• Melanie R Jay, Sandra Wittleder, Sarvenaz Vandyousefi, Nicholas Illenberger, Andrew Nicholson, Victoria Sweat, Paul Meissner, Gina Angelotti, Andrea Ruan, Laura Wong, Adrian D Aguilar, Stephanie L Orstad, Scott Sherman, Evelyn Armijos, Hayley Belli, and Judith Wylie-Rosett.
• Department of Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York melanie.jay@nyulangone.org.
• Ann Fam Med. 2024 Sep 1; 22 (5): 392399392-399.

PurposeWe undertook a trial to test the efficacy of a technology-assisted health coaching intervention for weight management, called Goals for Eating and Moving (GEM), within primary care.MethodsThis cluster-randomized controlled trial enrolled 19 primary care teams with 63 clinicians; 9 teams were randomized to GEM and 10 to enhanced usual care (EUC). The GEM intervention included 1 in-person and up to 12 telephone-delivered coaching sessions. Coaches supported goal setting and engagement with weight management programs, facilitated by a software tool. Patients in the EUC arm received educational handouts. We enrolled patients who spoke English or Spanish, were aged 18 to 69 years, and either were overweight (body mass index 25-29 kg/m2) with a weight-related comorbidity or had obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2). The primary outcome (weight change at 12 months) and exploratory outcomes (eg, program attendance, diet, physical activity) were analyzed according to intention to treat.ResultsWe enrolled 489 patients (220 in the GEM arm, 269 in the EUC arm). Their mean (SD) age was 49.8 (12.1) years; 44% were male, 41% Hispanic, and 44% non-Hispanic Black. At 12 months, the mean adjusted weight change (standard error) was -1.4 (0.8) kg in the GEM arm vs -0.8 (1.6) kg in the EUC arm, a nonsignificant difference (P = .48). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Exploratory analyses showed that the GEM arm had a greater change than the EUC arm in mean number of weekly minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity other than walking, a finding that may warrant further exploration.ConclusionsThe GEM intervention did not achieve clinically important weight loss in primary care. Although this was a negative study possibly affected by health system resource limitations and disruptions, its findings can guide the development of similar interventions. Future studies could explore the efficacy of higher-intensity interventions and interventions that include medication and bariatric surgery options, in addition to lifestyle modification.© 2024 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

36 keywords...

hide…