Search Articles

View query in Help articles search

Search Results (1 to 10 of 17 Results)

Download search results: CSV END BibTex RIS


Designing Ruby: Protocol for a 2-Arm, Brief, Digital Randomized Controlled Trial for Internalized Weight Bias

Designing Ruby: Protocol for a 2-Arm, Brief, Digital Randomized Controlled Trial for Internalized Weight Bias

The sample size was calculated based on the primary outcome using G*Power with a medium effect size determined based on the literature (effect size=0.5; power=0.95). We predict a 1-point reduction in the Weight Bias Internalization Scale score, based on prior literature in this field. We will need a minimum of 55 participants to be adequately powered; we estimate a retention rate of 70% and thus inflated sample size to account for attrition for a final sample size of 80 participants.

Christina M Hopkins, Hailey N Miller, Taylor L Brooks, Lihua Mo-Hunter, Dori M Steinberg, Gary G Bennett

JMIR Res Protoc 2021;10(11):e31307

A Digital Behavioral Weight Gain Prevention Intervention in Primary Care Practice: Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

A Digital Behavioral Weight Gain Prevention Intervention in Primary Care Practice: Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Bennett et al developed The Shape Program to test a tailored digital health solution aimed at helping black women prevent weight gain [18,19]. Results reveal Shape’s effectiveness in preventing weight gain among black women. However, whether Shape is cost-effective remains unknown; that is the focus of this analysis. A cost-effectiveness analysis is one strategy for understanding whether the benefits of an intervention are worth the costs.

Anirudh Krishnan, Eric Andrew Finkelstein, Erica Levine, Perry Foley, Sandy Askew, Dori Steinberg, Gary G Bennett

J Med Internet Res 2019;21(5):e12201

Comparing Self-Monitoring Strategies for Weight Loss in a Smartphone App: Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparing Self-Monitoring Strategies for Weight Loss in a Smartphone App: Randomized Controlled Trial

Our power analysis (G*Power 3.1.9.2.) determined that 31 participants per group were needed to achieve 80% power for a 2-sided test with an alpha level of .05. To account for attrition of 10% and to obtain equal-size groups, we aimed to recruit 105 participants (35 per group). In exploratory analyses, we compared weight change between the Sequential arm and the Simultaneous arm, although we were not adequately powered to detect a significant effect.

Michele L Patel, Christina M Hopkins, Taylor L Brooks, Gary G Bennett

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019;7(2):e12209