Cited by 295Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsObesity, Physical Activity, DietNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 13 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Using mHealth Technology to Enhance Self-Monitoring for Weight Loss

Open access

Abstract

Background Self-monitoring for weight loss has traditionally been performed with paper diaries. Technologic advances could reduce the burden of self-monitoring and provide feedback to enhance adherence. Purpose To determine if self-monitoring diet using a PDA only or the PDA with daily tailored feedback (PDA+FB), was superior to using a paper diary on weight loss and maintenance. Design The Self-Monitoring and Recording Using Technology (SMART) Trial was a 24-month RCCT; participants were randomly assigned to one of three self-monitoring groups. Setting/participants From 2006 to 2008, 210 overweight/obese adults (84.8% female, 78.1% white) were recruited from the community. Data were analyzed in 2011. Intervention Participants received standard behavioral treatment for weight loss which included dietary and physical activity goals, encouraged the use of self-monitoring, and was delivered in group sessions. Main outcome measures Percentage weight change at 24 months, adherence to self-monitoring over time. Results Study retention was 85.6%. The mean percentage weight loss at 24 months was not different among groups (paper diary: −1.94% [95% CI= −3.88, 0.01], PDA: −1.38% [95% CI= – 3.38, 0.62], PDA+FB: –2.32% [95% CI= –4.29, −0.35]); only the PDA+FB group (p=0.02) demonstrated a significant loss. For adherence to self-monitoring, there was a time-by-treatment group interaction between the combined PDA groups and the paper diary group (p=0.03) but no difference between PDA and PDA+FB groups (p=0.49). Across all groups, weight loss was greater for those who were adherent ≥60% versus <30% of the time, p<0.001. Conclusions PDA+FB use resulted in a small weight loss at 24 months; PDA use resulted in greater adherence to dietary self-monitoring over time. However, for sustained weight loss, adherence to self-monitoring is more important than the method used to self-monitor. A daily feedback message delivered remotely enhanced adherence and improved weight loss, which suggests that technology can play a role in improving weight loss.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a 24-month randomized trial of 210 overweight/obese adults, PDA-based self-monitoring with daily tailored feedback produced a small significant 24-month weight loss, while PDA use without feedback improved adherence to dietary self-monitoring more than paper diaries. Across groups, greater self-monitoring adherence was associated with greater weight loss, suggesting adherence matters more than self-monitoring method.

Key findings

  • Mean percentage weight loss at 24 months did not differ among groups: paper diary −1.94% (95% CI −3.88, 0.01), PDA −1.38% (95% CI −3.38, 0.62), PDA+FB −2.32% (95% CI −4.29, −0.35); only PDA+FB showed significant within-group loss (p=0.02).
  • Adherence to self-monitoring showed a time-by-treatment interaction between the combined PDA groups and the paper diary group (p=0.03), with no PDA vs PDA+FB difference (p=0.49); more PDA participants were adherent ≥60% than paper diary participants (PDA vs paper p=0.03; PDA+FB vs paper p=0.01).
  • Across all groups, weight loss was greater for those adherent ≥60% versus <30% (p<0.001); at 18 months, 19%–20% of PDA groups remained adherent ≥30% compared with 8% of the paper diary group.
  • Study retention was 85.6% in the abstract and 85.7% at 24 months in the results.

Methods

  • 24-month RCT; 210 overweight/obese adults recruited from the community in 2006–2008 (84.8% female, 78.1% white); randomized to paper diary, PDA, or PDA+FB; all received standard behavioral weight loss treatment in group sessions.
  • Primary outcome: percentage weight change at 24 months; secondary outcome: adherence to dietary self-monitoring, defined as percentage of days recording adequate calories, with nonadherence assumed if a diary was not submitted.
  • Analysis: intent-to-treat; linear mixed modeling with linear contrasts, ANOVA, and generalized estimating equations; missing weight observations handled by assuming a 0.3 kg/month increase; SAS 9.1; two-sided significance at 0.05.

Limitations

  • Stated: male representation was disappointing; recruitment strategies targeting men were implemented, but many eligible men did not complete screening. The paper also states that the impact of more-proximal feedback needs further investigation and that the novel design makes comparisons challenging.
  • Stated/design: adherence to self-monitoring was limited to 18 months because there was only one contact in the final 6 months.
  • Evident: the sample was predominantly female (84.8%) and white (78.1%), limiting generalizability; adherence relied on self-monitoring records, and missing weight data were imputed rather than fully observed.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.03.016

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 13 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 13
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 8
20 of 20
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Paper diaries are time-consuming and tedious to complete.

    “The most frequently used method to self-monitor diet is the paper diary, which can be timeconsuming and tedious to complete.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Paper diaries limit the timeliness of supportive and motivational feedback delivered by the interventionist due to the lag time between receipt of the paper diary and delivery of feedback to the participant.

    “Paper diaries also limit the timeliness of supportive and motivational feedback delivered by the interventionist due to the lag time between receipt of the paper diary and delivery of feedback to the participant.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No other study has examined the effect of mobile technology with or without feedback on weight loss and adherence to self-monitoring during a 2-year behavioral treatment study.

    “No other study has examined the effect mobile technology with or without feedback on weight loss and adherence to self-monitoring during a 2-year behavioral treatment study.”
3 of 3

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.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Feedback conclusion conflicts with reported adherence comparison

    Major

    The conclusion says daily feedback enhanced adherence, but the reported comparison found no difference in adherence between the PDA group and the PDA+FB group.

  • Two different 24-month retention rates

    Minor

    The abstract reports 85.6% retention, while the Results section reports 85.7% retention at 24 months.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 37 references

2 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Burke, 2009, SMART trial: a randomized clinical trial of self-monitoring in behavioral weight management-design and baseline findings, Contemp Clin Trials, 30, 540, 10.1016/j.cct.2009.07.003 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Burke, 2011, The effect of electronic self-monitoring on weight loss and dietary intake: a randomized behavioral weight loss trial, Obesity, 19, 338, 10.1038/oby.2010.208 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 295

Metadata

Authors
Burke, L. E., Styn, M. A., Sereika, S. M., Conroy, M. B., Ye, L., Glanz, K., Sevick, M. A., & Ewing, L. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Burke, Lora E.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
20-26
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1901026176
Cited by
295
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 5
FWCI
46.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (P30NR003924, P30-NR-03924, K24NR010742)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK071817, R01-DK071817-05S1)
  • National Center for Research Resources (5M01-RR-000056, M01RR000056, UL1RR024153)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
mobile health, self-monitoring, weight loss, personal digital assistants, personalized feedback, paper diaries, adherence, weight maintenance, obesity, overweight adults, behavioral weight loss, SMART trial, remote feedback, physical activity goals, student retention, weight change over time
MeSH terms
Adult, Energy Intake, Diet, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pennsylvania, Self Care, Weight Loss, Exercise, Feedback, Psychological, Computers, Handheld, Self Report

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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