Trial reportAnnals of family medicine
A Cluster-Randomized Study of Technology-Assisted Health Coaching for Weight Management in Primary Care.
Trial report in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peer Coaching to Support Weight Management in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Lifestyle Medicine for Obesity in the Era of Highly Effective Anti-Obesity Treatment.Nutrients · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe undertook a trial to test the efficacy of a technology-assisted health coaching intervention for weight management, called Goals for Eating and Moving (GEM), within primary care.
methodsThis cluster-randomized controlled trial enrolled 19 primary care teams with 63 clinicians; 9 teams were randomized to GEM and 10 to enhanced usual care (EUC). The GEM intervention included 1 in-person and up to 12 telephone-delivered coaching sessions. Coaches supported goal setting and engagement with weight management programs, facilitated by a software tool. Patients in the EUC arm received educational handouts. We enrolled patients who spoke English or Spanish, were aged 18 to 69 years, and either were overweight (body mass index 25-29 kg/m
resultsWe enrolled 489 patients (220 in the GEM arm, 269 in the EUC arm). Their mean (SD) age was 49.8 (12.1) years; 44% were male, 41% Hispanic, and 44% non-Hispanic Black. At 12 months, the mean adjusted weight change (standard error) was -1.4 (0.8) kg in the GEM arm vs -0.8 (1.6) kg in the EUC arm, a nonsignificant difference (
conclusionsThe GEM intervention did not achieve clinically important weight loss in primary care. Although this was a negative study possibly affected by health system resource limitations and disruptions, its findings can guide the development of similar interventions. Future studies could explore the efficacy of higher-intensity interventions and interventions that include medication and bariatric surgery options, in addition to lifestyle modification.
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.