User Engagement Associated with Web-Intervention Features to Attain Clinically Meaningful Weight Loss and Weight Maintenance in Rural Women
Table 2
Effects of age, intervention group, time (phase), message engagement, and self-tracking engagement on achieving ≥5% weight loss.
Equation
Parameter estimate (95% confidence interval)
Standard error
Wald chi-square
Equation 1: messaging
Age
0.01 (−2.67, 1.69)
0.02
0.37
Web-only vs web + email intervention
0.29 (0.02, 0.56)
0.14
4.41
Phase
0.44 (0.12, 0.77)
0.17
7.08
Low vs high message engagement
−1.37 (−1.99, −0.75)
0.32
18.80
Moderate vs high message engagement
−0.97 (−1.58, −0.37)
0.31
10.00
QIC fit estimate: 432.67
Equation 2: tracking
Age
0.03 (−0.01, 0.06)
0.02
1.55
Web-only vs web + email intervention
0.25 (−0.02, 0.53)
0.14
3.40
Phase
0.49 (0.18, 0.80)
0.16
9.76
Low vs high tracking engagement
−1.12 (−1.68, −0.55)
0.29
15.18
Moderate vs high tracking engagement
−0.42 (−0.94, 0.09)
0.26
2.57
QIC fit estimate: 443.32
Equation 3: messaging and tracking
Age
0.01 (−0.03, 0.05)
0.02
0.09
Web-only vs web + email intervention
0.27 (0.01, 0.54)
0.14
3.98
Phase
0.50 (0.19, 0.82)
0.16
9.92
Low vs high message engagement
−1.32 (−1.98, −0.67)
0.34
15.55
Moderate vs high message engagement
−0.85 (−1.46, −0.24)
0.31
7.35
Low vs high tracking engagement
−0.50 (−1.11, 0.11)
0.31
2.60
Moderate vs high tracking engagement
−0.08 (−0.64, 0.48)
0.28
0.08
QIC fit estimate: 431.67
Note. 180 women used in analyses. QIC = quasi-likelihood under independence model criterion. For phase, phase 1 (baseline to 6 months) = 0 and phase 2 (6 months to 18 months) = 1. ...
