Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30633845›Full record

SynthesisObesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity2019

Understanding the impact of rural weight loss interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gwenndolyn C Porter, Karen Laumb, Tzeyu Michaud, Fabiana Brito, Daniel Petreca, Gina Schwieger, Todd Bartee, Karen H K Yeary, Paul A Estabrooks

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Gwenndolyn C PorterDepartment of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6592-9537
Karen LaumbLaumb Consulting, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Tzeyu MichaudDepartment of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2053-3942
Fabiana BritoDepartment of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1262-4246
Daniel PetrecaNucleus of Research in Collective Health & Environment, University of Contestado, Mafra-SC, Brazil.
Gina SchwiegerDepartment of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Todd BarteeDepartment of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Kearney, Nebraska, USA.
Karen H K YearyDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.
Paul A EstabrooksDepartment of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2261-9886

Funding

Tracking and Evaluation CoreU54GM115458 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER · PI ZHANG, YING · 2016 to 2025
$42.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM115458
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rural adults have a higher risk of developing obesity than urban adults. Several evidence-based interventions have targeted rural regions, but their impact, defined as reach (number and representativeness of participants) by effectiveness, has not been examined. The purpose of this review was to determine the impact of rural weight loss interventions and the availability of data across dimensions of the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. A systematic review was conducted to identify rural weight loss interventions that targeted adults. RE-AIM-related data were abstracted from each article. We performed a meta-analysis to examine effectiveness. Sixty-four articles reported on rural weight loss interventions, describing 50 unique interventions. The median number of participants was 107. Median participation rate differed between values reported by the authors (62%) and values computed using a standard method (32%). Two studies reported on sample representativeness; none reported comparisons made between target and actual delivery settings. Median weight loss per participant was 3.64 kg. Meta-analyses revealed the interventions achieved a significant weight reduction, and longer-duration interventions resulted in greater weight loss. Rural weight loss interventions appear to be effective in supporting clinically meaningful weight loss but reach and cost outcomes are still difficult to determine.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorRural HealthWeight LossHumansObesityobesityRE-AIMrural healthweight loss

Identifiers

PMID30633845
PMCPMC7565480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.