclusions: Extended care delivered either by telephone or in face-to-face sessions improved the 1-year maintenance of lost weight compared with education alone. Telephone counseling constitutes an effective and cost-efficient option for long-term weight management. Delivering lifestyle interventions via the existing infrastructure of the Cooperative Extension Service represents a viable means of adapting research for rural communities with limited access to preventive health services.

show abstract

Individual versus group therapy for obesity: Effects of matching participants to their treatment preferences.

Cited by 296 publications

References 13 publications

A randomized clinical trial of a standard versus vegetarian diet for weight loss: the impact of treatment preference

A randomized clinical trial of a standard versus vegetarian diet for weight loss: the impact of treatment preference

Cost of intervention delivery in a lifestyle weight loss trial in type 2 diabetes: results from the Look AHEAD clinical trial

Extended-Care Programs for Weight Management in Rural Communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About