BACKGROUND:Many rural residents do not have access to high-quality nutrition counseling for high blood cholesterol. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of an intervention program designed to facilitate dietary counseling for hypercholesterolemia by rural public health nurses. METHODS:Eight health departments (216 participants) were randomized to give the special intervention (SI) and nine (252 participants) to give the minimal intervention (MI). The SI consisted of three individual diet counseling sessions given by a public health nurse, using a structured dietary intervention (Food for Heart Program), referral to a nutritionist if lipid goals were not achieved at 3-month follow-up, and a reinforcement phone call and newsletters. Diet was assessed by the Dietary Risk Assessment (DRA), a validated food frequency questionnaire, at baseline, 3-, and 12-month follow-up; blood lipids and weight were assessed at baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS:Participants were largely female (71%), older (mean age 55), and white (80%). At 3-month follow-up, the average reduction (indicating dietary improvement) in total Dietary Risk Assessment score was 3.7 units greater in the SI group (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9 to 5.5, P = 0.0006), while both groups experienced a similar reduction in blood cholesterol, 14.1 mg/dL (0.37 mmol/L) for SI and 14.5 mg/dL (0.38 mmol/L) for minimal intervention group (difference -0.4 mg/dL [-0.010 mmol/L], 95% CI -12.5 to 11.7 [-0.32 to 0.30], P = 0.9). At 12-month follow-up, the reduction in total Dietary Risk Assessment score was 2.1 units greater in the SI group (95% CI 0.8 to 3.5, P = 0.005), while the reduction in blood cholesterol was similar in both groups, 18.4 mg/dL (0.48 mmol/L) for SI and 15.6 mg/dL (0.40 mmol/L) for minimal intervention group (difference 2.8 mg/dL [0.07 mmol/L], 95% CI -7.5 to 13.1 [-0.19 to 0.34], P = 0.6). During follow-up, weight loss was greater in the SI group; the difference between groups was statistically significant at 3 (1.9 lb [0.86 kg], 95% CI 0.3 to 3.4 [0.14 to 1.55], P = 0.022) and 6 months (2.1 lb [0.95 kg], 95% CI 0.1 to 4.1 [0.04 to 1.86], P = 0.04). At 12 months, the difference was not significant (1.6 lb [0.73 kg], 95% CI -0.05 to 3.7 [-0.02 to 1.68], P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS:Improvement in self-reported dietary intake was significantly greater in the SI group, while reduction in blood cholesterol was similar in both groups.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Many rural residents do not have access to high-quality nutrition counseling for high blood cholesterol. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of an intervention program designed to facilitate dietary counseling for hypercholesterolemia by rural public health nurses. METHODS: Eight health departments (216 participants) were randomized to give the special intervention (SI) and nine (252 participants) to give the minimal intervention (MI). The SI consisted of three individual diet counseling sessions given by a public health nurse, using a structured dietary intervention (Food for Heart Program), referral to a nutritionist if lipid goals were not achieved at 3-month follow-up, and a reinforcement phone call and newsletters. Diet was assessed by the Dietary Risk Assessment (DRA), a validated food frequency questionnaire, at baseline, 3-, and 12-month follow-up; blood lipids and weight were assessed at baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS:Participants were largely female (71%), older (mean age 55), and white (80%). At 3-month follow-up, the average reduction (indicating dietary improvement) in total Dietary Risk Assessment score was 3.7 units greater in the SI group (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9 to 5.5, P = 0.0006), while both groups experienced a similar reduction in blood cholesterol, 14.1 mg/dL (0.37 mmol/L) for SI and 14.5 mg/dL (0.38 mmol/L) for minimal intervention group (difference -0.4 mg/dL [-0.010 mmol/L], 95% CI -12.5 to 11.7 [-0.32 to 0.30], P = 0.9). At 12-month follow-up, the reduction in total Dietary Risk Assessment score was 2.1 units greater in the SI group (95% CI 0.8 to 3.5, P = 0.005), while the reduction in blood cholesterol was similar in both groups, 18.4 mg/dL (0.48 mmol/L) for SI and 15.6 mg/dL (0.40 mmol/L) for minimal intervention group (difference 2.8 mg/dL [0.07 mmol/L], 95% CI -7.5 to 13.1 [-0.19 to 0.34], P = 0.6). During follow-up, weight loss was greater in the SI group; the difference between groups was statistically significant at 3 (1.9 lb [0.86 kg], 95% CI 0.3 to 3.4 [0.14 to 1.55], P = 0.022) and 6 months (2.1 lb [0.95 kg], 95% CI 0.1 to 4.1 [0.04 to 1.86], P = 0.04). At 12 months, the difference was not significant (1.6 lb [0.73 kg], 95% CI -0.05 to 3.7 [-0.02 to 1.68], P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in self-reported dietary intake was significantly greater in the SI group, while reduction in blood cholesterol was similar in both groups.
Authors: Lee Hooper; Carolyn D Summerbell; Rachel Thompson; Deirdre Sills; Felicia G Roberts; Helen J Moore; George Davey Smith Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-05-16
Authors: Deborah Parra-Medina; Sara Wilcox; Dawn K Wilson; Cheryl L Addy; Gwen Felton; Mary Beth Poston Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2009-09-22 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Nancy T Artinian; Gerald F Fletcher; Dariush Mozaffarian; Penny Kris-Etherton; Linda Van Horn; Alice H Lichtenstein; Shiriki Kumanyika; William E Kraus; Jerome L Fleg; Nancy S Redeker; Janet C Meininger; Joanne Banks; Eileen M Stuart-Shor; Barbara J Fletcher; Todd D Miller; Suzanne Hughes; Lynne T Braun; Laurie A Kopin; Kathy Berra; Laura L Hayman; Linda J Ewing; Philip A Ades; J Larry Durstine; Nancy Houston-Miller; Lora E Burke Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-07-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Deborah Parra-Medina; Sara Wilcox; Jennifer Salinas; Cheryl Addy; Elizabeth Fore; Marybeth Poston; Dawn K Wilson Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Stacey L Sheridan; Lindy B Draeger; Michael P Pignone; Philip D Sloane; Carmen Samuel-Hodge; Eric A Finkelstein; Ziya Gizlice; Maihan B Vu; Daniel P Gitterman; Shrikant I Bangdiwala; Katrina E Donahue; Kelly Evenson; Alice S Ammerman; Thomas C Keyserling Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2013-08-02 Impact factor: 2.226