ArticlePloS one2024
Assessing the role of biomarker feedback in a 12-week community weight management programme among overweight men: A pilot study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe primary objective of this study was to examine the feasibility of recruitment, retention, and delivery of biomarker feedback among men partaking in Shape Up, a physical activity for health programme. Secondarily, it explored the potential effects of biomarker feedback on participants' adherence and motivation levels.
methodsIn this two-arm non-randomised pilot study, 46 men (mean±SD age 46.0±8.6 years) participating in the 12-week Shape Up programme were assigned to a control group or biomarker feedback group. Biomarker feedback consisted of 3 blood test panels: at baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks (follow-up), each with a doctor's report. Both groups completed questionnaires (Short Active Lives Survey [SALS], Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire [TSRQ], and EQ-5D-5L) to gauge levels of motivation and engagement. The mean difference was calculated between baseline and programme end. Recruitment, retention, and attendance rates were determined.
resultsMean recruitment (approach-to-consent), retention, and attendance rates were 96.3%, 92.3%, and 83.7% in the control group, and 85.2%, 86.2%, and 81.5% in the biomarker feedback group, respectively. Of biomarker feedback group participants, 86.4% attended their 12-week blood test and 45.5% attended their follow-up blood test. The mean 12-week differences (95% CI) for the control group and biomarker feedback group were 138.1 (2.7, 273.5) and 467.3 (249.4, 685.2) for active minutes per week, 0.2 (-0.8, 1.2) and 0.4 (0.0, 0.8) for autonomous TSRQ domains, 0.2 (-0.3, 0.8) and 0.8 (0.1, 1.4) for controlled TSRQ domains, and 19 (12.7, 26.5) and 27.2 (19.8, 34.6) for EQ-5D-5L scores, respectively.
conclusionBiomarker feedback was well-received by participants and deemed feasible, with high recruitment and retention rates for the duration of the 12-week programme. Biomarker feedback may affect aspects of motivation but did not appear to influence adherence to the programme. Biomarker data may provide additional evidence of programme efficacy. Important design considerations are provided for definitive larger-scale trials.
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.