Obesity and related cardiovascular issues are widespread health concerns, yet effective strategies for weight loss in clinical settings remain a challenge. This study delves into the comparative effectiveness of different behavioral weight-loss interventions, examining whether remote support can achieve similar outcomes to traditional in-person programs. Understanding the nuances of Comparative Weight management approaches is crucial for healthcare providers and individuals seeking sustainable weight loss solutions.
This research, published in a peer-reviewed journal, investigated two distinct behavioral weight-loss interventions in a cohort of 415 obese patients, each presenting at least one cardiovascular risk factor. The study participants, recruited from six primary care practices, included a diverse group with 63.6% women and 41.0% black individuals, with an average age of 54.0 years. One intervention model provided remote weight-loss support via telephone, a dedicated website, and email. The second intervention combined these remote tools with in-person support through group and individual sessions. A control group was also established, where participants were instructed to pursue self-directed weight loss. Primary care providers across all groups reinforced study participation during routine check-ups. The study spanned 24 months, allowing for a comprehensive evaluation of sustained weight loss.
The initial body-mass index (BMI) across all participants averaged 36.6, with a mean weight of 103.8 kg at the study’s outset. After 24 months, significant differences in comparative weight change emerged across the groups. The control group experienced a minimal average weight change of -0.8 kg. In contrast, the remote support group demonstrated a mean weight loss of -4.6 kg (P<0.001 compared to control), and the in-person support group achieved a mean weight loss of -5.1 kg (P<0.001 compared to control). Notably, when considering clinically significant weight loss, defined as 5% or more of initial body weight, the percentages further highlighted the comparative weight loss success of the interventions. Only 18.8% of the control group achieved this benchmark, whereas 38.2% of the remote support group and 41.4% of the in-person support group reached this level of weight reduction. Interestingly, the comparative weight loss between the two intervention groups (remote vs. in-person) did not reveal a statistically significant difference.
In conclusion, this study’s findings on comparative weight loss strategies indicate that both remote and in-person behavioral interventions are effective in achieving and maintaining clinically significant weight loss in obese patients over a 24-month period. The absence of face-to-face interaction in the remote intervention did not diminish its effectiveness compared to the in-person approach. These results suggest that remote weight-loss support offers a viable and scalable alternative to traditional in-person programs, expanding access to effective weight management for individuals facing obesity and cardiovascular risk factors.
