Dataset Information

Clinic Versus Online Social Network-Delivered Lifestyle Interventions: Protocol for the Get Social Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Online social networks may be a promising modality to deliver lifestyle interventions by reducing cost and burden. Although online social networks have been integrated as one component of multimodality lifestyle interventions, no randomized trials to date have compared a lifestyle intervention delivered entirely via online social network with a traditional clinic-delivered intervention. OBJECTIVE:This paper describes the design and methods of a noninferiority randomized controlled trial, testing (1) whether a lifestyle intervention delivered entirely through an online social network would produce weight loss that would not be appreciably worse than that induced by a traditional clinic-based lifestyle intervention among overweight and obese adults and (2) whether the former would do so at a lower cost. METHODS:Adults with body mass index (BMI) between 27 and 45 kg/m2 (N=328) will be recruited from the communities in central Massachusetts. These overweight or obese adults will be randomized to two conditions: a lifestyle intervention delivered entirely via the online social network Twitter (Get Social condition) and an in-person group-based lifestyle intervention (Traditional condition) among overweight and obese adults. Measures will be obtained at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months after randomization. The primary noninferiority outcome is percentage weight loss at 12 months. Secondary noninferiority outcomes include dietary intake and moderate intensity physical activity at 12 months. Our secondary aim is to compare the conditions on cost. Exploratory outcomes include treatment retention, acceptability, and burden. Finally, we will explore predictors of weight loss in the online social network condition. RESULTS:The final wave of data collection is expected to conclude in June 2019. Data analysis will take place in the months following and is expected to be complete in September 2019. CONCLUSIONS:Findings will extend the literature by revealing whether delivering a lifestyle intervention via an online social network is an effective alternative to the traditional modality of clinic visits, given the former might be more scalable and feasible to implement in settings that cannot support clinic-based models. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02646618; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02646618 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6v20waTFW).

SUBMITTER: Wang ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5742659 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinic Versus Online Social Network-Delivered Lifestyle Interventions: Protocol for the Get Social Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.

Wang Monica L ML Waring Molly E ME Jake-Schoffman Danielle E DE Oleski Jessica L JL Michaels Zachary Z Goetz Jared M JM Lemon Stephenie C SC Ma Yunsheng Y Pagoto Sherry L SL

JMIR research protocols 20171211 12

<h4>Background</h4>Online social networks may be a promising modality to deliver lifestyle interventions by reducing cost and burden. Although online social networks have been integrated as one component of multimodality lifestyle interventions, no randomized trials to date have compared a lifestyle intervention delivered entirely via online social network with a traditional clinic-delivered intervention.<h4>Objective</h4>This paper describes the design and methods of a noninferiority randomized ...[more]

PMID: 29229591

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Lifestyle-Integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program is effective in improving strength, balance, and physical activity (PA) while simultaneously reducing falls in older people by incorporating exercise activities in recurring daily tasks. However, implementing the original LiFE program includes substantial resource requirements. Therefore, as part of the LiFE-is-LiFE project, a group format (gLiFE) of the LiFE program has been developed, which will be tested regarding its noninferiority to the individually delivered LiFE in terms of PA-adjusted fall incidence and overall cost-effectiveness.MethodsIn a multi-centre, single-blinded noninferiority trial, an envisaged sample of N = 300 participants (> 70 years; faller and/or confirmed falls risk; community-dwelling) will be randomized in either LiFE or gLiFE. Both groups will undergo the same strength and balance activities as well as PA promotion activities and habitualization strategies as described in the LiFE programme, however, based on different approaches of delivery: During the 6-month intervention phase, LiFE participants will receive seven home visits and two telephone calls; in gLiFE, the program will be delivered in seven group sessions and also two telephone calls. Main outcomes are a) fall incidence per PA and b) incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing costs and quality-adjusted life years between the two interventions. Secondary outcomes include PA behaviour, motor performance, health status, psychosocial status, program evaluation, and adherence. Measurements will be conducted at baseline, 6-month and 12-month follow-up; evaluation of intervention sessions and assessment of psychosocial variables related to execution and habitualization of LiFE activities will be made during the intervention period as well.DiscussionCompared to LiFE, we expect gLiFE to (a) reduce falls per PA by a similar rate; (b) be more cost-effective; (c) comparably enhance physical performance in terms of strength and balance as well as PA. By investigating the economic and societal benefit, this study will be of high practical relevance as noninferiority of gLiFE would facilitate large-scale implementation due to lower resource usage. This would result in better reach and increased accessibility, which is important for subjects with a history of falls and/or being at risk of falls.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03462654 . Registered on March 12, 2018.

Project description:The objective was to describe Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP)-based lifestyle interventions delivered via electronic, mobile, and certain types of telehealth (eHealth) and estimate the magnitude of the effect on weight loss. A systematic review was conducted. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for studies published between January 2003 and February 2016 that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. An overall estimate of the effect on mean percentage weight loss across all the interventions was initially conducted. A stratified meta-analysis was also conducted to determine estimates of the effect across the interventions classified according to whether behavioral support by counselors post-baseline was not provided, provided remotely with communication technology, or face-to-face. Twenty-two studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, in which 26 interventions were evaluated. Samples were primarily white and college educated. Interventions included Web-based applications, mobile phone applications, text messages, DVDs, interactive voice response telephone calls, telehealth video conferencing, and video on-demand programing. Nine interventions were stand-alone, delivered post-baseline exclusively via eHealth. Seventeen interventions included additional behavioral support provided by counselors post-baseline remotely with communication technology or face-to-face. The estimated overall effect on mean percentage weight loss from baseline to up to 15months of follow-up across all the interventions was -3.98%. The subtotal estimate across the stand-alone eHealth interventions (-3.34%) was less than the estimate across interventions with behavioral support given by a counselor remotely (-4.31%), and the estimate across interventions with behavioral support given by a counselor in-person (-4.65%). There is promising evidence of the efficacy of DPP-based eHealth interventions on weight loss. Further studies are needed particularly in racially and ethnically diverse populations with limited levels of educational attainment. Future research should also focus on ways to optimize behavioral support.

Project description:To examine current vaccine sentiment on social media by constructing and analyzing semantic networks of vaccine information from highly shared websites of Twitter users in the United States; and to assist public health communication of vaccines.Vaccine hesitancy continues to contribute to suboptimal vaccination coverage in the United States, posing significant risk of disease outbreaks, yet remains poorly understood.We constructed semantic networks of vaccine information from internet articles shared by Twitter users in the United States. We analyzed resulting network topology, compared semantic differences, and identified the most salient concepts within networks expressing positive, negative, and neutral vaccine sentiment.The semantic network of positive vaccine sentiment demonstrated greater cohesiveness in discourse compared to the larger, less-connected network of negative vaccine sentiment. The positive sentiment network centered around parents and focused on communicating health risks and benefits, highlighting medical concepts such as measles, autism, HPV vaccine, vaccine-autism link, meningococcal disease, and MMR vaccine. In contrast, the negative network centered around children and focused on organizational bodies such as CDC, vaccine industry, doctors, mainstream media, pharmaceutical companies, and United States. The prevalence of negative vaccine sentiment was demonstrated through diverse messaging, framed around skepticism and distrust of government organizations that communicate scientific evidence supporting positive vaccine benefits.Semantic network analysis of vaccine sentiment in online social media can enhance understanding of the scope and variability of current attitudes and beliefs toward vaccines. Our study synthesizes quantitative and qualitative evidence from an interdisciplinary approach to better understand complex drivers of vaccine hesitancy for public health communication, to improve vaccine confidence and vaccination coverage in the United States.

Dataset Information

Clinic Versus Online Social Network-Delivered Lifestyle Interventions: Protocol for the Get Social Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.

Publications

Clinic Versus Online Social Network-Delivered Lifestyle Interventions: Protocol for the Get Social Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets