Weight Loss
Conditions
Brief summary
The present study is a non-inferiority trial comparing the efficacy of a lifestyle intervention delivered entirely via an online social network to a traditional lifestyle intervention delivered via group meetings.
Detailed description
Lifestyle interventions have had established efficacy for over a decade but are still not widely disseminated, largely due to high cost and patient and provider burden. Online social networks are an alternative way to deliver lifestyle counseling and delivery via this modality may virtually eliminate patient visits, the main source of cost and burden in traditional modalities. Interactions in online social networks are frequent, brief, and asynchronous because users login to their online communities during downtime during work and leisure time, or when they simply feel a need for social connection. As such, social media becomes embedded into people's daily lives. This provides an opportunity to embed health behavior change programming into people's daily lives. Thus far in the literature, existing online social networks have been used as component of web- or mobile app-based lifestyle interventions but not as the primary modality for intervention delivery. The purpose of this work is to conduct a non-inferiority trial to compare a lifestyle intervention delivered entirely via private groups on the online social network Twitter to a traditional in-person group-based lifestyle intervention. Using a randomized trial (N=328), investigators will test whether a lifestyle intervention delivered via an online social network (Get Social condition) will result in a mean percent weight loss at 12 months that is not appreciably worse than the gold-standard in-person group-based lifestyle intervention (Traditional condition), i.e., the social network arm will not lose on average 2% less than the in-person arm. Secondary non-inferiority outcomes include weight loss at 12 months, and dietary intake and physical activity at 12-months. Investigators hypothesize that the Get Social condition will be less expensive than the Traditional condition. To understand for whom an online social network modality is most suited, investigators will test predictors of weight loss in the Get Social condition including engagement, age, sociability, neuroticism, openness, and smartphone and social network use. Investigators hypothesize that people who are younger, more sociable, engage more on the social network, higher in neuroticism/openness, and heavier overall smartphone and social network users will lose more weight in the Get Social condition. Findings from this study may support an intervention delivery modality that is more conducive to settings like worksites, health plans, and clinics that serve large populations but have limited space, staffing, and resources for traditional in person interventions.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALGet Social
Online-delivered weight loss intervention
BEHAVIORALTraditional
Group-delivered weight loss intervention
DEVICESmartphone
A smartphone is needed to use MyFitnessPal for all participants and to access Twitter for the Get Social participants
Sponsors
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
University of Connecticut
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion: 1. Smartphone users 2. Ages 18-65 3. Body Mass Index (BMI) 27-45 4. Must currently log into a social media platform on a daily basis basis and engage (like, reply, post) at least 4 days per week. Participants will be excluded if they: 1. Do not have a smartphone; 2. Are unable to get medical clearance from their Primary Care Physician (PCP); 3. Have plans to move during study; 4. Are not interested in losing weight; 5. Have Type 1 or uncontrolled 2 Diabetes (as determined by PCP); 6. Have medical conditions that would prevent increasing physical activity or making dietary changes; 7. Are pregnant/lactating or plans to become pregnant during study; 8. Are currently taking medication affecting weight; 9. Currently participating in a weight loss program or using an online social network to assist them with weight loss (e.g. Weight Watchers, Sparkpeople, etc); 10. Unable to walk at least ¼ mile unaided without stopping; 11. Experienced a weight loss of 5% or more in past 3 month; 12. A history of/or plans on having bariatric surgery; 13. Did not complete the baseline measures; 14. Not willing to use Twitter, or if a current Twitter user, not willing to create a new account specifically for study purposes; 15. Participated in another weight loss study under the direction of the PI of this study; 16. Current smoker (smokes 3 or more cigarettes per day); 17. Unavailable to attend weekly group meetings; 18. Prefers one condition over another; 19. Score of 30 or higher on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) or endorsement of 2 or 3 on BDI #9 indicating suicidal thoughts; 20. Presence of binge eating disorder 21. Did not complete the orientation webinar; 22. Are unable to provide consent due to mental illness or a cognitive impairment; 23. Does not speak English; or 24. Are a prisoner.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Weight | Baseline | A digital scale (Scaletronix, Model-5002) will be used to record weight |
| Percent Weight Change | Baseline to 6-months | A digital scale (Scaletronix, Model-5002) will be used to record weight |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Time Spent During Intervention | 12-months | Administrative and intervention-delivery was measured. Amount of administrative and intervention delivery time per participant was calculated. |
| Retention at Follow-up | 12-months | Retention will be calculated as the percentage of participants who complete the final weigh-in in each condition. |
| Acceptability of the Intervention | 6-months | Acceptability and their satisfaction with intervention was measured by asking participants If given the opportunity to continue participating in the program, how willing would you be to continue? Response options were from 1 (Definitely would) to 5 (Definitely would not). The outcome is the number of positive responses which include responses of 1 or 2 (Probably would) on this measure. |
| Burden of Intervention | 6-months | Burden was measured through the question Participating in the program was time consuming. Response options were 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree). We are reporting number of participants who agreed with the statement by responding with a 1 (Strongly agree) or 2 (Agree) |
| Dietary Intake | Baseline | National Cancer Institute's (NCI) automated self-administered 24-hour dietary recall (ASA24™) was used to measure caloric intake. |
| Change in Dietary Intake | Baseline to 6-months | National Cancer Institute's (NCI) automated self-administered 24-hour dietary recall (ASA24™) measured caloric intake. Difference in caloric intake during baseline and 6 month evaluations was calculated. |
| Physical Activity | Baseline | Arizona Physical Activity Questionnaire will be used to provide estimates of total energy expenditure to calculate number of participants reaching the guideline of 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity. |
| Social Support for Weight Loss | Baseline | Weight Management Support Inventory to assess social support for weight management. The directions ask respondents to rate on a 5-point scale how frequently they experienced a certain interaction with other people in the past 4 weeks, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (daily). The items also ask how helpful that event was when it occurred, rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not helpful) to 5 (extremely helpful). Higher scores indicate more frequent or more helpful social support events. We asked this about four potential social groups: family, friends, friends on Twitter, and friends on Facebook. |
| Neuroticism/Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience | Baseline | Openness to Experience and Neuroticism/Emotional Stability were measured using the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. The Ten-Item Personality Inventory consists of 10 items that measure the five dimensions of the Five Factor model of personality. Participants are asked to respond to a series of words with personality descriptions with the prompt I see myself as with response options of 1 (Disagree Strongly) to 7 (Agree Strongly). Opposite items are reverse coded. Items for Emotional Stability/Neuroticism are anxious, easily upset and calm, emotionally stable. Items for Openness to experience are open to new experiences, complex or conventional, uncreative. The average of the scores represents each dimension with higher scores indicating higher levels of Openness or Emotional Stability (and lower levels of Neuroticism). |
| Social Media Use | Baseline | Twitter use was measured by asking participants which social networks they had an account on |
| Intervention Engagement | 6-months | Engagement will be measured by tracking group attendance and quantifying communication in the online group throughout the intervention in terms of percent of intervention modules participated in. |
| STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire | Baseline | Participants completed the four item STOP sleep apnea questionnaire. Participants who answered yes to 0-1 items were classified as low risk for sleep apnea. Participants who answered yes to 2-4 items were classified as high risk for sleep apnea. |
| Insomnia Severity Index | Baseline | To measure sleep quality, participants completed the Insomnia Severity Index. Higher scores (maximum 28) represent increased levels of insomnia, from 0-7 (Absence of insomnia), through 8-14 (Sub-threshold insomnia), 15-21 (Moderate insomnia), and 22-28 (Severe insomnia). |
| Sleep Duration | Baseline | To measure sleep quality we used select questions from the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index which allowed the calculation of sleep duration. |
| History of Sleep Apnea | Baseline | Participants were asked whether they had ever been diagnosed with sleep apnea with response options Yes or No. |
| Previous or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Baseline | Participants were asked 1. Are you being treated for sleep apnea presently? (Yes/No) and 2. Have you ever received treatment for sleep apnea? |
| Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | 6-months | Participants were asked: Have you ever been diagnosed with sleep apnea? If they answered yes, they were asked if they were currently being treated for sleep apnea. |
| Beck Depression Inventory | Baseline | To measure depressive symptoms, participants completed the Beck Depression Inventory. Total scores can be interpreted as 1-10 (normal ups and downs), 11-16 (Mild mood disturbance), 17-20 (Borderline clinical depression), 21-30 (Moderate depression), 31-40 (Severe depression), 41+ (Extreme depression). |
| Weight-Loss Related Social Media Use | Baseline | Participants were asked Have you ever posted about or had discussions about your weight loss or desire to lose weight? Number who answered yes are reported. |
| Treatment Fidelity | 6-months | The intervention was divided into different content units delivered either during a meeting (Traditional Condition) or a series of tweets (Get Social Condition). For the Get Social Condition, tweets with intervention content were produced to meet all objectives for each content unit and programmed to go out at set times for each group so 100% of the objectives for each content unit were met. For the Traditional Condition, checklists were created with objectives for each content unit and staff listened to 2 to 3 randomly selected group recordings for each study wave to determine if these objectives were met by the interventionist. Treatment Fidelity was defined as the percentage of objectives delivered by the interventionist for each wave. |
| Habitual Sleep Efficiency | Baseline | To measure sleep quality we used select questions from the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index to calculate habitual sleep efficiency (the percentage of time in bed spent sleeping). |
| Blood Pressure | Baseline | The average of two blood pressure readings was used as the measure of blood pressure. If participants only had one blood pressure reading that was used as the measure of blood pressure. |
| Cost Associated With Intervention | 12-months | Total time to deliver the intervention and administrative time was tracked during the study for each condition and cost was calculated using national median salary for dietitians & nutritionists and administrative assistants & secretaries, and national fringe data for all civilian workers across all industries from Bureau of Labor Statistics. Hourly rate based on salary plus fringe divided by 2080 hours (40 hours/week x 52 weeks). Administrative tasks charged at administrative assistant salary rate, all other treatment delivery tasks charged at dietitian rate. Dollars per participant was calculated by dividing total cost for each condition by the number of participants in that condition. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Get Social Get Social participants will receive a weight loss intervention in a protected Twitter group. The intervention content will be structured to deliver in an online context. The online coaches will post daily content, respond to questions, address concerns, and encourage engagement. The weight loss intervention is based on the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), an evidence-based weight loss program focused on lifestyle changes. The goals for the intervention are 175 minutes of moderate physical activity per week and an overall weight loss of 7%. Each participant will get an individualized calorie goal that would facilitate a 1-2 lbs. weight loss weekly. Participants will also be encouraged to use an app such as MyFitnessPal to track daily diet.
Get Social: Online-delivered weight loss intervention
Smartphone: A smartphone is needed to use MyFitnessPal for all participants and to access Twitter for the Get Social participants | 167 |
| Traditional Participants will attend weight loss groups weekly for 8 weeks, then biweekly for 16 weeks, then monthly between months 6 and 12. The weight loss intervention is based on the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), an evidence-based weight loss program focused on lifestyle changes. The goals for the intervention are 175 minutes of moderate physical activity per week and an overall weight loss of 7%. Each participant will get an individualized calorie goal that would facilitate a 1-2 lbs. weight loss weekly. Participants will also be encouraged to use an app such as MyFitnessPal to track daily diet.
Traditional: Group-delivered weight loss intervention | 162 |
| Total | 329 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 10 | 14 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Get Social | Traditional | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 45.3 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.2 | 45.5 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.6 | 45.4 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.4 |
| Body Mass Index | 34.9 kg/m^2 STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.8 | 35.1 kg/m^2 STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.4 | 35.0 kg/m^2 STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.6 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 8 Participants | 8 Participants | 16 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 158 Participants | 154 Participants | 312 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 4 Participants | 1 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 4 Participants | 3 Participants | 7 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 3 Participants | 5 Participants | 8 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 3 Participants | 2 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 152 Participants | 150 Participants | 302 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 167 participants | 162 participants | 329 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 136 Participants | 132 Participants | 268 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 31 Participants | 30 Participants | 61 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 167 | 0 / 162 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 52 / 167 | 49 / 162 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 167 | 0 / 162 |
Outcome results
Primary
Percent Weight Change
A digital scale (Scaletronix, Model-5002) will be used to record weight
Time frame: Baseline to 6-months
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Percent Weight Change | -2.6 Percent change in weight | Standard Error 0.5 |
| Traditional | Percent Weight Change | -4.5 Percent change in weight | Standard Error 0.5 |
p-value: 0.003895% CI: [0.6, 3.3]Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Percent Weight Change
A digital scale (Scaletronix, Model-5002) will be used to record weight
Time frame: Baseline to 12-months
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Percent Weight Change | -2.6 Percent change in weight | Standard Error 0.6 |
| Traditional | Percent Weight Change | -3.7 Percent change in weight | Standard Error 0.6 |
p-value: 0.148595% CI: [-0.4, 2.8]Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Weight
A digital scale (Scaletronix, Model-5002) will be used to record weight
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Weight | 214.7 lbs | Standard Deviation 36.9 |
| Traditional | Weight | 215.4 lbs | Standard Deviation 35.8 |
Secondary
Acceptability of the Intervention
Acceptability and their satisfaction with intervention was measured by asking participants If given the opportunity to continue participating in the program, how willing would you be to continue? Response options were from 1 (Definitely would) to 5 (Definitely would not). The outcome is the number of positive responses which include responses of 1 or 2 (Probably would) on this measure.
Time frame: 6-months
Population: Randomized participants who completed the acceptability question
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Acceptability of the Intervention | 100 Participants |
| Traditional | Acceptability of the Intervention | 104 Participants |
Secondary
Beck Depression Inventory
To measure depressive symptoms, participants completed the Beck Depression Inventory. Total scores can be interpreted as 1-10 (normal ups and downs), 11-16 (Mild mood disturbance), 17-20 (Borderline clinical depression), 21-30 (Moderate depression), 31-40 (Severe depression), 41+ (Extreme depression).
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Beck Depression Inventory | 6.1 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.3 |
| Traditional | Beck Depression Inventory | 7.7 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 7.3 |
Secondary
Beck Depression Inventory
To measure depressive symptoms, participants completed the Beck Depression Inventory. Total scores can be interpreted as 1-10 (normal ups and downs), 11-16 (Mild mood disturbance), 17-20 (Borderline clinical depression), 21-30 (Moderate depression), 31-40 (Severe depression), 41+ (Extreme depression).
Time frame: 6-months
Population: Randomized participants who completed the BDI
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Beck Depression Inventory | 5.6 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.8 |
| Traditional | Beck Depression Inventory | 6.3 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 7.5 |
Secondary
Beck Depression Inventory
To measure depressive symptoms, participants completed the Beck Depression Inventory. Total scores can be interpreted as 1-10 (normal ups and downs), 11-16 (Mild mood disturbance), 17-20 (Borderline clinical depression), 21-30 (Moderate depression), 31-40 (Severe depression), 41+ (Extreme depression).
Time frame: 12-months
Population: Randomized participants who completed the BDI
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Beck Depression Inventory | 4.8 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.3 |
| Traditional | Beck Depression Inventory | 5.7 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.9 |
Secondary
Blood Pressure
The average of two blood pressure readings was used as the measure of blood pressure. If participants only had one blood pressure reading that was used as the measure of blood pressure.
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Blood Pressure | Systolic blood pressure | 134.4 mmHg | Standard Deviation 13 |
| Get Social | Blood Pressure | Diastolic blood pressure | 82.4 mmHg | Standard Deviation 8.3 |
| Traditional | Blood Pressure | Diastolic blood pressure | 82.3 mmHg | Standard Deviation 10.3 |
| Traditional | Blood Pressure | Systolic blood pressure | 133.1 mmHg | Standard Deviation 12.9 |
Secondary
Blood Pressure
The average of two blood pressure readings was used as the measure of blood pressure. If participants only had one blood pressure reading that was used as the measure of blood pressure.
Time frame: 6-months
Population: Randomized participants who were able to complete blood pressure measurement
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Blood Pressure | Systolic blood pressure | 130.6 mmHg | Standard Deviation 12.7 |
| Get Social | Blood Pressure | Diastolic blood pressure | 80.1 mmHg | Standard Deviation 8.8 |
| Traditional | Blood Pressure | Diastolic blood pressure | 81.1 mmHg | Standard Deviation 9.2 |
| Traditional | Blood Pressure | Systolic blood pressure | 130.2 mmHg | Standard Deviation 13.6 |
Secondary
Blood Pressure
The average of two blood pressure readings was used as the measure of blood pressure. If participants only had one blood pressure reading that was used as the measure of blood pressure.
Time frame: 12-months
Population: Randomized participants who were able to have their blood pressure measured
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Blood Pressure | Systolic blood pressure | 130.6 mmHg | Standard Deviation 14 |
| Get Social | Blood Pressure | Diastolic blood pressure | 80.3 mmHg | Standard Deviation 9.3 |
| Traditional | Blood Pressure | Systolic blood pressure | 129.7 mmHg | Standard Deviation 13.7 |
| Traditional | Blood Pressure | Diastolic blood pressure | 81.1 mmHg | Standard Deviation 9.6 |
Secondary
Burden of Intervention
Burden was measured through the question Participating in the program was time consuming. Response options were 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree). We are reporting number of participants who agreed with the statement by responding with a 1 (Strongly agree) or 2 (Agree)
Time frame: 6-months
Population: Randomized participants who completed the burden question
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Burden of Intervention | 37 Participants |
| Traditional | Burden of Intervention | 62 Participants |
Secondary
Change in Dietary Intake
National Cancer Institute's (NCI) automated self-administered 24-hour dietary recall (ASA24™) will record dietary intake. Change in caloric intake between baseline and 12 months was calculated.
Time frame: Baseline to 12-months
Population: Randomized participants with valid recall data
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Change in Dietary Intake | -396 kcal | Standard Error 55 |
| Traditional | Change in Dietary Intake | -321 kcal | Standard Error 54 |
p-value: 0.332395% CI: [-226, 77]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Change in Dietary Intake
National Cancer Institute's (NCI) automated self-administered 24-hour dietary recall (ASA24™) measured caloric intake. Difference in caloric intake during baseline and 6 month evaluations was calculated.
Time frame: Baseline to 6-months
Population: Randomized participants with valid recall data
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Change in Dietary Intake | -316 kcal | Standard Error 52 |
| Traditional | Change in Dietary Intake | -410 kcal | Standard Error 51 |
p-value: 0.202595% CI: [-50, 237]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Cost Associated With Intervention
Total time to deliver the intervention and administrative time was tracked during the study for each condition and cost was calculated using national median salary for dietitians & nutritionists and administrative assistants & secretaries, and national fringe data for all civilian workers across all industries from Bureau of Labor Statistics. Hourly rate based on salary plus fringe divided by 2080 hours (40 hours/week x 52 weeks). Administrative tasks charged at administrative assistant salary rate, all other treatment delivery tasks charged at dietitian rate. Dollars per participant was calculated by dividing total cost for each condition by the number of participants in that condition.
Time frame: 12-months
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Cost Associated With Intervention | 114 dollars per participant |
| Traditional | Cost Associated With Intervention | 165 dollars per participant |
Secondary
Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea
Participants were asked: Have you ever been diagnosed with sleep apnea? If they answered yes, they were asked if they were currently being treated for sleep apnea.
Time frame: 6-months
Population: Randomized participants who completed questions relating to sleep apnea at 6 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Diagnosis of sleep apnea | No | 103 Participants |
| Get Social | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Current treatment for sleep apnea | No | 9 Participants |
| Get Social | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Current treatment for sleep apnea | Yes | 16 Participants |
| Get Social | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Diagnosis of sleep apnea | Yes | 25 Participants |
| Traditional | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Current treatment for sleep apnea | Yes | 9 Participants |
| Traditional | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Diagnosis of sleep apnea | No | 124 Participants |
| Traditional | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Diagnosis of sleep apnea | Yes | 17 Participants |
| Traditional | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Current treatment for sleep apnea | No | 8 Participants |
Secondary
Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea
Participants were asked: Have you ever been diagnosed with sleep apnea? If they answered yes, they were asked if they were currently being treated for sleep apnea.
Time frame: 12-months
Population: Randomized participants who completed the questions about sleep apnea
| Arm | Measure | Group | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Diagnosis of sleep apnea | No | 94 Participants |
| Get Social | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Diagnosis of sleep apnea | Yes | 23 Participants |
| Get Social | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Current treatment of sleep apnea | No | 8 Participants |
| Get Social | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Current treatment of sleep apnea | Yes | 15 Participants |
| Traditional | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Current treatment of sleep apnea | Yes | 9 Participants |
| Traditional | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Diagnosis of sleep apnea | No | 114 Participants |
| Traditional | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Current treatment of sleep apnea | No | 6 Participants |
| Traditional | Diagnosis or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Diagnosis of sleep apnea | Yes | 15 Participants |
Secondary
Dietary Intake
National Cancer Institute's (NCI) automated self-administered 24-hour dietary recall (ASA24™) was used to measure caloric intake.
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Randomized participants with valid recall data
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Dietary Intake | 2168 kcal | Standard Deviation 642 |
| Traditional | Dietary Intake | 2042 kcal | Standard Deviation 548 |
Secondary
Habitual Sleep Efficiency
To measure sleep quality we used select questions from the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index to calculate habitual sleep efficiency (the percentage of time in bed spent sleeping).
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Randomized participants who completed the PSQI items
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Habitual Sleep Efficiency | 87.5 Percentage of time spent in bed sleeping |
| Traditional | Habitual Sleep Efficiency | 87.5 Percentage of time spent in bed sleeping |
Secondary
Habitual Sleep Efficiency
To measure sleep quality we used select questions from the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index which allowed the calculation of habitual sleep efficiency (the percentage of time in bed spent sleeping).
Time frame: 6-months
Population: Randomized participants who completed the PSQI items
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Habitual Sleep Efficiency | 86.7 Percentage of time spent in bed sleeping |
| Traditional | Habitual Sleep Efficiency | 85.7 Percentage of time spent in bed sleeping |
Secondary
Habitual Sleep Efficiency
To measure sleep quality we used select questions from the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index which allowed the calculation of habitual sleep efficiency (the percentage of time in bed spent sleeping).
Time frame: 12-months
Population: Randomized participants who completed the PSQI items
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Habitual Sleep Efficiency | 87.5 Percentage of time spent in bed sleeping |
| Traditional | Habitual Sleep Efficiency | 85.7 Percentage of time spent in bed sleeping |
Secondary
History of Sleep Apnea
Participants were asked whether they had ever been diagnosed with sleep apnea with response options Yes or No.
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | History of Sleep Apnea | No | 143 Participants |
| Get Social | History of Sleep Apnea | Yes | 24 Participants |
| Traditional | History of Sleep Apnea | No | 144 Participants |
| Traditional | History of Sleep Apnea | Yes | 18 Participants |
Secondary
Insomnia Severity Index
To measure sleep quality, participants completed the Insomnia Severity Index. Higher scores (maximum 28) represent increased levels of insomnia, from 0-7 (Absence of insomnia), through 8-14 (Sub-threshold insomnia), 15-21 (Moderate insomnia), and 22-28 (Severe insomnia).
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Insomnia Severity Index | 5 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Insomnia Severity Index | 6 score on a scale |
Secondary
Insomnia Severity Index
To measure sleep quality, participants completed the Insomnia Severity Index. Higher scores (maximum 28) represent increased levels of insomnia, from 0-7 (Absence of insomnia), through 8-14 (Sub-threshold insomnia), 15-21 (Moderate insomnia), and 22-28 (Severe insomnia).
Time frame: 6-months
Population: Randomized participants who completed the ISI at 6 months.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Insomnia Severity Index | 5 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Insomnia Severity Index | 6 score on a scale |
Secondary
Insomnia Severity Index
To measure sleep quality, participants completed the Insomnia Severity Index. Higher scores (maximum 28) represent increased levels of insomnia, from 0-7 (Absence of insomnia), through 8-14 (Sub-threshold insomnia), 15-21 (Moderate insomnia), and 22-28 (Severe insomnia).
Time frame: 12-months
Population: Randomized participants who completed the ISI at 12 months
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Insomnia Severity Index | 5 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Insomnia Severity Index | 5 score on a scale |
Secondary
Intervention Engagement
Engagement will be measured by tracking group attendance and quantifying communication in the online group throughout the intervention in terms of percent of intervention modules participated in.
Time frame: 12-months
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Intervention Engagement | 81.8 Percentage of modules participated in |
| Traditional | Intervention Engagement | 63.6 Percentage of modules participated in |
Secondary
Intervention Engagement
Engagement will be measured by tracking group attendance and quantifying communication in the online group throughout the intervention in terms of percent of intervention modules participated in.
Time frame: 6-months
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Intervention Engagement | 93.8 Percentage of modules participated in |
| Traditional | Intervention Engagement | 68.8 Percentage of modules participated in |
Secondary
Neuroticism/Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience
Openness to Experience and Neuroticism/Emotional Stability were measured using the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. The Ten-Item Personality Inventory consists of 10 items that measure the five dimensions of the Five Factor model of personality. Participants are asked to respond to a series of words with personality descriptions with the prompt I see myself as with response options of 1 (Disagree Strongly) to 7 (Agree Strongly). Opposite items are reverse coded. Items for Emotional Stability/Neuroticism are anxious, easily upset and calm, emotionally stable. Items for Openness to experience are open to new experiences, complex or conventional, uncreative. The average of the scores represents each dimension with higher scores indicating higher levels of Openness or Emotional Stability (and lower levels of Neuroticism).
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Neuroticism/Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience | Emotional Stability/Neuroticism | 5 score on a scale |
| Get Social | Neuroticism/Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience | Openness to Experience | 5.5 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Neuroticism/Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience | Emotional Stability/Neuroticism | 5 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Neuroticism/Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience | Openness to Experience | 6 score on a scale |
Secondary
Physical Activity
Arizona Physical Activity Questionnaire will be used to provide estimates of total energy expenditure to calculate number of participants reaching the guideline of 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity.
Time frame: Baseline to 6-months
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Physical Activity | 88 Participants |
| Traditional | Physical Activity | 93 Participants |
Comparison: We examined the proportion of participants engaging in 150+ minutes/week of moderate/vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) using generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and incorporating repeated measures over time. For participants missing MVPA at either follow-up timepoint, we used a baseline observation carried forward approach to impute their activity level (150+ vs \<150 MVPA mins/week) at that timepoint.p-value: 0.3905Generalized estimating equation
Secondary
Physical Activity
Arizona Physical Activity Questionnaire will be used to provide estimates of total energy expenditure to calculate number of participants reaching the guideline of 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity.
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Physical Activity | 81 Participants |
| Traditional | Physical Activity | 70 Participants |
Secondary
Physical Activity
Arizona Physical Activity Questionnaire will be used to provide estimates of total energy expenditure to calculate number of participants reaching the guideline of 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity.
Time frame: Baseline to 12-months
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Physical Activity | 87 Participants |
| Traditional | Physical Activity | 78 Participants |
Comparison: We examined the proportion of participants engaging in 150+ minutes/week of moderate/vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) using generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and incorporating repeated measures over time. For participants missing MVPA at either follow-up timepoint, we used a baseline observation carried forward approach to impute their activity level (150+ vs \<150 MVPA mins/week) at that timepoint.p-value: 0.4741Generalized estimating equation
Secondary
Previous or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea
Participants were asked 1. Are you being treated for sleep apnea presently? (Yes/No) and 2. Have you ever received treatment for sleep apnea?
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Randomized participants (For current treatment, only randomized participants who reported previous sleep apnea diagnosis)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Previous or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Current Treatment of Sleep Apnea (Participants with sleep apnea diagnosis) | No | 5 Participants |
| Get Social | Previous or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Current Treatment of Sleep Apnea (Participants with sleep apnea diagnosis) | Yes | 19 Participants |
| Get Social | Previous or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Past Treatment of Sleep Apnea | No | 145 Participants |
| Get Social | Previous or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Past Treatment of Sleep Apnea | Yes | 22 Participants |
| Traditional | Previous or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Past Treatment of Sleep Apnea | Yes | 16 Participants |
| Traditional | Previous or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Current Treatment of Sleep Apnea (Participants with sleep apnea diagnosis) | No | 7 Participants |
| Traditional | Previous or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Past Treatment of Sleep Apnea | No | 146 Participants |
| Traditional | Previous or Current Treatment for Sleep Apnea | Current Treatment of Sleep Apnea (Participants with sleep apnea diagnosis) | Yes | 11 Participants |
Secondary
Retention at Follow-up
Retention will be calculated as the percentage of participants who complete the final weigh-in in each condition.
Time frame: 12-months
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Retention at Follow-up | 157 Participants |
| Traditional | Retention at Follow-up | 148 Participants |
Secondary
Sleep Duration
To measure sleep quality we used select questions from the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index which allowed the calculation of sleep duration.
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Randomized participants who completed the PSQI items
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Sleep Duration | 7.0 hours |
| Traditional | Sleep Duration | 7.0 hours |
Secondary
Sleep Duration
To measure sleep quality we used select questions from the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index which allowed the calculation of sleep duration.
Time frame: 6-months
Population: Randomized participants who completed the PSQI items
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Sleep Duration | 6.5 hours |
| Traditional | Sleep Duration | 7.0 hours |
Secondary
Sleep Duration
To measure sleep quality we used select questions from the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index which allowed the calculation of sleep duration.
Time frame: 12-months
Population: Randomized participants who completed the PSQI items
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Sleep Duration | 7.0 hours |
| Traditional | Sleep Duration | 7.0 hours |
Secondary
Social Media Use
Participants were asked which social networks they had an account on and number with a Twitter account was reported.
Time frame: 12-months
Population: Randomized participants who completed questions regarding social media use
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Social Media Use | 100 Participants |
| Traditional | Social Media Use | 68 Participants |
Secondary
Social Media Use
Twitter use was measured by asking participants which social networks they had an account on
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Social Media Use | 102 Participants |
| Traditional | Social Media Use | 91 Participants |
Secondary
Social Media Use
Participants were asked which social networks they had an account on and number with a Twitter account was reported.
Time frame: 6-months
Population: Randomized participants who completed questions about social media use
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Social Media Use | 117 Participants |
| Traditional | Social Media Use | 75 Participants |
Secondary
Social Support for Weight Loss
Weight Management Support Inventory to assess social support for weight management. The directions ask respondents to rate on a 5-point scale how frequently they experienced a certain interaction with other people in the past 4 weeks, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (daily). The items also ask how helpful that event was when it occurred, rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not helpful) to 5 (extremely helpful). Higher scores indicate more frequent or more helpful social support events. We asked this about four potential social groups: family, friends, friends on Twitter, and friends on Facebook.
Time frame: 12-months
Population: Randomized participants who complete the relevant module of the WMSI
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Family - Frequency | 1.4 units on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Family - Helpfulness | 3.0 units on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Friends - Frequency | 1.2 units on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Friends - Helpfulness | 3.1 units on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Twitter Friends - Frequency | 1.0 units on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Twitter Friends - Helpfulness | 2.8 units on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Facebook Friends - Frequency | 1.0 units on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Facebook Friends - Helpfulness | 3.0 units on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Facebook Friends - Helpfulness | 3.0 units on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Family - Frequency | 1.3 units on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Twitter Friends - Frequency | 1.0 units on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Family - Helpfulness | 3.0 units on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Facebook Friends - Frequency | 1.0 units on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Friends - Frequency | 1.2 units on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Twitter Friends - Helpfulness | 1.0 units on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Friends - Helpfulness | 3.0 units on a scale |
Secondary
Social Support for Weight Loss
Weight Management Support Inventory to assess social support for weight management. The directions ask respondents to rate on a 5-point scale how frequently they experienced a certain interaction with other people in the past 4 weeks, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (daily). The items also ask how helpful that event was when it occurred, rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not helpful) to 5 (extremely helpful). Higher scores indicate more frequent or more helpful social support events. We asked this about four potential social groups: family, friends, friends on Twitter, and friends on Facebook.
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Randomized participants who completed each of the WMSI subscales.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Friends - Helpfulness | 1.9 score on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Family - Helpfulness | 2.1 score on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Twitter Friends - Helpfulness | 1.0 score on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Family - Frequency | 1.5 score on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Facebook Friends - Frequency | 1.0 score on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Friends - Frequency | 1.3 score on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Facebook Friends - Helpfulness | 1.2 score on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Twitter Friends - Frequency | 1.0 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Facebook Friends - Helpfulness | 1.3 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Family - Frequency | 1.4 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Family - Helpfulness | 2.0 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Friends - Frequency | 1.2 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Twitter Friends - Frequency | 1.0 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Twitter Friends - Helpfulness | 1.0 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Facebook Friends - Frequency | 1.0 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Friends - Helpfulness | 2.0 score on a scale |
Secondary
Social Support for Weight Loss
Weight Management Support Inventory to assess social support for weight management. The directions ask respondents to rate on a 5-point scale how frequently they experienced a certain interaction with other people in the past 4 weeks, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (daily). The items also ask how helpful that event was when it occurred, rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not helpful) to 5 (extremely helpful). Higher scores indicate more frequent or more helpful social support events. We asked this about four potential social groups: family, friends, friends on Twitter, and friends on Facebook.
Time frame: 6-months
Population: Randomized participants who completed the relevant WMSI scales
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Family - Frequency | 1.5 score on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Family - Helpfulness | 2.8 score on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Friends - Frequency | 1.4 score on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Friends - Helpfulness | 2.8 score on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Twitter Friends - Frequency | 1.6 score on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Twitter Friends - Helpfulness | 2.8 score on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Facebook Friends - Frequency | 1.0 score on a scale |
| Get Social | Social Support for Weight Loss | Facebook Friends - Helpfulness | 2.1 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Facebook Friends - Helpfulness | 2.7 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Family - Frequency | 1.5 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Twitter Friends - Frequency | 1.0 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Family - Helpfulness | 2.7 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Facebook Friends - Frequency | 1.0 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Friends - Frequency | 1.2 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Twitter Friends - Helpfulness | 1.0 score on a scale |
| Traditional | Social Support for Weight Loss | Friends - Helpfulness | 3.0 score on a scale |
Secondary
STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire
Participants completed the four item STOP sleep apnea questionnaire. Participants who answered yes to 0-1 items were classified as low risk for sleep apnea. Participants who answered yes to 2-4 items were classified as high risk for sleep apnea.
Time frame: 12-month
Population: Randomized participants who completed the STOP questionnaire
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire | Low risk of sleep apnea | 83 Participants |
| Get Social | STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire | High risk of sleep apnea | 34 Participants |
| Traditional | STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire | Low risk of sleep apnea | 96 Participants |
| Traditional | STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire | High risk of sleep apnea | 33 Participants |
Secondary
STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire
Participants completed the four item STOP sleep apnea questionnaire. Participants who answered yes to 0-1 items were classified as low risk for sleep apnea. Participants who answered yes to 2-4 items were classified as high risk for sleep apnea.
Time frame: 6-month
Population: Randomized participants who completed the STOP questionnaire
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire | Low risk of sleep apnea | 94 Participants |
| Get Social | STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire | High risk of sleep apnea | 34 Participants |
| Traditional | STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire | Low risk of sleep apnea | 101 Participants |
| Traditional | STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire | High risk of sleep apnea | 40 Participants |
Secondary
STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire
Participants completed the four item STOP sleep apnea questionnaire. Participants who answered yes to 0-1 items were classified as low risk for sleep apnea. Participants who answered yes to 2-4 items were classified as high risk for sleep apnea.
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire | Low risk for sleep apnea | 116 Participants |
| Get Social | STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire | High risk for sleep apnea | 51 Participants |
| Traditional | STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire | Low risk for sleep apnea | 105 Participants |
| Traditional | STOP (Snoring, Tired, Observed Apnea, Pressure) Questionnaire | High risk for sleep apnea | 57 Participants |
Secondary
Time Spent During Intervention
Administrative and intervention-delivery was measured. Amount of administrative and intervention delivery time per participant was calculated.
Time frame: 12-months
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Time Spent During Intervention | 3.0 Hours per participant | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
| Traditional | Time Spent During Intervention | 3.9 Hours per participant | Standard Deviation 1.8 |
p-value: 0.248t-test, 2 sided
Secondary
Treatment Fidelity
The intervention was divided into different content units delivered either during a meeting (Traditional Condition) or a series of tweets (Get Social Condition). For the Get Social Condition, tweets with intervention content were produced to meet all objectives for each content unit and programmed to go out at set times for each group so 100% of the objectives for each content unit were met. For the Traditional Condition, checklists were created with objectives for each content unit and staff listened to 2 to 3 randomly selected group recordings for each study wave to determine if these objectives were met by the interventionist. Treatment Fidelity was defined as the percentage of objectives delivered by the interventionist for each wave.
Time frame: 6-months
Population: Treatment groups of randomized participants in each condition.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Treatment Fidelity | 100 Percentage of unit objectives delivered | Standard Deviation 0 |
| Traditional | Treatment Fidelity | 88.2 Percentage of unit objectives delivered | Standard Deviation 11 |
Secondary
Weight-Loss Related Social Media Use
Participants were asked Have you ever posted about or had discussions about your weight loss or desire to lose weight? Number who answered yes are reported.
Time frame: 12-months
Population: Randomized participants who answered the question about weight-loss related social media use.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Weight-Loss Related Social Media Use | 48 Participants |
| Traditional | Weight-Loss Related Social Media Use | 28 Participants |
Secondary
Weight-Loss Related Social Media Use
Participants were asked Have you ever posted about or had discussions about your weight loss or desire to lose weight? Number who answered yes are reported.
Time frame: 6-months
Population: Randomized participants who responded to the question about weight-loss related social media use
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Weight-Loss Related Social Media Use | 78 Participants |
| Traditional | Weight-Loss Related Social Media Use | 36 Participants |
Secondary
Weight-Loss Related Social Media Use
Participants were asked Have you ever posted about or had discussions about your weight loss or desire to lose weight? Number who answered yes are reported.
Time frame: Baseline
Population: Randomized participants
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Get Social | Weight-Loss Related Social Media Use | 58 Participants |
| Traditional | Weight-Loss Related Social Media Use | 59 Participants |