Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:25:02.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The relationship between weight loss and time and risk preference parameters: a randomized controlled trial – Erratum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2011

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Erratum
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Takada, A., Nakamura, R., Furukawa, M., Takahashi, Y., Nishimura, S. & Kosugi, S. (2011) The relationship between weight loss and time and risk preference parameters: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Biosocial Science 43(4), 481503.

In this article the Cohen's d values are incorrect in Tables 3 and 6, and in the text on p. 10, line 17. The corrected tables are given below.

In addition, on p. 8, lines 7–12, the incorrect participant percentages are given. The values are correct in Table 2.

Page 7, line 7, should read: The primary analysis was based on treatment analysis.

Table 3. Outcomes of participants in the tele-care and self-help groups between baseline to 8 and 16 (24) weeks

Note: change score=post-treatment score minus baseline score.

p-value: comparison between baseline and 8 weeks or 16 weeks (24 weeks).

Cohen's d: effect size between groups.

a With 16 items (at a range of 0–16). A higher score indicates a higher degree of self-efficacy.

b With 10 items (at a range of 0–50). The more merits and demerits gained, the higher the scores.

c PCS: physical component summary; MCS: mental component summary. A higher score indicates a better statement of the HQOL.

d The time effect represents the results of the GLM repeated measure analysis for the difference between baseline, 8 week and 16 week values of each variables in the entire study population.

e The time×group effect represents the results of the GLM repeated measure analysis assessing whether the trend of change in each variable differed among the groups.

Table 6. Health check outcomes of participants in the time-discounting–T1/T2–loss and no-time-discounting–T1/T2–loss groups, and risk-aversion–R1/R2–gain and no-risk-aversion–R1/R2–gain groups between baseline and 16 weeks

Change score=post-treatment score minus baseline score.

p-value: comparison between baseline and 8 weeks or 16 weeks.

Cohen's d: effect size between groups.

T1(T2)–loss=time discounting T1(T2) loss group.

{(Baseline time discounting T1(T2))–(time discounting T1(T2) after 24 weeks)} >0.

No-T1(T2)–loss=no time discounting T1(T2) loss group.

{(Baseline time discounting T1(T2))–(time discounting T1(T2) after 24 weeks)} ≤0.

Risk aversion R1(R2)–gain=risk aversion R1(R2) gain group.

{(risk aversion R1(R2) after 24 weeks)–(baseline risk aversion R1(R2))} >0.

No-R1(R2)–gain=no risk aversion R1(R2) gain group.

{(risk aversion R1(R2) after 24 weeks)–(baseline risk aversion R1(R2))} ≤0.

References

Takada, A., Nakamura, R., Furukawa, M., Takahashi, Y., Nishimura, S. & Kosugi, S. (2011) The relationship between weight loss and time and risk preference parameters: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Biosocial Science 43(4), 481503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 3. Outcomes of participants in the tele-care and self-help groups between baseline to 8 and 16 (24) weeks

Figure 1

Table 6. Health check outcomes of participants in the time-discounting–T1/T2–loss and no-time-discounting–T1/T2–loss groups, and risk-aversion–R1/R2–gain and no-risk-aversion–R1/R2–gain groups between baseline and 16 weeks