Table 2.
Description in details of the included articles, 2023.
| Study, Year, Country | Type of study | Sample characteristics | Intervention | Dropout | Quality (MMAT) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictive factors of dropout | Dropout rate and reasons | Results | |||||
| Teixeira et al., 2004, Portugal and USA (27) | Observational study |
n = 158 F Age, y (Mean ± SD): 48.0 ± 4.5 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 31.0 ± 3.8 |
16 wk. lifestyle WL program (CBT) + randomization for online contact (yes or no) Follow-up: 1y Professionals: n.d. |
DO: more previous WL attempts, poorer quality of life, more stringent weight outcome evaluations, lower reported carbohydrate intake at baseline. Completion: Predicted correctly in 84% of all cases. |
DO rate: 30% (n = 47) DO reasons: Lack of time (35%), dissatisfaction with the program/staff (22%), personal life issues (17%), health limitations (17%). |
Predictors of success (16 mo): more moderate weight outcome evaluations, lower level of previous dieting, higher exercise self-efficacy, and smaller waist-to-hip ratio. Success status: predicted correctly in 74% |
*** |
| Dalle Grave et al., 2005, Italy (28) | Observational multicenter study (QUOVADIS) |
n = 1,000 785 F/215 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 45.3 ± 11.1 (F); 45.0 ± 10.4 (M) BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 37.5 ± 6.0 (F); 36.6 ± 5.5 (M) |
Intensive CBT treatment period (3–6 mo), followed by less intensive continuous care (every 2–4 mo), Follow-up: 36 mo Professionals: n.d. |
DO + disagreed with the treatment program: higher BMI. a higher maximum BMI, higher Expected One-Year BMI Loss DO + satisfactory results: lower BMI and a lower maximum BMI Completion: older, lower Expected One-Year BMI Loss. |
DO rate: 20% (after the first visit), 58% (12 mo), 84.3% (36 mo) DO rate differs between centers, ranging from 61 to 98% DO reasons: logistics, unsatisfactory results and lack of motivation. |
WL: 5.2% in completers vs. 3.0% in DO DO patients satisfied with the results or confident to lose additional weight without professional help reported a mean WL of 9.6 and 6.5%, respectively. Predictor for continuous care: lower Expected One-Year BMI Loss DO ↑ systematically for any 5% expected BMI loss. |
**** |
| Dalle Grave et al., 2005, Italy (29) | Observational study (QUOVADIS) |
n = 1785 1,393 F/392 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 44.8 ± 11.1 (F); 44.0 ± 10.7 (M) BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 38.2 ± 6.3 (F); 38.0 ± 6.6 (M) |
CBT, Follow-up: 12 mo Professionals: n.d. |
DO (12 mo): age and expected 1-year BMI loss | DO rate at 1y: 51.7% (n = 923) | DO ↑ systematically for a unit increase in expected BMI loss at 1y Risk elevated in the first 6 mo. |
**** |
| Stahre et al., 2005, Sweden (30) | Randomized controlled trial |
n = 105 F Age, y (Mean ± SD): 45.4 ± 9.8 (CBT); 45.2 ± 11.3 (Control) BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): n.d. BMI, kg/m2 ≥ 30 |
CBT 10 wk. (n = 62) vs. Control: wait-list group (n = 43) Follow-up: 18 mo Professionals: Social worker CBT specialized. |
Not mentioned | Completion: 92% in the intervention group (n = 57) DO reasons (10 wk): practical reasons, not agree with the treatment method. DO rate at 18 mo: 40% |
Mean WL: 8.5 kg (CBT) (SD = 16.1) vs. + 2.3 kg (SD = 7.0) (control). Significant weight difference between groups at the 18 mo follow-up |
**** |
| Bauer et al., 2006, Switzerland (31) | Randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study |
n = 73 68F/5M 29 with/44 without sBED Age, y (Mean ± SD): sBED 42.0 ± 13.8 (sibutramine); 40.1 ± 5.6 (placebo) no-BED 45.1 ± 10.1 (sibutramine); 40.5 ± 10.2 (placebo) BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): sBED 34.1 ± 3.8 (sibutramine); 35.9 ± 6.6 (placebo) no-BED 36.1 ± 4.8 (sibutramine); 36.3 ± 4.6 (placebo) |
Sibutramine (10 mg/day for the first 4 wk. and 15 mg/day for the remaining 12 wk) or Placebo in CBT-WL program Follow-up: 16 wk. Professionals: Nutritionist and psychologist |
Not mentioned | DO rate: 27.4%. DO reasons: personal reasons, medication side effects or absence in more than 4 group meetings. Random distribution of DO concerning sibutramine and sBED. |
Higher WL in the sibutramine group, ↓ binge episodes in both groups. | **** |
| Burke et al., 2006, USA (32) | Randomized controlled trial (PREFER) |
n = 182 159 F/23 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 44.1 ± 8.6 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): n.d. BMI, kg/m2 (range): 27–43 |
SBT vs. SBT + LOV, 18 mo Follow-up: n.d. Professionals: n.d. |
Not mentioned | Adherence to self-monitoring: 80% in yes + sCBT, 85% in yes + sCBT + LOV, 86% in no + sCBT, 84% in no + sCBT + LOV. Retention rate: 86.3% at 6 mo |
Change scores (2 groups); carbohydrate and protein consumption, polyunsaturated-to-saturated fat ratio, LDL-C level. SBT-LOV (100% adherents): greater WL, total cholesterol, LDL-C, glucose and consumed less fat. |
*** |
| Grossi et al., 2006, Italy (33) | Observational study (QUOVADIS) |
n = 940 727 F/213 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 50.7 ± 10.7 (continuers); 48.7 ± 10.5 (DO) BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 38.9 ± 7.0 (continuers); 38.5 ± 6.4 (DO) |
Telephone interview to classify reasons for dropouts Follow-up: 41 mo Professionals: Psychologists, clinicians, epidemiologists |
Completion: higher university education | DO rate (1y): 62%. DO rate (41 mo): 81.5% (n = 766). DO reasons: practical difficulties (45%), unsatisfactory results (14%), scarce motivation (12%), confidence in the ability to additional WL without professional help (9%), and other reasons. |
WL, FM, % of subjects achieving a body weight loss>10% and/or a reduction in the FM >5% resulted significantly higher in NPPR group than in the diet-therapy group. | *** |
| Mefferd et al.,2007, USA (34) | Randomized controlled trial |
n = 85 F Breast cancer survivor Age, y (Mean ± SD): 56.3 ± 8.2 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 31.0 ± 4.2 |
Intervention group (CBT) vs. Wait-list group, 16 wk. of weekly sessions Professionals: n.d. |
Not mentioned | DO rate: 10.6% (16 wk) DO reasons: clinical or mammographic evidence denoting breast cancer recurrence, family crisis, and loss of follow-up. |
CBT: ↓ body weight, BMI, waist and hip circumference ↓total body fat (% and kg), trunk fat mass (kg), leg fat mass (kg) ↓ TG and total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio. |
*** |
| Minniti et al., 2007, Italy (35) | Randomized clinical trial |
n = 129 F Age, y (Mean ± SD): 49.5 ± 12.0 (completers); 45.1 ± 9.2 (non-completers) BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 35.6 ± 4.0 (completers); 36.2 ± 6.4 (non-completers) |
IT (n = 72) or GT (n = 57) Follow-up: 6 mo Professionals: Physicians, psychologist, dietitian |
Completers: older, worse BUTa General Severity Index score than non-completers. |
DO rate: 37,2%, higher in IT = 54,2% vs. GT = 15,8%. There was Δ in DO rate | Completers were older and had significantly higher scores in BUTa GSI (1.22 ± 0.64 vs. 1.02 ± 0.62). WL in completers: 6.39 ± 4.63% of initial weight |
*** |
| Stahre et al., 2007, Sweden (36) | Randomized controlled trial |
n = 54 F child-care professionals Age, y (Mean): 48.5 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean): 36.6 |
10 wk.: CBT vs. Behavioral program with physical activity Follow-up: 10 wk. + 18 mo Professionals: Social worker specialized in conservatively treatment, occupational doctor and nurse |
Not mentioned | DO rate: 44% in CBT vs. 26% (control) at the end of the treatment. 87% of completers in CBT vs. 80% in the control group at 18 mo follow-up. DO reasons: work, on sick leave and unknown reasons |
WL (end of treatment): 8.6 kg (CBT) and 0.7 kg (control). | **** |
| Befort et al., 2008, USA (37) | Pilot randomized controlled trial |
n = 44 F Afro American Age, y (Mean ± SD): 44.3 ± 11.6 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 39.8 ± 6.4 |
Behavioral WL program +: - MI (Motivational Interviewing) vs. - HE (Health Education) Professionals: Doctorate-level psychologist and a Masters-level counselor or dietitian |
Not mentioned | DO rate: 22.7% DO reasons: lost to follow-up. |
No significant differences between MI and HE in adherence or treatment outcome: completion of individual sessions did not differ | *** |
| Lowe et al., 2008, USA (38) | Randomized controlled trial |
n = 103 F Age, y (Mean ± SD): 43.9 ± 10.5 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 31.9 ± 2.6 61.2% whites, 35.9% African Americans, 2.9% Asians |
WL phase (8 wk), WL maintenance (14 wk): CBT (CG) vs. CBT + EFMA vs. CBT + EFMA + REDE Professionals: n.d. |
DO: significantly more likely to be African Americans than whites and more likely not to have a college degree | DO rate: 12% (9 wk), 22% (post-intervention), 31% (6 mo), 40% (18 mo). | WL: 7.6 ± 2.6 kg during WL phase and 1.8 ± 2.3 kg during WM phase. No Δ among groups and all groups regained weight between 6–18 mo follow-up. |
**** |
| Brambilla et al., 2009, Italy (39) | Randomized controlled trial |
n = 30 F with BED Age, y (Mean ± SD): Group 1: 47.0 ± 8.0 Group 2: 45.0 ± 11.0 Group 3: 46.0 ± 8.0 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): Group 1: 39.0 ± 6.0 Group 2: 34.0 ± 6.0 Group 3: 34.0 ± 5.0 |
Group 1 (1700 kcal diet + CBT + sertraline and topiramate) vs. Group 2 (1700 kcal diet + CBT + sertraline) vs. Group 3 (nutritional counseling + CBT) Follow-up: 6 mo Professionals: Nutritionists, psychiatrists |
Not mentioned | DO rate: 16% DO reasons: lack of motivation, family problems |
↓ BMI, weight. Binge episode frequency in group 1. | ** |
| Dalle Grave et al., 2009, Italy (40) | Longitudinal observational study (QUOVADIS) |
n = 500 394 F/106 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 46.2 ± 10.8 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 37.3 ± 5.6 |
12 mo WL treatment (CBT) Professional: Physicians |
Not mentioned | DO rates were significantly different among centers. During the study, a large DO rate was observed. |
Successful WL was associated with ↑ dietary restraint and ↓ disinhibition. | **** |
| Donini et al., 2009, Italy (41) | Prospective trial (non-randomized) |
n = 464 380 F/84 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 46.4 ± 12.0 (NPPR); 45.1 ± 13.0 (N) BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): n.d. |
Standard diet vs. NPPR (physical activity + CBT). Follow-up: duration of the treatment was not fixed in advance. Professional: Dietician and psychotherapist |
Not mentioned | DO rate: 5.5% in NPPR vs. 54.4% | ↓ weight and BMI higher in NPPR NPPR treatment duration was higher |
*** |
| Forlani et al., 2009, Italy (42) | Prospective cohort observational survey |
n = 822, T2DM patients 413 F/409 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 64.8 ± 10.3 (Diet) 62.4 ± 9.8 (ENE) 56.7 ± 8.5 (CBT) BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): n.d. |
Diet vs. ENE (4 sessions) vs. CBT (12 and 15 sessions) Follow-up: 4y observation, Professionals: Dietitian, physician, psychologist |
Not mentioned | DO rate: less than 5% (2y), 7%, (4y), not different among groups. | Higher WL in CBT. ENE and CBT associated with ↓ risk of de novo insulin treatment |
*** |
| Werrij et al., 2009, Netherlands (43) | Randomized controlled trial |
n = 200 162 F/38 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 45.0 ± 12.0 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 33.4 ± 4.6 |
CDT (diet + CBT) vs. EDT (diet + exercise), 10wk sessions Follow-up: 1y Professionals: Dietitian, cognitive behavior therapist, physiotherapist |
DO had higher pretreatment scores on weight concerns, shape concerns, eating psychopathology, and depression. | DO rate: 21% Higher DO in EDT (26%) than in the CDT (16%), predicted by higher pretreatment eating psychopathology (EDE-Q global scores) and by specific treatment |
WL: ↓1.36 BMI points CDT vs. ↓ 1.44 BMI points EDT in short-term; ↓ 1.35 BMI points CDT vs. ↓ 1.08 BMI points EDT. EDT group regained 25% of weight lost, CDT group no. |
**** |
| Garaulet et al., 2010, Spain (44) | Explanatory study |
n = 454 380 F/74 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 39.2 ± 11.2 (completers); 39.3 ± 12.1 (non-completers) BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 30.2 ± 4.8 (completers); 32.7 ± 5.4 (non-completers) |
Behavioral weight-reduction program, Follow-up: 12 mo Professionals: n. d. |
DO: significantly more obese, significantly greater barriers-to-weight-loss score, more frequent stress with dieting and planned eating less frequently than those who successfully finished the treatment | DO rate: 47.3% | - | *** |
| Makoundou et al., 2010, Switzerland (45) | Explanatory study |
n = 50 Age, y (Mean ± SD): n.d. BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 35.7 ± 0.9 |
Maintenance multifactorial approach (diet + CBT + orlistat ‘on–off’) Follow-up: 2y Professionals: Physician, dietitian |
Not mentioned | DO rate: 12% DO reasons: did not cooperate, failed to return at 2y, underwent a surgical operation for a ring implant. |
29 completers (65%) with no relapse vs. 15 with relapse (35%). At 2y body weight remained stable and among all subjects 58% experienced additional WL, while 42% had at least one episode of weight regain during 2y follow-up. |
*** |
| Buscemi et al., 2011, Italy – Lebanon and USA (46) | Cohort study |
n = 251 Age, y (Mean ± SD): 41.2 ± 3.7 (success group); 40.5 ± 1.6 (failure group) BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 35.9 ± 2.6 (success group); 33.2 ± 0.8 (failure group) |
Medical Nutritional Treatment (MNT) with CBT Follow-up: 10y Professional: Dietitian |
Not mentioned | DO rate: 39% | Completers: 73.2% successful WL (6 mo). 1 year: Success: WL 9.8% (−9 ± 0.4 kg) Failure: WL 3.1% (−2.7 ± 0.2 kg) |
*** |
| Christensen et al., 2012, Denmark (47) | Cluster randomized single-blinded controlled trial (FINALE-health) |
n = 98 F health care workers Age, y (Mean ± SD): n.d. BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 30.7 ± 5.4 (intervention group); 30.4 ± 4.9 (control group) |
Intervention group (diet, physical activity and CBT training) or control group, during working hours 1 h/wk. Follow-up: 12 mo Professional: n.d. |
Not mentioned | DO rate: 15% DO reasons: left company, long term sick, withdrew |
WL (intervention group): −6 kg, BMI (intervention group): −2.2 points, Fat mass (intervention group): −2.8% | ***** |
| Göhner et al., 2012, Germany (48) | Quasi-experimental design |
n = 316 245 F/71 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 50.6 ± 10.8 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 34.7 ± 3.1 |
IG with M.O.B.I.L.I.S program (190) vs. CG (126), Follow-up: 2y Professional: n.d. |
Not mentioned | DO rate: 4.8% (intervention group, first 6 mo) DO reasons: illness or injury, dissatisfaction with the program, excessive strain, vocational, or private changes, unknown reasons. |
Significant decrease in BMI and WL in the intervention group. Increased physical activity level in the intervention group. No significant differences between the groups 2y after baseline. |
**** |
| Buscemi et al., 2013, Italy (49) | Cohort study |
n = 251 Age, y (Mean ± SD): n.d. BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): n.d. |
Medical Nutritional Treatment (MNT) with CBT Follow-up: 10 y Professional: Dietitian |
Not mentioned | DO rate: 64.9% | No significant predictors of the 10y BW change including as covariates age, gender smoking, initial BMI, HADS and DRT items scores | *** |
| Dalle Grave et al., 2013, Italy (50) | Randomized controlled trial |
n = 88 51 F/37 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 47.6 ± 11.1 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 45.6 ± 6.7 |
High Protein Diet (HPD) + CBT vs. High Carbohydrate Diet (HCD) + CBT Follow-up: 3 wk. inpatient and 48 wk. outpatient Professionals: Dietitians, physician and psychologist |
Not mentioned | DO rate in both groups: 25.6%. DO rate (wk 15): 21.6% no differences in DO rates between groups HPD had higher DO rates at wk. 27, but lower rates between wk. 27 and study end compared to HCD group |
WL in HPD: 15%, WL in HCD: 13.3% at 1y. Both diets produced a similar improvement in secondary outcomes |
***** |
| Michelini et al., 2014, Italy (51) | Randomized controlled trial |
n = 146 109 F/37 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 45.0 ± 10.8 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 32.3 ± 3.7 |
Standard Care group (n = 73) or CBT + diet group (n = 73) Follow-up: 6 mo Professionals: Physician, psychologist, dietitian |
DO reasons: high level of stress (GHQ-28 score within VCAO test) | DO rate: 30.1% (39.7% in CBT and 24.7% in Standard Care group), with no significant difference DO reasons: objective reasons (pregnancy, acute illness and unforeseen job difficulties) |
High level of stress appears to be the most important predictor of dropout | *** |
| Tagliabue et al., 2015, Italy (52) | Nested case–control study |
n = 59 F (20 cases vs. 39 controls) Age, y (Mean ± SD): 42.2 ± 10.4 (cases); 42.4 ± 14.0 (controls) BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 36.1 ± 4.4 (cases); 35.6 ± 5.1 (controls) |
CBT (50 min individual sessions) vs. standard diet Follow-up: 6 mo Professional: Psychologist and registered dieticians, 6 months |
DO reasons: lack of motivation, personal family reasons, lack of achievement of satisfactory WL DO: age at first diet attempt (treatment) and SCL-90 anger-hostility sub scale (controls) |
DO rate: 35% in cases, 62% in controls. | CBT was significantly more effective in dropout reduction, without no differences in WL | ***** |
| Dalle Grave et al., 2015, Italy (53) | Observational study (QUOVADIS II) |
n = 634 F Age, y (Mean ± SD): BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): |
Programs of 8 centers: including dieting, CBT and drugs Follow-up: 12 mo Professional: Medical doctor |
DO: higher baseline weight and with younger age; higher percent weight targets, with the notable exception of dream and happy weight | DO rate: 32.3% at 1y | DO was associated with more challenging, acceptable and disappointing weight targets, but not with dream and happy weight goals. | **** |
| Calugi et al., 2016, Italy (54) | Prospective case–control study |
n = 108 F (54 with BED, 54 without BED) Age, y (Mean ± SD): 40.2 ± 13.6 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 39.7 ± 6.1 |
Residential CBT program, 6 mo Follow-up: 5y Professional: experts in the field and clinical psychologists |
Not mentioned | DO rate: 19.5% (6 mo). | Similar WL (at 6 mo and at 5y) and improved psychological variables in both groups, but higher impairment in BED at 6 mo. At 5y follow-up more than half of the BEDs were no longer classifiable as having BED. |
**** |
| Sawamoto et al., 2016, Japan (55) | Part of a randomized controlled trial |
n = 119 F Age, y (Mean ± SD): 47.7 ± 1.2 (completers); 43.9 ± 2.1 (non-completers) BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 31.3 ± 0.5 (completers); 32.0 ± 0.9 (non-completers) |
CBT for WL: (1) 7 mo, (2) 3 mo (maintenance) Follow-up: 2 y (if previous loss >5% initial weight) Professionals: Doctors and certified nutritionist |
DO: stronger body shape concern, tended to not have jobs, perceived their mothers to be less caring, and were more disorganized in temperament | DO rate: 24,4% Most dropped out in the first 3 mo (62.0% of the total dropouts). |
Best DO predictor: shape concern. | *** |
| Calugi et al., 2017, Italy (56) | Randomized controlled trial |
n = 88 51 F/36 M Age, y (Mean ± SD):46.7 ± 11.1 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 45.6 ± 6.7 |
High Protein Diet (HPD) + CBT vs. High Carbohydrate Diet (HCD) + CBT, 51 wk. (27 wk. WL phase, 24 wk. WM) Professional: physicians, registered dietitians, and psychologist |
DO: % WL necessary to reach dream and happy WL goals | DO rate (WL phase): 11.4% | Similar WL expectation and satisfaction between two groups. Expected WL (kg), but no WL (%) predicted WL. Both satisfaction and WL (kg) in kg were independent predictors of WM. |
**** |
| Figura et al., 2017, Germany (57) | Observational pre-post study |
n = 102 75 F/27 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 45.8 ± 10.8 (LSG); 50.6 ± 11.3 (control) BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 51.4 ± 8.1 (LSG); 40.3 ± 6.7 (control) |
LSG group (Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy) (n = 62) vs. Control group (diet, exercise and CBT) 1y (n = 40) Follow-up: 19 mo Professionals: Psychologist or physician specialized in psychosomatic medicine, surgeon, endocrinologist, nurse, dietitian and psychotherapist. |
Not mentioned | DO rate: 30% in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy, 34% in CT. | WL in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: 25.9 kg, WL in CT: 5.4 kg. BMI in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: −7.8 kg/m2, BMI in CT: −7.2 kg/m2. | **** |
| Sasdelli et al., 2018, Italy (58) | Observational study |
n = 793 543 F/250 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 48.7 ± 13.5 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 40.8 ± 7.7 |
Group-based CBT and psychological questionnaires, 3 mo Follow-up: 24 mo Professional: n.d. |
DO was significantly favored by the presence of anxiety and depression in F, not in M, and was significantly reduced by concern for present health (at 6-month, with a non-significant effect in the long term), whereas it was favored by body image dissatisfaction or by considering CBT as a temporary step to bariatric surgery. Short-term DO was driven by more challenging targets, not by dream weight targets. |
DO rate: 12% (3 mo), 24% (6 mo), 41% (12 mo), 55% (24 mo). At 6 mo DO was higher in F (27 vs. 17%); but no gender Δ at 12 mo (43 vs. 36%) and 24 mo (55 vs. 54%) |
WL: 5.8 kg ± 7.1 kg (−4.8%) at 6 mo. WM > 10% at 24 mo (32% of C): 17% |
**** |
| Galindo Munoz et al., 2019, Spain (59) | Randomized clinical trial |
n = 120 90 F/30 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): n.d. BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): n.d. |
Cognitive Training Intervention (hypocaloric diet +12 cognitive training sessions via Brain Exercise) or CBT as control group (hypocaloric diet +30 min sessions) Follow-up: 12 wk. Professional: Dietitians |
Not mentioned | DO rate: 20% No Δ between groups in DO rate. DO reasons: lack of adherence to the intervention. |
Total WL (%) and Δ anthropometric were higher in Cognitive Training Intervention, while biochemical parameters improved in both groups. All cognitive measures improved in Cognitive Training Intervention. |
***** |
| Dalle Grave et al., 2020, Italy (60) | Observational study |
n = 67 51 F/16 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): n.d. BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 39.8 ± 5.8 |
CBT-OB 22 sessions (14 in 6 mo WL phase, 8 in 12 mo WM phase), Professionals: Physician specialized in clinical nutrition and in nursing | Not mentioned | DO rate (WL phase): 13.4% DO rate (WM phase): 10.44% |
WL: 11.5% (10% in the intention to treat analysis) at 6 mo and 9.9% (7.5% in the intention-to-treat analysis) at 18 mo. WL: ↓ cardiovascular risk factors, anxiety, depression and eating disorder psychopathology, and with an improvement in obesity-related quality of life. |
***** |
| Calugi et al., 2021, Italy (61) | Retrospective case–control study |
n = 258 180 F/78 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 57.0 ± 14.2 (lockdown group); 56.5 ± 14.0 (control) BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 41.6 ± 8.3(lockdown group); 42.2 ± 8.1 (control) |
CBT-OB (Low Calorie Diet + physical activity + group sessions) + telephone interview, 21d + 6 mo follow-up Professional: n.d. |
Control: respondents > age to follow-up interview (respondents) 59.6 (SD = 10.8) years VS non-respondents 51.9 (SD = 16.9) years |
DO rate: 45% (intervention) DO rate: 40% (control). DO reasons: refused telephone contact; not found or furnished unreliable data |
WL > 9% and ↓ BED episodes in both groups. Lower WL in lockdown patients. |
**** |
| Gasparri et al., 2022, Italy and Bahrain (62) | Prospective cohort study |
n = 168 117 F/61 M Age, y (Mean ± SD): 58.5 ± 13.0 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 41.3 ± 6.0 |
Multidisciplinary Residential Program (MRP) on WL, 8 w, 1y follow-up (2, 6, 24 mo after discharge). Professionals: Expert dietitian in CBT, physiotherapist (physical activity) |
Not mentioned | Achieving a good WL goal during the rehabilitation program involves maintaining a lower weight afterwards without increasing the risk of DO | Total Mass: −5,68 kg, Fat Mass: – 4.42 kg, Fat Mass Index: −1724.56, Visceral Adipose Tissue: −0.3 kg, Arm Circumference: −1.63 cm, Calf Circumference: −1.16 cm, Free Fat Mass: – 1.24 kg. Improvement in glycaemic and lipid profile | **** |
| Jiskoot et al., 2022, Netherlands (63) | Controlled clinical trial |
n = 183 F with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) Age, y (Mean ± SD): 29.1 ± 4.4 BMI, kg/m2 (Mean ± SD): 34.0 ± 4.4 (LC); 34.7 ± 4.9 (LC + SMS); 32.7 ± 5.1 (UC) |
Lifestyle Counseling (LC, 20 sessions involving CBT) vs. Lifestyle Counseling + SMS (LC + SMS, 20 sessions involving CBT and SMS) vs. Usual Care (UC). Follow-up: 12 mo Professionals: Dietician, psychologist, physical therapist |
DO: higher baseline weight, participation in LC with SMS, and higher levels of androstenedione Completion: Participation in the CG and smoking was associated with lower odds of DO. |
No Δ in DO rates between groups: 60.0% (control), 73.4% (LC), and 57.2% (LC + SMS). Overall DO rate: 63.4% |
Depression and eating behavior were associated with ≥5% of WL. | **** |
F, female; M, male; y, years old (range or average); mo, months; wk, week; d, days; Δ, difference; BMI, Body Mass Index; CBT, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; DO, Drop Out; WL, Weight Loss; WM, Weight Maintenance; FM, fat mass; SBT, Standard behavior treatment; LOV, Lacto-ovo Vegetarian; IT, Individual Nutritional Counseling; GT, (Cognitive Behavioral) Group Therapy; EFMA, Enhanced Food Monitoring Accuracy; REDE, Reduced Energy Density Eating; TFEQ, Three Factor Eating Questionnaire; ENE, Elementary Nutritional Education; sBED, subclinical Binge Eating Disorder; NPPR, Nutrition Psycho-Physical Reconditioning; GRWQ, Goals and Relative Weights Questionnaire; BUT, Body Uneasiness Test; SCL-90, Symptom CheckList; BES, Binge Eating Scale; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; DRT, Dieting Readiness Test; PDQ-4-R, Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4-Revised; LDL-C, Low-density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol; SCL-90, Symptom Checklist-90; TG, triglycerides.