Cited by 105Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsObesity and Health PracticesObesity, Physical Activity, Diet

Technology-Assisted Weight Loss Interventions in Primary Care: A Systematic Review

Open access
Levine, David M., Savarimuthu, Stella, Squires, Allison, Nicholson, Joseph, Jay, Melanie·2015·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for and treating obesity. However, there are many barriers to successfully treating obesity in primary care (PC). Technology-assisted weight loss interventions offer novel ways of improving treatment, but trials are overwhelmingly conducted outside of PC and may not translate well into this setting. We conducted a systematic review of technology-assisted weight loss interventions specifically tested in PC settings.Methods We searched the literature from January 2000 to March 2014.Inclusion criteria (1) Randomized controlled trial; (2) trials that utilized the Internet, personal computer, and/or mobile device; and (3) occurred in an ambulatory PC setting. We applied the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) and Delphi criteria to assess bias and the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) criteria to assess pragmatism (whether trials occurred in the real world versus under ideal circumstances). Given heterogeneity, results were not pooled quantitatively.Results Sixteen trials met inclusion criteria. Twelve (75 %) interventions achieved weight loss (range: 0.08 kg - 5.4 kg) compared to controls, while 5-45 % of patients lost at least 5 % of baseline weight. Trial duration and attrition ranged from 3-36 months and 6-80 %, respectively. Ten (63 %) studies reported results after at least 1 year of follow-up. Interventions used various forms of personnel, technology modalities, and behavior change elements; trials most frequently utilized medical doctors (MDs) (44 %), web-based applications (63 %), and self-monitoring (81 %), respectively. Interventions that included clinician-guiding software or feedback from personnel appeared to promote more weight loss than fully automated interventions. Only two (13 %) studies used publically available technologies. Many studies had fair pragmatism scores (mean: 2.8/4), despite occurring in primary care.Discussion Compared to usual care, technology-assisted interventions in the PC setting help patients achieve weight loss, offering evidence-based options to PC providers. However, best practices remain undetermined. Despite occurring in PC, studies often fall short in utilizing pragmatic methodology and rarely provide publically available technology. Longitudinal, pragmatic, interdisciplinary, and open-source interventions are needed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-014-2987-6

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 93 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009.
  2. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review G r o u p . R i s k o f b i a s . 2 0 0 9 . Av a i l a b l e a t : h t t p : / / e po c.c oc hra ne .org/si te s/ ep oc .co ch ra ne. org/fi l es /u pl oa ds / Suggested%20risk%20of%20bias%20criteria%20for%20EPOC%20- reviews.pdf. Accessed 7/17/14.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levine, D. M., Savarimuthu, S., Squires, A., Nicholson, J., & Jay, M.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • Hofstra University (US)
  • VA NY Harbor Healthcare System (US)
Corresponding author
Levine, David M.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2014-08-19
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
107-117
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2018124350
Cited by
105
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3
FWCI
1.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (IK2 HX000762)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Obesity and Health Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Keywords
obesity treatment, primary care, online intervention, mobile health, self-monitoring, behavior change, pragmatic trials, weight loss outcomes
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Obesity, Primary Health Care, Weight Loss, Internet, Biomedical Technology, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review