Cited by 11Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationObesity and Health Practices

Efficacy of telehealth acceptance and commitment therapy for weight loss: a pilot randomized clinical trial

Open access
Bricker, Jonathan B, Mull, Kristin E, Sullivan, Brianna M, Forman, Evan M·2021·Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Telehealth coaching for weight loss has high population-level reach but limited efficacy. To potentially improve on this limitation, the purpose of this study was to determine the preliminary efficacy of the first known telephone coaching acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) intervention for weight loss. A two-arm, stratified, individually randomized pilot trial comparing ACT (n = 53) with standard behavioral therapy (SBT; n = 52) was used for this study. Both interventions were delivered in 25 telephone coaching calls (15–20 min each) over a 12 month period. Weight was measured at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 month postrandomization follow-ups. Recruited from 32 U.S. states, participants were of mean age 40.7, 42% male, 34% racial/ethnic minority, and mean baseline body mass index of 34.3. Fractions of 10% or more scale-reported weight loss: 15% for ACT versus 4% for SBT at 3 month follow-up (N = 86; odds ratio [OR] = 4.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79, 26.83), 24% for ACT versus 13% for SBT at 6 month follow-up (N = 72; OR = 2.45; 95% CI: 0.65, 9.23), 30% for ACT versus 30% for SBT at 12 month follow-up (N = 57; OR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.28, 3.09). Fractions of 10% or more self-reported weight loss at 12 month follow-up: 25% for ACT versus 15% for SBT (N = 75; OR = 2.38; 95% CI: 0.68, 8.34). The conclusion of the study was the preliminary evidence that telephone coaching ACT may be efficacious for weight loss.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/tbm/ibab012

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Bricker, J. B., Mull, K. E., Sullivan, B. M., & Forman, E. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
  • Drexel University (US)
Corresponding author
Bricker, Jonathan B
Venue
Translational Behavioral Medicine
Published
2021-03-31
Volume
11
Issue
8
Pages
1527-1536
ISSN
  • 1613-9860 (ISSN-L)
  • 1869-6716
OpenAlex
W3144656948
Cited by
11
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Translational Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Obesity and Health Practices
Keywords
acceptance and commitment therapy, telemedicine, telephone coaching, weight loss, obesity, behavior therapy, weight management interventions, intervention efficacy
MeSH terms
Adult, Ethnicity, Female, Humans, Male, Minority Groups, Pilot Projects, Telephone, Weight Loss, Telemedicine, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

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