Cited by 24Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Ancillary study to the PREFER trial: a descriptive study of participants' patterns of self-monitoring: rationale, design and preliminary experiences

Burke, Lora E., Sereika, Susan, Choo, Jina, Warziski, Melanie, Music, Edvin, Styn, Mindi, Novak, Jessica, Stone, Arthur·2006·Contemporary Clinical Trials

Abstract

Background The treatment of obesity, marked by a high rate of recidivism, lacks strategies that sustain the improved lifestyle behaviors that led to the weight loss. Self-monitoring, a behavioral strategy to increase awareness of one's behavior, is the cornerstone of behavioral treatment in weight loss management. However, adherence to self-monitoring is less than ideal. The actual patterns of self-monitoring of eating behaviors in weight loss treatment programs have not been studied previously; if done, these data could provide information on how self-monitoring patterns affect weight loss and if interventions can be developed that address deficits in self-monitoring. Technology now permits an instrumented paper-and-pencil diary to record the real time of individuals' self-monitoring behaviors (invivodata, inc.), thus providing more information about self-reported behaviors. This technology differs from PDA based products (ex. e-diary, e-trials, logpad, PICS) because, to the user, it is no different from a standard paper-and-pencil diary. Methods The purposes of this ancillary study are: (1) to describe the electronically recorded patterns of self-monitoring of eating behaviors by weight-loss study participants; (2) compare reported vs. electronically recorded self-monitoring; and (3) examine the relationship between the electronically validated adherence to self-monitoring goals and success in weight loss in a sub-sample of participants in the PREFER study. This paper descr…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cct.2005.10.006

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burke, L. E., Sereika, S., Choo, J., Warziski, M., Music, E., Styn, M., Novak, J., & Stone, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
Corresponding author
Burke, Lora E.
Venue
Contemporary Clinical Trials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-02
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
23-33
ISSN
1551-7144 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1989623188
Cited by
24
References
24
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Contemporary Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (P30NR003924, P30-NR-03924)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (DK058631-04S1, R01-DK58631, R01DK058631)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
self-monitoring, dietary habits, weight loss, obesity treatment, electronic diary, self-report validity, behavioral weight management, unobtrusive data collection
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Feeding Behavior, Humans, Obesity, Patient Compliance, Reproducibility of Results, Weight Loss, Diet Records, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Medical Records Systems, Computerized

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