Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2015 Nov;23(11):2133-41.
doi: 10.1002/oby.21226.

Cell phone intervention for you (CITY): A randomized, controlled trial of behavioral weight loss intervention for young adults using mobile technology

Laura P Svetkey  1   2 , Bryan C Batch  3 , Pao-Hwa Lin  1   2 , Stephen S Intille  4   5 , Leonor Corsino  3 , Crystal C Tyson  1 , Hayden B Bosworth  6   7   8   9 , Steven C Grambow  10 , Corrine Voils  6   9 , Catherine Loria  11 , John A Gallis  10 , Jenifer Schwager  1   2 , Gary G Bennett  12
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Cell phone intervention for you (CITY): A randomized, controlled trial of behavioral weight loss intervention for young adults using mobile technology

Laura P Svetkey et al. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2015 Nov.

Erratum in

Abstract

Objective: To determine the effect on weight of two mobile technology-based (mHealth) behavioral weight loss interventions in young adults.

Methods: Randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness trial in 18- to 35-year-olds with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m(2) (overweight/obese), with participants randomized to 24 months of mHealth intervention delivered by interactive smartphone application on a cell phone (CP); personal coaching enhanced by smartphone self-monitoring (PC); or Control.

Results: The 365 randomized participants had mean baseline BMI of 35 kg/m(2) . Final weight was measured in 86% of participants. CP was not superior to Control at any measurement point. PC participants lost significantly more weight than Controls at 6 months (net effect -1.92 kg [CI -3.17, -0.67], P = 0.003), but not at 12 and 24 months.

Conclusions: Despite high intervention engagement and study retention, the inclusion of behavioral principles and tools in both interventions, and weight loss in all treatment groups, CP did not lead to weight loss, and PC did not lead to sustained weight loss relative to Control. Although mHealth solutions offer broad dissemination and scalability, the CITY results sound a cautionary note concerning intervention delivery by mobile applications. Effective intervention may require the efficiency of mobile technology, the social support and human interaction of personal coaching, and an adaptive approach to intervention design.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT diagram. * 1 additional Control participant did not have 24-month weight but contributed data for other outcomes ˆ Includes: weight loss surgery, program, intervention study (n=20); BMI < 25kg/mˆ2 (n=7); > 15 lbs weight loss in last 3 months (n=2) ‡ Participants were eligible at time in screening process when they declined
Figure 2
Figure 2
Effect of interventions on weight change (in kg), based on linear mixed model analyses. Abbreviations: CP, Cell Phone Intervention; PC, Personal Coaching Intervention. * p-value = 0.003 for the comparison between PC and control at 6 montths. + p-value < 0.001 for the comparison between PC and CP at 6 months. ˆ p-value = 0.025 for the comparison between PC and CP at 12 months.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Subgroup analysis. Forest plots for pre-specified subgroups: age, sex, race; and post-hoc subgroup: BMI category, education category, and income category. Panel A. CP vs Control; Panel B. PC vs Control; Panel C. CP vs PC
Figure 3
Figure 3
Subgroup analysis. Forest plots for pre-specified subgroups: age, sex, race; and post-hoc subgroup: BMI category, education category, and income category. Panel A. CP vs Control; Panel B. PC vs Control; Panel C. CP vs PC
Figure 3
Figure 3
Subgroup analysis. Forest plots for pre-specified subgroups: age, sex, race; and post-hoc subgroup: BMI category, education category, and income category. Panel A. CP vs Control; Panel B. PC vs Control; Panel C. CP vs PC
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Ogden CL. Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribution of body mass index among US adults, 1999–2010. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association. 2012;307:491–7. - PubMed
    1. Burke GL, Bild DE, Hilner JE, Folsom AR, Wagenknecht LE, Sidney S. Differences in weight gain in relation to race, gender, age and education in young adults: the CARDIA Study. Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults. Ethn Health. 1996;1:327–35. - PubMed
    1. Lewis CE, Jacobs DR, Jr, McCreath H, et al. Weight gain continues in the 1990s: 10-year trends in weight and overweight from the CARDIA study. Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151:1172–81. - PubMed
    1. Lloyd-Jones DM, Liu K, Colangelo LA, et al. Consistently stable or decreased body mass index in young adulthood and longitudinal changes in metabolic syndrome components: the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study. Circulation. 2007;115:1004–11. - PubMed
    1. Loria CM, Liu K, Lewis CE, et al. Early adult risk factor levels and subsequent coronary artery calcification: the CARDIA Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:2013–20. - PubMed

Publication types