The publication detail shows the title, authors (with indicators showing other profiled authors), information on the publishing organization, abstract and a link to the article in PubMed. This abstract is what is used to create the fingerprint of the publication. If any grants are referenced by the publication, they will be listed here as well.
Design considerations and rationale of a multi-center trial to sustain weight loss: the Weight Loss Maintenance Trial.
Phillip Brantley; Lawrence Appel; Jack Hollis; Victor Stevens; Jamy Ard; Catherine Champagne; Patricia Elmer; David Harsha; Valerie Myers; Michael Proschan; et al. (Profiled Author: Lawrence Appel)
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Behavioral Medicine, Barton Rouge, LA 70808, USA. BrantlPJ@pbrc.edu
Clinical trials (London, England) 2008;5(5):546-56.
BACKGROUND: The Weight Loss Maintenance Trial (WLM) is a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial that compares the effects of two 30-month maintenance interventions, i.e., Personal Contact (PC) and Interactive Technology (IT) to a self-directed usual care control group (SD), in overweight or obese individuals who are at high risk for cardiovascular disease. PURPOSE: This paper provides an overview of the design and methods, and design considerations and lessons learned from this trial. METHODS: All participants received a 6-month behavioral weight loss program consisting of weekly group sessions. Participants who lost 4 kg were randomized to one of three conditions (PC, IT, or SD). The PC condition provided monthly contacts with an interventionist primarily via telephone and quarterly face-to-face visits. The IT condition provided frequent, individualized contact through a tailored, website system. Both the PC and IT maintenance programs encouraged the DASH dietary pattern and employed theory-based behavioral techniques to promote maintenance. RESULTS: Design considerations included choice of study population, frequency and type of intervention visits, and choice of primary outcome. Overweight or obese persons with CVD risk factors were studied. The pros and cons of studying this population while excluding others are presented. We studied intervention contact strategies that made fewer demands on participant time and travel, while providing frequent opportunities for interaction. The primary outcome variable for the trial was change in weight from randomization to end of follow-up (30 months). LIMITATIONS: Limits to generalizability are discussed. Individuals in need of weight loss strategies may have been excluded due to barriers associated with internet use. Other participants may have been excluded secondary to a comorbid condition. CONCLUSIONS: This paper highlights the design and methods of WLM and informs readers of discussions of critical issues and lessons learned from the trial.
This section shows information related to the publication - computed using the fingerprint of the publication - including related publications, related experts and related grants with fingerprints representing significant amounts of overlap between their fingerprint and this publication. The red dots indicate whether those experts or terms appear within the publication, thereby showing potential and actual connections.
Sarah S Casagrande; Gerald J Jerome; Arlene T Dalcin; Faith B Dickerson; Cheryl A Anderson; Lawrence J Appel; Jeanne Charleston; Rosa M Crum; Deborah R Young; Eliseo Guallar; et al.BMC psychiatry 2010;10():108.
Rena R Wing; Wei Lang; Thomas A Wadden; Monika Safford; William C Knowler; Alain G Bertoni; James O Hill; Frederick L Brancati; Anne Peters; Lynne Wagenknecht; et al.Diabetes care 2011;34(7):1481-6.
Alain G Bertoni; Jeanne M Clark; Patricia Feeney; Susan Z Yanovski; John Bantle; Brenda Montgomery; Monika M Safford; William H Herman; Steven Haffner;Journal of diabetes and its complications 2008;22(1):1-9.
Appears in this Publication
Author of this Publication