Weight loss intervention for young adults using mobile technology: design and rationale of a randomized controlled trial - Cell Phone Intervention for You (CITY).

BACKGROUND: The obesity epidemic has spread to young adults, leading to significant public health implications later in adulthood. Intervention in early adulthood may be an effective public health strategy for reducing the long-term health impact of the epidemic. Few weight loss trials have been conducted in young adults. It is unclear what weight loss strategies are beneficial in this population. PURPOSE: To describe the design and rationale of the NHLBI-sponsored Cell Phone Intervention for You (CITY) study, which is a single center, randomized three-arm trial that compares the impact on weight loss of 1) a behavioral intervention that is delivered almost entirely via cell phone technology (Cell Phone group); and 2) a behavioral intervention delivered mainly through monthly personal coaching calls enhanced by self-monitoring via cell phone (Personal Coaching group), each compared to 3) a usual care, advice-only control condition. METHODS: A total of 365 community-dwelling overweight/obese adults aged 18-35 years were randomized to receive one of these three interventions for 24 months in parallel group design. Study personnel assessing outcomes were blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome is weight change at 24 [corrected] months. We hypothesize that each active intervention will cause more weight loss than the usual care condition. Study completion is anticipated in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: If effective, implementation of the CITY interventions could mitigate the alarming rates of obesity in young adults through promotion of weight loss. ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01092364.

Adaptive intervention design in mobile health: Intervention design and development in the Cell Phone Intervention for You trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The obesity epidemic has spread to young adults, and obesity is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The prominence and increasing functionality of mobile phones may provide an opportunity to deliver longitudinal and scalable weight management interventions in young adults. The aim of this article is to describe the design and development of the intervention tested in the Cell Phone Intervention for You study and to highlight the importance of adaptive intervention design that made it possible. The Cell Phone Intervention for You study was a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored, controlled, 24-month randomized clinical trial comparing two active interventions to a usual-care control group. Participants were 365 overweight or obese (body mass index≥25 kg/m2) young adults. METHODS: Both active interventions were designed based on social cognitive theory and incorporated techniques for behavioral self-management and motivational enhancement. Initial intervention development occurred during a 1-year formative phase utilizing focus groups and iterative, participatory design. During the intervention testing, adaptive intervention design, where an intervention is updated or extended throughout a trial while assuring the delivery of exactly the same intervention to each cohort, was employed. The adaptive intervention design strategy distributed technical work and allowed introduction of novel components in phases intended to help promote and sustain participant engagement. Adaptive intervention design was made possible by exploiting the mobile phone's remote data capabilities so that adoption of particular application components could be continuously monitored and components subsequently added or updated remotely. RESULTS: The cell phone intervention was delivered almost entirely via cell phone and was always-present, proactive, and interactive-providing passive and active reminders, frequent opportunities for knowledge dissemination, and multiple tools for self-tracking and receiving tailored feedback. The intervention changed over 2 years to promote and sustain engagement. The personal coaching intervention, alternatively, was primarily personal coaching with trained coaches based on a proven intervention, enhanced with a mobile application, but where all interactions with the technology were participant-initiated. CONCLUSION: The complexity and length of the technology-based randomized clinical trial created challenges in engagement and technology adaptation, which were generally discovered using novel remote monitoring technology and addressed using the adaptive intervention design. Investigators should plan to develop tools and procedures that explicitly support continuous remote monitoring of interventions to support adaptive intervention design in long-term, technology-based studies, as well as developing the interventions themselves.

Non-Pharmacological Approaches for Pain Management in Sickle Cell Disease: Development of a Mindfulness-Based Intervention

Background: Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) is a genetic hematological disorder that affects more than 7 million people globally (NHLBI, 2009). It is estimated that 50% of adults with SCD experience pain on most days, with 1/3 experiencing chronic pain daily (Smith et al., 2008). Persons with SCD also experience higher levels of pain catastrophizing (feelings of helplessness, pain rumination and magnification) than other chronic pain conditions, which is associated with increases in pain intensity, pain behavior, analgesic consumption, frequency and duration of hospital visits, and with reduced daily activities (Sullivan, Bishop, & Pivik, 1995; Keefe et al., 2000; Gil et al., 1992 & 1993). Therefore effective interventions are needed that can successfully be used manage pain and pain-related outcomes (e.g., pain catastrophizing) in persons with SCD. A review of the literature demonstrated limited information regarding the feasibility and efficacy of non-pharmacological approaches for pain in persons with SCD, finding an average effect size of .33 on pain reduction across measurable non-pharmacological studies. Second, a prospective study on persons with SCD that received care for a vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC; N = 95) found: (1) high levels of patient reported depression (29%) and anxiety (34%), and (2) that unemployment was significantly associated with increased frequency of acute care encounters and hospital admissions per person. Research suggests that one promising category of non-pharmacological interventions for managing both physical and affective components of pain are Mindfulness-based Interventions (MBIs; Thompson et al., 2010; Cox et al., 2013). The primary goal of this dissertation was thus to develop and test the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a telephonic MBI for pain catastrophizing in persons with SCD and chronic pain.

Methods: First, a telephonic MBI was developed through an informal process that involved iterative feedback from patients, clinical experts in SCD and pain management, social workers, psychologists, and mindfulness clinicians. Through this process, relevant topics and skills were selected to adapt in each MBI session. Second, a pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted to test the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of the telephonic MBI for pain catastrophizing in persons with SCD and chronic pain. Acceptability and feasibility were determined by assessment of recruitment, attrition, dropout, and refusal rates (including refusal reasons), along with semi-structured interviews with nine randomly selected patients at the end of study. Participants completed assessments at baseline, Week 1, 3, and 6 to assess efficacy of the intervention on decreasing pain catastrophizing and other pain-related outcomes.

Results: A telephonic MBI is feasible and acceptable for persons with SCD and chronic pain. Seventy-eight patients with SCD and chronic pain were approached, and 76% (N = 60) were enrolled and randomized. The MBI attendance rate, approximately 57% of participants completing at least four mindfulness sessions, was deemed acceptable, and participants that received the telephonic MBI described it as acceptable, easy to access, and consume in post-intervention interviews. The amount of missing data was undesirable (MBI condition, 40%; control condition, 25%), but fell within the range of expected missing outcome data for a RCT with multiple follow-up assessments. Efficacy of the MBI on pain catastrophizing could not be determined due to small sample size and degree of missing data, but trajectory analyses conducted for the MBI condition only trended in the right direction and pain catastrophizing approached statistically significance.

Conclusion: Overall results showed that at telephonic group-based MBI is acceptable and feasible for persons with SCD and chronic pain. Though the study was not able to determine treatment efficacy nor powered to detect a statistically significant difference between conditions, participants (1) described the intervention as acceptable, and (2) the observed effect sizes for the MBI condition demonstrated large effects of the MBI on pain catastrophizing, mental health, and physical health. Replication of this MBI study with a larger sample size, active control group, and additional assessments at the end of each week (e.g., Week 1 through Week 6) is needed to determine treatment efficacy. Many lessons were learned that will guide the development of future studies including which MBI strategies were most helpful, methods to encourage continued participation, and how to improve data capture.