↓ Skip to main content

Treatment fidelity in the Camden Weight Loss (CAMWEL) intervention assessed from recordings of advisor-participant consultations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Obesity, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Treatment fidelity in the Camden Weight Loss (CAMWEL) intervention assessed from recordings of advisor-participant consultations
Published in
BMC Obesity, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40608-018-0203-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lorraine M Noble, Emma Godfrey, Liane Al-Baba, Gabriella Baez, Nicki Thorogood, Kiran Nanchahal

Abstract

Variations in the delivery of content and process can alter the effectiveness of complex interventions. This study examined the fidelity of a weight loss intervention (Camden Weight Loss) from recorded consultations by assessing advisors' delivery of content, use of motivational interviewing approach and therapeutic alliance. A process evaluation was conducted of advisor-participant consultations in a 12-month randomised controlled trial of an intervention for adult volunteers with a body mass index categorised as overweight or obese. A convenience sample of 22 consultations (12% of 191 participants) recorded at the intervention mid-point were available for analysis. Consultations were independently rated by two observers independent of intervention or study delivery, using: a fidelity scale, the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Scale and the Primary Care Therapy Process Rating Scale. Raters were blind to participants' responses to the intervention and weight outcomes. Half the participants (N = 11) achieved significant weight loss (≥ 5% of baseline weight). A mean of 41% of prescribed content was delivered, with a range covered per session of 8-98%, falling below the 100% content expected per session. Tasks included most frequently were: taking weight and waist measurements (98%), scheduling next appointment (86%), review of general progress (85%) and reviewing weight change (84%). Individual items most frequently addressed were 'giving encouragement' and 'showing appreciation of participant's efforts' (95 and 88% respectively). Consultation length (mean 19 min, range 9-30) was shorter than the 30-min allocation. Quantity of content correlated with consultation length (p < 0.01). Advisors' use of motivational interviewing was rated at 'beginner proficiency' for Global Clinician Rating, Reflection to Question Ratio and Percent Open Questions. Therapeutic alliance scores were moderate. Affective aspects were rated highly (e.g. supportive encouragement, involvement and warmth). Intervention fidelity varied in both content and process, emphasising the importance of ongoing fidelity checks in a complex intervention. Advisors focused on certain practical aspects of the intervention and providing an encouraging interpersonal climate. This concurs with other research findings, which have revealed the value participants in a weight loss intervention place on an empathic advisor-participant relationship. Registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00891943, on 1 May 2009.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Unspecified 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 28%
Sports and Recreations 4 9%
Psychology 4 9%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Unspecified 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 November 2018.
All research outputs
#13,936,085
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from BMC Obesity
#113
of 184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,418
of 337,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Obesity
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.