ArticleBMC obesity2018
Treatment fidelity in the Camden Weight Loss (CAMWEL) intervention assessed from recordings of advisor-participant consultations.
Article in BMC obesity, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00891943 (A Randomised Controlled Trial of a One to One Weight Management Intervention in Primary Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
A Randomised Controlled Trial of a One to One Weight Management Intervention in Primary Care
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVariations in the delivery of content and process can alter the effectiveness of complex interventions. This study examined the fidelity of a weight loss intervention (Camden Weight Loss) from recorded consultations by assessing advisors' delivery of content, use of motivational interviewing approach and therapeutic alliance.
methodsA process evaluation was conducted of advisor-participant consultations in a 12-month randomised controlled trial of an intervention for adult volunteers with a body mass index categorised as overweight or obese. A convenience sample of 22 consultations (12% of 191 participants) recorded at the intervention mid-point were available for analysis. Consultations were independently rated by two observers independent of intervention or study delivery, using: a fidelity scale, the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Scale and the Primary Care Therapy Process Rating Scale. Raters were blind to participants' responses to the intervention and weight outcomes. Half the participants (
resultsA mean of 41% of prescribed content was delivered, with a range covered per session of 8-98%, falling below the 100% content expected per session. Tasks included most frequently were: taking weight and waist measurements (98%), scheduling next appointment (86%), review of general progress (85%) and reviewing weight change (84%). Individual items most frequently addressed were 'giving encouragement' and 'showing appreciation of participant's efforts' (95 and 88% respectively). Consultation length (mean 19 min, range 9-30) was shorter than the 30-min allocation. Quantity of content correlated with consultation length (
conclusionsIntervention fidelity varied in both content and process, emphasising the importance of ongoing fidelity checks in a complex intervention. Advisors focused on certain practical aspects of the intervention and providing an encouraging interpersonal climate. This concurs with other research findings, which have revealed the value participants in a weight loss intervention place on an empathic advisor-participant relationship. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00891943, on 1 May 2009.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.