NURS 6208 GWU Loss Intervention for Young Adults Using Mobile Technology

NURS 6208 GWU Loss Intervention for Young Adults Using Mobile Technology NURS 6208 GWU Loss Intervention for Young Adults Using Mobile Technology I am needing assistance with this power point. I have attached the article, and the grading criteria. Please follow the requirements that are stated. This is a graduate level course. If you have any questions please reach out to me. Thank You. article_review_critique_guidelines_spring_2018.docx obesity1.pdf ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS NURS 6208 Informatics Article Review/Critique Guidelines This is a group assignment. Use the following guidelines to summarize your group’s article and develop a 15-20 minute Tegrity presentation. Your review should show that you can recognize arguments and engage in critical thinking about the course content. You need to address all the questions indicated in this guideline as they pertains to your article. Group presentation is worth up to 100 points. You are to address the following sections in your presentation. The presentation will thoroughly analyze and address the following: I. Author(s), Title, Abstract (10%) a. b. c. d. e. II. Article (10%) a. b. c. d. e. f. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. Points Earned: ______ Thoroughly explain your own reactions and considered opinions regarding the work PowerPoint/Tegrity Presentation. (15%) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Points Earned: ______ What exactly does the work contribute and relate to the overall topic of your course and/or assignment? What general problems and concepts in your discipline and course does it engage with? What implications does this topic have on nursing care? What implications does this topic have on advance practice? What implications does this topic have on future research? What implications does this topic have on nursing administration? What theoretical, ethical, legal issues and topics for further discussion does the work raise? Reactions/Opinions (15%) a. Points Earned: ______ Does the author clearly state an explicit thesis? Does the author have a specific point of view? Is the article “persuasive”? If so, please explain. Significance of Topic (35%) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Points Earned: ______ the specific topic of the article is easily identified the overall purpose of the article is identified, clear, accurate, and unambiguous who is the intended audience? is the article appropriate for intended audience? what kinds of material does the work present (e.g. primary documents or secondary material, personal observations, literary analysis, quantitative data, biographical or historical accounts)? how is this material used to demonstrate and argue the thesis? (As well as indicating the overall argumentative structure of the work, your review could quote or summarize specific passages to describe the author’s presentation, including writing style and tone). Statement of Thesis (10%) a. b. c. Points Earned: ______ the author(s) qualification/position indicate a degree of knowledge in this particular field, explain how well the acknowledgements, reference list, and index provide clues about where and how the piece was originally published, and about the author’s background and position whether the title is clear, accurate, and/or unambiguous whether the abstract offers a clear overview of the study or not, and whether the abstract includes the research problem, sample, methodology, findings and/or recommendations Points Earned: ______ Overall presentation Style/manner of presentation. Creativity, presentation appeal (poise, pronunciation, voice quality, pitch, clarity) Ability to stimulate discussion . NURS 6208 GWU Loss Intervention for Young Adults Using Mobile Technology (Each audience member is to post any discussion questions/comments using the “Discussion Tool”). PowerPoint: Typing, neatness, spelling, punctuation, grammar References in APA format Time Management (15-20 minutes in length) Content (2.5%) a. Is accurate, thorough, and not just a reiteration of text b. Includes interpretation and clarification of meanings c. Is organized, coherent, tied together and fluent Evaluation by Group Members (individual score = evaluation avg from group members) (2.5%) Points Earned: ______ Points Earned: ______ (individual grade) Obesity Obesity Symposium CLINICAL TRIALS AND INVESTIGATIONS Cell Phone Intervention for You (CITY): A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Behavioral Weight Loss Intervention for Young Adults Using Mobile Technology Laura P. Svetkey1,2, Bryan C. Batch3, Pao-Hwa Lin1,2, Stephen S. Intille4,5, Leonor Corsino3, Crystal C. Tyson1, Hayden B. Bosworth6,7,8,9, Steven C. Grambow10, Corrine Voils6,9, Catherine Loria11, John A. Gallis10, Jenifer Schwager1,2, and Gary B. Bennett12,13 Objective: To determine the effect on weight of two mobile technology-based (mHealth) behavioral weight loss interventions in young adults. Methods: Randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness trial in 18- to 35-year-olds with BMI 25 kg/m2 (overweight/obese), with participants randomized to 24 months of mHealth intervention delivered by interactive smartphone application on a cell phone (CP); personal coaching enhanced by smartphone self-monitoring (PC); or Control. Results: The 365 randomized participants had mean baseline BMI of 35 kg/m2. Final weight was measured in 86% of participants. CP was not superior to Control at any measurement point. PC participants lost significantly more weight than Controls at 6 months (net effect 21.92 kg [CI 23.17, 20.67], P 5 0.003), but not at 12 and 24 months. NURS 6208 GWU Loss Intervention for Young Adults Using Mobile Technology Conclusions: Despite high intervention engagement and study retention, the inclusion of behavioral principles and tools in both interventions, and weight loss in all treatment groups, CP did not lead to weight loss, and PC did not lead to sustained weight loss relative to Control. Although mHealth solutions offer broad dissemination and scalability, the CITY results sound a cautionary note concerning intervention delivery by mobile applications. Effective intervention may require the efficiency of mobile technology, the social support and human interaction of personal coaching, and an adaptive approach to intervention design. Obesity (2015) 23, 2133-2141. doi:10.1002/oby.21226 Introduction Obesity is present in 35% of young adults (defined as age 18-35 years) in the US (1) and deserves attention: Weight gain is most rapid during these years (2,3); increasing body mass index (BMI) in young adulthood increases the risk of developing metabolic syndrome over the subsequent 15 years almost 20-fold (4); and weight gain in early adulthood is also associated with increased coronary calcification in middle age (5), forecasting future cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. These data suggest the need for effective and sustainable weight control strategies early in adult life (6). 1 Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA. Correspondence: Laura P. Svetkey ([email protected]) 2 Sarah W. Stedman Nutrition and Metabolism Center, Duke Molecular Physiology Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA 3 Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA 4 College of Computer and Information Science, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA 5 Bouve College of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA 6 Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA 7 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA 8 School of Nursing, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA 9 Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA 10 Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA 11 Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA 12 Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA 13 Duke Obesity Prevention Program, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA. Funding agencies: The CITY study was sponsored by grant number U01HL096720 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Disclosure: Dr. Svetkey is a consultant to Oregon Center for Applied Science (ORCAS; Eugene, Oregon), a health innovation company that creates self-management programs to improve physical and emotional well-being. Dr. Grambow is a consultant to Gilead Sciences as a member of multiple DSMBs. Although the relationship is not perceived to represent a conflict with the present work, it has been included in the spirit of full disclosure. Dr. Bennett is a member of the scientific advisory board at Nutrisystem and owns shares in Scale Down, a digital weight loss vendor. Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article. Received: 21 March 2015; Accepted: 15 June 2015; Published online 4 November 2015. doi:10.1002/oby.21226 www.obesityjournal.org Obesity | VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2015 2133 Obesity CITY Weight Loss Trial—Main Results Svetkey et al. Effective behavioral weight loss strategies involve regular personal contact with a trained interventionist using behavioral techniques such as self-monitoring and goal setting (6). Evidence-based obesity treatment recommendations endorse high-intensity intervention: 14 in-person interventionist sessions over 6 months (6). However, the optimal behavioral “dose” is unclear (7), and a smaller effect with lower intensity intervention might be offset by the potential for increased scalability. In addition, trials testing comprehensive behavioral approaches have primarily included middle-aged adults and suggest that intervention is more effective as age increases (8,9). Thus the potential of personal coaching for weight loss in a younger population is unknown. Similarly, commercial mobile technology mHealth applications (“apps”) are widely downloaded for weight loss but have not been rigorously tested for efficacy or effectiveness. Behavior change techniques known to produce clinically meaningful weight loss are often absent (10,11), calling into question whether apps can have the desired effect (12,13). Because of the potential for scalability and wide dissemination, we sought to determine the weight loss potential of mobile technology on its own. NURS 6208 GWU Loss Intervention for Young Adults Using Mobile Technology In order to improve the efficiency of behavior change methods known to be effective, we tested a low-intensity personal coaching intervention enhanced by mobile technology. The Cell Phone Intervention for You (CITY) study was a three-arm randomized trial comparing the effect on weight over 24 months of behavioral intervention that was delivered almost entirely via a smartphone app of our design (CP) or behavioral intervention delivered through personal coaching enhanced by self-monitoring via smartphone (PC), each compared to Control. We hypothesized that CP and PC would each be superior to Control. We made no a priori hypothesis about CP relative to PC. Methods The CITY study was one of seven trials in the Early Adult Reduction of weight through LifestYle Intervention (EARLY) consortium, sponsored by NHLBI (1U01HL096720). Each EARLY trial was conducted independently. However, in order to facilitate future comparison, the EARLY trials had common eligibility criteria, measurement methods, and primary outcome (14). The design of CITY is reported elsewhere (15). Study population CITY was approved by the Duke Institutional Review Board and an NHLBI-appointed Protocol Review Committee/Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). Enrollment occurred between December 2010 and February 2012. Individuals were eligible if they were aged 18-35 years, had overweight or obesity (BMI 25 kg/m2), and used a mobile telephone. For logistical reasons, participants were required to receive service from either Verizon or AT&T. Individuals were excluded if they were taking weight loss medications or corticosteroids, had weight loss surgery, weighed more than 440 lbs (the limit of study scales), or had any condition deemed unsafe for the study. Recruitment occurred primarily by advertising and mass mailings. 2134 Obesity | VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2015 Pre-screening assessment occurred by participants’ choice of telephone, interactive voice response (IVR), short message service (SMS), or online survey. Participants were further screened by telephone followed by a face-to-face visit, during which all participants provided written informed consent. Randomization occurred at a separate face-to-face visit within 10 weeks of screening, at which baseline weight was obtained. Randomization was stratified by gender and BMI (overweight [BMI 25 and <30 kg/m2] vs. obese [BMI 30 kg/m2]) with equal allocation to each treatment group. Intervention lasted 24 months, with data collection at 6, 12, and 24 months post-randomization. Outcomes The primary outcome was weight change in kilograms (kg) at 24 months. Secondary outcomes included weight changes at 6 and 12 months, percent change in weight at each time point, and weight changes in subgroups defined by self-identified race, sex, and age. Other pre-specified outcomes include change in dietary pattern and physical activity (PA) (15). Interventions Both the cell phone (CP) and personal coaching (PC) interventions were designed by our research team, based on social cognitive theory (16) and the transtheoretical model (17). Both interventions used techniques of behavioral self-management (18) and motivational enhancement (19). Targeted goals and behaviors included moderate calorie restriction, healthy dietary pattern (based on the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension [DASH] dietary pattern) (20), 180 min/week of moderate PA, limited alcohol intake, and frequent self-monitoring of weight, diet, and PA (6). Both interventions were designed with input from the target population obtained through focus groups that were conducted in the year before the trial began (21). The major difference between CP and PC was the source of intervention delivery and the use of the smartphone. In CP, the smartphone was used for both intervention delivery and self-monitoring. Specifically, the intervention was delivered exclusively through an investigator-designed smartphone app which included goal setting, challenge games, and social support through a “buddy system” that allowed exchange of pre-determined messages to a randomly assigned buddy participant. Self-management behaviors for CP were regularly and frequently prompted by the app according to a protocol-driven schedule; participants did not have a choice in the timing or frequency of prompts. Tailoring within the CP intervention occurred mainly via setting personal goals. Self-monitoring by smartphone was achieved by tracking weight, dietary intake, and physical activity, with frequent prompts to self-monitor and feedback on the results. In contrast, the PC intervention was delivered primarily by an interventionist during six weekly group sessions followed by monthly phone contacts. Intervention elements such as goal setting, challenges, and social support were delivered through these personal coaching interactions, with extensive tailoring during the conversations with the interventionist. NURS 6208 GWU Loss Intervention for Young Adults Using Mobile Technology The smartphone was used exclusively for self-monitoring, with tracking of weight, dietary intake, and physical activity initiated by the participant (i.e., without smartphone prompts), transmitted to the interventionist, and incorporated by the interventionist into the coaching sessions. The PC interventionists were dietitians trained in Motivational www.obesityjournal.org Obesity Symposium Obesity CLINICAL TRIALS AND INVESTIGATIONS Figure 1 CONSORT diagram. *1 additional Control participant did not have 24-month weight but contributed data for other outcomes. ^Includes: weight loss surgery, program, intervention study (n 5 20); BMI<25 kg/m2 (n 5 7); >15 lbs weight loss in last 3 months (n 5 2). ‡Participants were eligible at time in screening process when they declined. Interviewing. Fidelity to the intervention protocol was monitored by the intervention director (P-HL) during regular observation of the group sessions and review of audiotaped monthly calls. Height was measured in duplicate to the nearest 0.1 cm, with the participant shoeless using a wall-mounted stadiometer. BMI was calculated as weight [kg]/height [m]2. In both CP and PC, participants received an Android smart phone, and their personal phone number was transferred to the CITY phone. Participants were expected to use the CITY phone as their sole personal phone. Because text and data service were required for both interventions, participants were reimbursed for this portion of their phone bill. Participants were also provided a Bluetooth-enabled scale (Tanita HD-351BT) for weight self-monitoring, which automatically transmitted weight through their smartphone to the study database. Participants randomized to the Control group were given three handouts on healthy eating and physical activity from the Eat Smart Move More NC program (http://www.eatsmartmovemorenc.com/) but otherwise received no intervention and were not asked to selfmonitor. Use of these materials was not monitored. Waist circumference was measured in duplicate to the nearest 0.1 cm, at the level of the upper iliac crest at the end of a normal exhalation. Dietary intake was assessed by duplicate self-administered 24-h dietary recall (22). Data are summarized as the Healthy Eating Index (HEI), reflecting adherence to DASH (23) and future health outcomes (24). Each of the above duplicate measures was averaged at each visit. Physical activity (PA) in kilocalories per week was assessed by the Paffenbarger questionnaire (25). Statistical analysis Measurements Study measurements were collected on-site in all randomized participants at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months by trained, certified study personnel. Weight was measured in duplicate to the nearest 0.1 lb, with the participant in light indoor clothes without shoes, using a high-quality calibrated digital scale. www.obesityjournal.org The primary analysis was based on intention-to-treat principles. The outcome for the two main study hypotheses (CP vs. Control and PC vs. Control) was absolute weight change in kilograms from baseline to 24 months. A constrained longitudinal data analysis model (cLDA) was used to estimate changes in absolute weight over time and test the primary hypotheses (26). The variables in the model included dichotomous stratification factors (BMI 25 to <30 vs. BMI 30 kg/m2, and male vs. female), a time effect, and the Obesity | VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 11 | NOVEMBER 2015 2135 Obesity CITY Weight Loss Trial—Main Results Svetkey et al. TABLE 1 Baseline characteristics Total, no. Age (years), mean (SD) Female, no. (%) Race category, no. (%) White Black Other Hispanic ethnicity, no. (%) Education level, no. (%) Some college or less College degree or higher Personal income category, no. (%) <24,999 25,000-49,999 50,000 In committed relationship, no. (%) Student, no. (%) Working, no. (%) Weight in kg, mean (SD) Body mass index (kg/m2), mean (SD) [min, max] BMI category, no. (%) Overweight, 25-29.99 kg/m2 Class I obese, 30-34.99 kg/m2 Class II obese, 35-39.99 kg/m2 Class III obese, 401 kg/m2 Waist circumference in cm, mean (SD) Males Females Hypertensiona, no. (%) HEIb Score, mean (SD) Leisure-time physical activity (kcal/week), mean (SD)c Overall Control CP PC 365 29.4 (4.3) 254 (69.6) 123 29.6 (4.3) 85 (69.1) 122 29.2 (4.2) 84 (68.9) 120 29.4 (4.3) 85 (70.8) 205 132 28 21 72 42 9 5 (58.5) (34.1) (7.3) (4.1) 68 (55.7) 42 (34.4) 12 (9.8) 9 (7.4) 65 48 7 7 130 (35.6) 235 (64.4) 40 (32.5) 83 (67.5) 39 (32.0) 83 (68.0) 51 (42.5) 69 (57.5) 121 (34.0) 150 (42.1) 85 (23.9) 217 (59.8) 124 (34.3) 308 (85.1) 101.0 (23.7) 35.2 (7.8) [24.9, 62.4] 43 (35.5) 50 (41.3) 28 (23.1) 72 (59.0) 42 (34.1) 96 (79.3) 101.3 (22.6) 35.1 (7.5) [25.3, 61.6] 38 (31.9) 55 (46.2) 26 (21.8) 72 (59.0) 43 (35.8) 107 (88.4) 102.4 (25.2) 35.7 (8.2) [25.1, 62.4] 40 (34.5) 45 (38.8) 31 (26.7) 73 (61.3) 3 … Purchase answer to see full attachment Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool’s honor code & terms of service . Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

So much stress and so little time? Take care of yourself: let us help you with your task on
NURS 6208 GWU Loss Intervention for Young Adults Using Mobile Technology
Get a 20% Discount on this Paper
Get Help Now
Calculate the price
Make an order in advance and get the best price
Pages (550 words)
$0.00
*Price with a welcome 15% discount applied.
Pro tip: If you want to save more money and pay the lowest price, you need to set a more extended deadline.
We know how difficult it is to be a student these days. That's why our prices are one of the most affordable on the market, and there are no hidden fees.

Instead, we offer bonuses, discounts, and free services to make your experience outstanding.
Sign up, place your order, and leave the rest to our professional paper writers in less than 2 minutes.
step 1
Upload assignment instructions
Fill out the order form and provide paper details. You can even attach screenshots or add additional instructions later. If something is not clear or missing, the writer will contact you for clarification.
s
Get personalized services with Do My Homeworkk
One writer for all your papers
You can select one writer for all your papers. This option enhances the consistency in the quality of your assignments. Select your preferred writer from the list of writers who have handledf your previous assignments
Same paper from different writers
Are you ordering the same assignment for a friend? You can get the same paper from different writers. The goal is to produce 100% unique and original papers
Copy of sources used
Our homework writers will provide you with copies of sources used on your request. Just add the option when plaing your order
What our partners say about us
Check out the latest reviews and opinions submitted by real customers worldwide and make an informed decision.
Economics
Thank you!
Customer 452493, March 16th, 2022
Finance
Wow! I should never have doubted you guys. Thank you for the excellent grade
Customer 452443, August 27th, 2021
Nursing
Excellent! Followed directions and completed a great paper
Customer 452445, August 22nd, 2021
Finance
Thank you
Customer 452445, September 8th, 2021
Philosophy
Thank you! Will definitely use the writer again.
Customer 452443, October 22nd, 2021
Economics
Although the paper did not make it at the requested time, the writer did reach out to me and asked for a short extension which I was okay with.
Customer 452493, March 16th, 2022
Philosophy
The paper was done to my satisfaction. Thnk you.
Customer 452443, November 18th, 2021
National Security Intelligence and Security Analysis
Timeliness
Customer 452457, November 3rd, 2021
Chemical Engineering
Amazing. The writer delivered the draft earlier than expected, lol. I am pleased with the work; I hope my supervisor will like it too.
Customer 452443, September 1st, 2021
Other
Thank you!
Customer 452493, May 29th, 2022
Business Studies
I can't even explain how much your help meant to me. Thnk you always
Customer 452443, November 15th, 2021
Leadership Studies
This is great! Thanks a bunch
Customer 452485, March 1st, 2022
OUR GIFT TO YOU
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code ESSAYHELP