ArticleBMC research notes2026
Capturing goal content from free text in weight loss: an exploratory pilot on feasibility, reliability, and early outcomes.
Article in BMC research notes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveUnderstanding patients' self-articulated weight-loss goals may support tailored weight-management interventions; however, reproducible methods to capture and classify free-text goal content are limited. This pilot study aimed to develop and preliminarily evaluate a laddering-informed free-text elicitation and classification protocol, and to explore its associations with motivational quality and short-term weight change.
resultsAdults with a body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m² enrolled in a 3-month digital behavioral weight-management program completed two free-text prompts. Responses were coded by two trained raters, using rules mapped to the Aspiration Index (AI) and the Goal Content for Weight Maintenance Scale (GCWMS). Inter-rater agreement was excellent (Cohen's κ = 0.91 for both frameworks). The protocol yielded analyzable data. AI showed better operational fit than GCWMS, with fewer unclassified ("Other") responses (2.1% vs. 19.1%). Differences in motivational quality across goal-content categories were small (partial η² = 0.005-0.032). In exploratory models, engagement was positively associated with weight loss, whereas autonomous motivation showed a negative association over the short observation period.
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.