Texts from nanny

[Gob]

Obese people in Stoke-on-Trent will be sent text messages to encourage them to lose weight, the city council has said.



About 70,000 adults in the city are classed as obese according to the council, with the local NHS spending £50m a year on weight-related illness.

"Motivational" texts include: "Use the stairs more", "Eat fruit and veg" and "Keep a check on snacks and drinks".

The 10-week project will cost £10,000 and will be available to 500 people who sign up with the council.

Cabinet member for health Adrian Knapper said: "On average it costs the same amount [£10,000] to perform just one intervention operation to help people manage their weight.

"Our programme means people who already want to lose weight and have signed up with us to get support will receive a cheap and effective nudge to help keep them motivated."

But the leader of the opposition, Conservative councillor Abi Brown, said although she appreciated the sentiment behind the idea, she thought the money could be better spent elsewhere.

"I think we could get more for £10,000," she said.

"If the money went to community groups it could be used to support people losing weight but also for other projects.

"The money could just be used more fruitfully."

Nathan Troni, 55, from the Cheadle area of the city, said he had a body mass index (BMI) of 32, and would consider signing up for the scheme.

"It would be a reminder, I suppose, just to keep on track," he said.

"I don't know whether it would feel like nagging, though.

"I've already got my wife to do that."

Hope Chang, from Chell Heath in the city, said: "To be honest, I can't see it will make a difference.

"You need to have willpower, and if you don't have it, an automated text message won't help.

"If I needed a reminder when I was losing weight, I would look in the mirror," Mrs Chang added.

But fellow of Staffordshire University's health faculty Phil O'Connell said the project was "pioneering".

"This is a really cost-effective use of funds, helping people before they reach the stage of needing massively expensive treatment for a range of obesity-related problems including diabetes, cancer, heart disease and disability," he said.

"This is what public health action should be all about."

The budget of £10,000 includes the setting up of the project as well as the cost of text messaging.

A council spokeswoman said: "This is all about getting people on board and taking action before they need medical support, which is so expensive and personally upsetting.

"This saves both money and suffering."

[Crackpot]

ease up on the all caps you judgmental pricks!

[MajGenl.Meade]

BURN CARBS! MOVE TO ROCHDALE (RUN IF YOU CAN)

[Big RR]

Why would anyone choose to sign up for this?

[Sue U]

Why would anyone choose to sign up for this?

They're not married?

[Big RR]

good point.

[Lord Jim]

What gets me is the cost on this...

about 15 grand( US) to send robo texts to just 500 people for 10 weeks...

Whoever sold them on this is making out like a bandit...

Somebody should have told the Stoke-on-Trent Council members about Fiverr......

[Scooter]

I suspect that figure is primarily one-time, upfront costs to develop the project, that would only increase marginally to reach more participants for longer periods of time.

[Big RR]

Perhaps, but as Abi Brown said:

"I think we could get more for £10,000,"

"If the money went to community groups it could be used to support people losing weight but also for other projects.

"The money could just be used more fruitfully."

[Scooter]

It's easy to make the claim, but projects in community groups don't run themselves. I've sat on a lot of grant review teams, and reviewed a lot of proposals in the $10,000-$20,000 range, and I would be hard pressed to recall even one that purported to reach 500 people repeatedly over the course of 10 weeks.

[Big RR]

Oh, I have no doubt 500 people can be reached; I just doubt that these daily affirmations will have any effect on their behavior.
Other programs might reach less people, but would have a far better chance on helping. For example, running nutrition or exercise classes if we want to restrict it to this area.

[Scooter]

Has anyone proposed funding for such a program and seen it rejected in favour of this one?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Anybody?

[Big RR]

Come on Scooter; I have no idea what was or was not proposed in Stoke on Trent; nor do you I'd bet (and if you do, perhaps you can enlighten us). All I'm saying is I can think of some programs off the top of my head that I'd bet would be more effective than this. If you disagree, then perhaps we can discuss the issues. If you want to play games, the conversation is over.

[Scooter]

I'm not trying to play games, all I'm saying is that it's easy to propose things in the abstract and claim that they will be effective. If the people who are claiming that there was a better way to spend this money have any ideas for doing so, then they should bring them forward and support them with evidence, and they can be compared to what the council is planning to do. Anything else is just so much hot air.

[Lord Jim]

I'm just sorry I wasn't there to bid on the job...

I have a guy I work with who already has the software and expertise set-up to do this kind of work; setting up robo texts to 500 people for 10 weeks would be a piece of cake for him; the only real work involved is the data entry to input the phone numbers; the rest of it, inputting the messages and setting up the schedule would take him about 15 minutes... (in fact presumably the phone numbers would be on a spread sheet, so even loading those in wouldn't require any significant effort)

I could have under bid the person who got the contract for this by a third, charged 10K, paid my outsource contact 2, (I probably could get him to do it for less, but generosity creates good karma) and put 8 grand in my pocket...\

And everyone would have thought they walked away a winner..

The Stoke-On-Trentsuckers would be happy because they paid a third less than they'd planned...

My friend would feel well paid...

And I'd have half our vacation expenses at The Atlantis in the Bahamas covered..

Do you know of any other localities in the UK with money burning a hole in their pocket considering this noble and worthwhile service?

[rubato]

I'm not trying to play games, all I'm saying is that it's easy to propose things in the abstract and claim that they will be effective. If the people who are claiming that there was a better way to spend this money have any ideas for doing so, then they should bring them forward and support them with evidence, and they can be compared to what the council is planning to do. Anything else is just so much hot air.

Good point.


Do the experiment and see if it works. Let the people who are willing to go out and actually do something try it out. The anti-smoking programs in Calif. came about because of a lot of trial and error.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm not trying to play games, all I'm saying is that it's easy to propose things in the abstract and claim that they will be effective. If the people who are claiming that there was a better way to spend this money have any ideas for doing so, then they should bring them forward and support them with evidence, and they can be compared to what the council is planning to do. Anything else is just so much hot air.

I think they should get together with the council that planned the hamster programme. Get the Tubolards in a large wheel and have them run until they can fit through a toilet paper roll tube.

[Big RR]

Scooter--sorry, I misunderstood your comment. However, re seeing if it works, if you worked reviewing community grant applications you must have seen things that seem idiotic on their face--things you can't conceive could work (I worked on a charitable board for a few years and saw many things like that). That's my conclusion about this; in the best of all worlds we could afford to fund everything to see if it works (rubato's trial and error), but we cannot, and I cannot conceive there would be a better use for the considerable sum of money than this.

[rubato]

Scooter--sorry, I misunderstood your comment. However, re seeing if it works, if you worked reviewing community grant applications you must have seen things that seem idiotic on their face--things you can't conceive could work (I worked on a charitable board for a few years and saw many things like that). That's my conclusion about this; in the best of all worlds we could afford to fund everything to see if it works (rubato's trial and error), but we cannot, and I cannot conceive there would be a better use for the considerable sum of money than this.

We should try more things but insist on measuring the results to see what works. Even more useless crap keeps getting re-funded because everyone thinks it works, but does not. Its a big country. We can do a lot of experiments and learn from the results. But you have to measure them.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

I think its the responsibility of a city to use the funds they have intelligently and responsibly. They are not funding research, they are investing funds where they believe they will achieve the best results. They are not in the business of funding research. Now there may (and should) be organizations which do fund research "to see what works" (without any guarantee, or even expectation, of beneficial results), but if that's what they are doing they should be more up front about it and get the public in on the decision. Otherwise, it begs the reaction that the funds are being wasted.

And you're right, research or not, we should insist on measuring the results of the investments and stop throwing good money after bad when something doesn't work.