Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17513282›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2007

Reach, engagement, and retention in an Internet-based weight loss program in a multi-site randomized controlled trial.

Russell E Glasgow, Candace C Nelson, Kathleen A Kearney, Robert Reid, Debra P Ritzwoller, Victor J Strecher, Mick P Couper, Beverly Green, Kevin Wildenhaus

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 117 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
26.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

117 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 223 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Who Enrolls in an Online Cancer Survivorship Program? Reach of the INSPIRE Randomized Controlled Trial for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Survivors.Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2020
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Russell E GlasgowKaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, CO, USA. russg@ris.net
Candace C Nelson
Kathleen A Kearney
Robert Reid
Debra P Ritzwoller
Victor J Strecher
Mick P Couper
Beverly Green
Kevin Wildenhaus
Kaiser Permanente · USGroup Health Cooperative · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USHealthMedia (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch increasingly supports the conclusion that well-designed programs delivered over the Internet can produce significant weight loss compared to randomized controlled conditions. Much less is known about four important issues addressed in this study: (1) which recruitment methods produce higher eHealth participation rates, (2) which patient characteristics are related to enrollment, (3) which characteristics are related to level of user engagement in the program, and (4) which characteristics are related to continued participation in project assessments.

methodsWe recruited overweight members of three health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to participate in an entirely Internet-mediated weight loss program developed by HealthMedia, Inc. Two different recruitment methods were used: personal letters from prevention directors in each HMO, and general notices in member newsletters. The personal letters were sent to members diagnosed with diabetes or heart disease and, in one HMO, to a general membership sample in a particular geographic location. Data were collected in the context of a 2x2 randomized controlled trial, with participants assigned to receive or not receive a goal setting intervention and a nutrition education intervention in addition to the basic program.

resultsA total of 2311 members enrolled. Bivariate analyses on aggregate data revealed that personalized mailings produced higher enrollment rates than member newsletters and that members with diabetes or heart disease were more likely to enroll than those without these diagnoses. In addition, males, those over age 60, smokers, and those estimated to have higher medical expenses were less likely to enroll (all P < .001). Males and those in the combined intervention were less likely to engage initially, or to continue to be engaged with their Web program, than other participants. In terms of retention, multiple logistic regressions revealed that enrollees under age 60 (P < .001) and those with higher baseline self-efficacy were less likely to participate in the 12-month follow-up (P = .03), but with these exceptions, those participating were very similar to those not participating in the follow-up.

conclusionsA single personalized mailing increases enrollment in Internet-based weight loss. eHealth programs offer great potential for recruiting large numbers of participants, but they may not reach those at highest risk. Patient characteristics related to each of these important factors may be different, and more comprehensive analyses of determinants of enrollment, engagement, and retention in eHealth programs are needed.

Indexed as

InternetWeight LossFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedObesityPatient ComplianceSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID17513282
PMCPMC1874718
OpenAlexW2125151323

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.