Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Comparison of a phone vs clinic approach to achieve 10% weight loss

International Journal of Obesity volume 31, pages 1270–1276 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the efficacy of a phone vs a traditional face-to-face clinic approach to achieve 10% weight loss and weight maintenance.

Design:

Twenty-six week, randomized, controlled trial.

Subjects:

Twenty-four men and 72 women, ages 25–68 years, with a body mass index (BMI) of 33.2±3.8.

Measurements:

Weight loss at 12 weeks and weight maintenance at 26 weeks were the primary outcomes. Attendance, meal replacements (MRs), fruits/vegetables (F/V), and physical activity (PA) were measured weekly for process evaluation.

Results:

Median weight loss (range) from baseline at 12 weeks was significantly different for phone at 10.6 kg (16.6) or 10.4% and clinic at 12.7 kg (19.9) or 13.7%, and both were significantly different when compared with the control group with a weight loss of 0.25 kg (5.6) or 0.24%. Median weight loss at 26 weeks was 12.8 kg (23.4) or 13.0% from baseline for the phone group and 12.5 kg (35.2) or 12.6% from baseline for the clinic group (P>0.05).

Conclusion:

The median weight loss for both phone and clinic groups at 12 and 26 weeks exceeded the NHLBI guideline of 10% weight loss from baseline. The phone approach may be a viable option to the traditional weight management clinic for both service providers and participants.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hedley AA, Ogden CL, Johnson CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, Flegal KM . Prevalence of overweight and obesity among US children, adolescents, and adults, 1999–2002. JAMA 2004; 291: 2847–2850.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults; the Evidence Report. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, 1998, pp 1–228.

  3. Thompson D, Wolf A . The medical-care cost burden of obesity. Obes Rev 2001; 2: 189–197.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sullivan PW, Morrato EH, Ghushchyan V, Wyatt HR, Hill JO . Obesity, inactivity, and the prevalence of diabetes and diabetes-related cardiovascular comorbidities in the US, 2000–2002. Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 1599–1603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Katz DL . Competing dietary claims for weight loss: finding the forest through truculent trees. Annu Rev Public Health 2005; 26: 61–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jeffery RW, Epstein L, Wilson G, Drewnowski A, Stunkard AJ, Wing R . Long-term maintenance of weight loss: current status. Health Psychol 2000; 19: 5–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Jerant AF, von Friederichs-Fitzwater MM, Moore M . Patients' perceived barriers to active self-management of chronic conditions. Patient Educ Couns 2005; 57: 300–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. French SA, Neumark-Sztainer D, Story M, Jeffery RW . Reducing barriers to participation in weight-loss programs in low-income women. J Am Diet Assoc 1998; 98: 198–200.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wadden TA, Crerand CE, Brock J . Behavioral treatment of obesity. Psychiatr Clin North Am 2005; 28: 151–170, ix.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Weinstein PK . A review of weight loss programs delivered via the internet. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2006; 21: 251–258 ; quiz 259–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sherwood NE, Jeffery RW, Pronk NP, Boucher JL, Hanson A, Boyle R et al. Mail and phone interventions for weight loss in a managed-care setting: weigh-to-be 2-year outcomes. Int J Obes (Lond) 2006; 30: 1565–1573.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Marcus BH, Owen N, Forsyth LH, Cavill NA, Fridinger F . Physical activity interventions using mass media, print media, and information technology. Am J Prev Med 1998; 15: 362–378.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tate DF, Jackvony EH, Wing RR . A randomized trial comparing human e-mail counseling, computer-automated tailored counseling, and no counseling in an internet weight loss program. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166: 1620–1625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. US Census Bureau. Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2003 Current Population Survey (CPS) Reports. http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p23-208.pdf.2005.

  15. Federal Communication Commission. Trends in Telephone Service. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend605.pdf.2005.

  16. Castro CM, King AC, Brassington GS . Telephone versus mail interventions for maintenance of physical activity in older adults. Health Psychol 2001; 20: 438–444.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. VanWormer JJ, Boucher JL, Pronk NP, Thoennes JJ . Lifestyle behavior change and coronary artery disease: effectiveness of a telephone-based counseling program. J Nutr Educ Behav 2004; 36: 333–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jeffery RW, Sherwood NE, Brelje K, Pronk NP, Boyle R, Boucher JL et al. Mail and phone interventions for weight loss in a managed-care setting: weigh-to-be one-year outcomes. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2003; 27: 1584–1592.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, Irwin ML, Swartz AM, Strath SJ et al. Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32: S498–S504.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. The DCCT Research Group. Reliability and validity of a diabetes quality of life measure for the diabetes control and complications trial (DCCT). Diabetes Care 1988; 11: 725–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jeffery RW, Wing RR, Sherwood NE, Tate DF . Physical activity and weight loss: does prescribing higher physical activity goals improve outcome? Am J Clin Nutr 2003; 78: 684–689.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kassirer J, Angell M . Losing weight – an ill-fated new year's resolution. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 52–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Stern JO, Hirsch J, Blair SN, Foreyt JP, Frank A, Kumanyika SK et al. Weighing the options: criteria for evaluating weight-management programs. Obes Res 1995; 3: 591–604.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Keogh JB, Clifton PM . The role of meal replacements in obesity treatment. Obes Rev 2005; 6: 229–234.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by Health Management Resources, Boston, MA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Energy Balance Lab and Center for Physical Activity, Nutrition, and Weight Management, Schiefelbusch Institute for Life Span Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

    J E Donnelly, B K Smith & L Dunn

  2. Department of Preventative Medicine and Public Health, Center for Biostatistics and Advanced Informatics, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS, USA

    M M Mayo

  3. Global Medical Affairs, Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, Kennilworth, NJ, USA

    D J Jacobsen

  4. TransforMED, American Academy of Family Physicians, Leawood, KS, USA

    E E Stewart

  5. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS, USA

    C Gibson

  6. Department of Dietetics and Nutrition, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS, USA

    D K Sullivan

Authors
  1. J E Donnelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B K Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L Dunn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M M Mayo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D J Jacobsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E E Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C Gibson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. D K Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J E Donnelly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Donnelly, J., Smith, B., Dunn, L. et al. Comparison of a phone vs clinic approach to achieve 10% weight loss. Int J Obes 31, 1270–1276 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803568

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803568

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links