Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36483120›Full record

ArticleObesity science & practice2022

Feasibility of online behavioral clinical trials: The future of weight management randomized clinical trials?

Tricia M Leahey, Julie Pham, Zeely Denmat, Kyrstyn Jenkins, Cheyenne Harris-Starling, Carnisha Gilder, Amy A Gorin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity science & practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Adherence to Behavioral Weight Management: A Scoping Review of Definitions, Measurement, and Components.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tricia M LeaheyDepartment of Allied Health Sciences University of Connecticut Storrs Connecticut USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1741-9022
Julie PhamUniversity of Connecticut Institute for Collaboration on Health, Intervention, and Policy Storrs Connecticut USA.
Zeely DenmatUniversity of Connecticut Institute for Collaboration on Health, Intervention, and Policy Storrs Connecticut USA.
Kyrstyn JenkinsUniversity of Connecticut Institute for Collaboration on Health, Intervention, and Policy Storrs Connecticut USA.
Cheyenne Harris-StarlingUniversity of Connecticut Institute for Collaboration on Health, Intervention, and Policy Storrs Connecticut USA.
Carnisha GilderUniversity of Connecticut Institute for Collaboration on Health, Intervention, and Policy Storrs Connecticut USA.
Amy A GorinDepartment of Psychological Sciences University of Connecticut Storrs Connecticut USA.
University of Connecticut · US

Funding

Peer Support for Weight Loss MaintenanceR01DK111232 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS · PI LEAHEY, TRICIA M · 2017 to 2021
$3.2M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK111232
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Behavioral weight management trials are traditionally conducted in-person. The COVID-19 shutdown halted in-person operations, forcing investigators to develop new methods for remote treatment and assessment delivery without additional funding for website development or remote equipment. This study examined the feasibility and acceptability of remote procedures from an ongoing weight management trial impacted by COVID-19. Methods: Using a quasi-experimental longitudinal design, in-person (pre-COVID) and remote (COVID) treatment and assessment procedures were used. Attendance at in-person versus remote (videoconference) treatment sessions was compared. Acceptability of treatment modalities (in-person vs. remote) was examined via self-report. Validity and reliability were assessed on bathroom scales. Attendance at remote (videoconference + mailed, scales) versus in-person assessment sessions was compared. Finally, exploratory analyses were conducted to determine whether participant characteristics moderated the effects. Results: Remote treatment attendance was significantly better than in-person. Overall, there was no significant difference in modality preference. However, Hispanic (vs. non-Hispanic) individuals had greater preference for remote options and attended more remote treatment sessions. Bathroom scales demonstrated excellent validity and reliability. Adherence to remote and in-person assessment sessions was similar. Conclusions: COVID-19 has provided an opportunity to rethink how we conduct research. Results herein establish an evidence-base to support a paradigm shift to remote clinical trial procedures. Such a shift may enhance diversity in clinical trials.

Indexed as

clinical trialsethnicityresearch designtreatment

Identifiers

PMID36483120
PMCPMC9722444
OpenAlexW4280552497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.