BACKGROUND: In a stepped-down approach, patients begin with a more intensive treatment and are stepped down to a less intensive treatment based on achieving treatment goals. This study compared a standard behavioural weight loss programme (BWLP) to a stepped-down approach to treatment. METHODS:Fifty-two overweight/obese adults (Age: M = 47 years, SD = 13.5; female = 67%) participated in an 18-week BWLP. Half of them were randomly assigned to be stepped down from weekly group meetings based on completion of weight loss goals (3%) every 6 weeks, while the other half remained in their groups regardless of weight loss. RESULTS: There was a significant difference favouring the BWLP in the proportion of participants who met or exceeded their 3% weight loss goal during the first six weeks. While not statistically significant by the end of treatment, the BWLP participants lost nearly 3% more body weight than stepped-down participants (SC = 4.9% vs. BWLP = 7.8%; p = .10). Greater self-monitoring was associated with increased likelihood of stepped-care eligibility and higher percent weight loss at the end of treatment (p < .01). CONCLUSION: There was little evidence to support the efficacy of the stepped-down approach for behavioural weight loss treatment employed in this investigation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In a stepped-down approach, patients begin with a more intensive treatment and are stepped down to a less intensive treatment based on achieving treatment goals. This study compared a standard behavioural weight loss programme (BWLP) to a stepped-down approach to treatment. METHODS: Fifty-two overweight/obese adults (Age: M = 47 years, SD = 13.5; female = 67%) participated in an 18-week BWLP. Half of them were randomly assigned to be stepped down from weekly group meetings based on completion of weight loss goals (3%) every 6 weeks, while the other half remained in their groups regardless of weight loss. RESULTS: There was a significant difference favouring the BWLP in the proportion of participants who met or exceeded their 3% weight loss goal during the first six weeks. While not statistically significant by the end of treatment, the BWLP participants lost nearly 3% more body weight than stepped-down participants (SC = 4.9% vs. BWLP = 7.8%; p = .10). Greater self-monitoring was associated with increased likelihood of stepped-care eligibility and higher percent weight loss at the end of treatment (p < .01). CONCLUSION: There was little evidence to support the efficacy of the stepped-down approach for behavioural weight loss treatment employed in this investigation.
Authors: Ali H Mokdad; Earl S Ford; Barbara A Bowman; William H Dietz; Frank Vinicor; Virginia S Bales; James S Marks Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-01-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jie Liu; Job G Godino; Gregory J Norman; Linda Hill; Karen Calfas; James F Sallis; Elva Arredondo; Cheryl L Rock; Michael Criqui; Shu-Hong Zhu; Kenneth Griffiths; Jennifer Covin; Lindsay Dillon; Kevin Patrick Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: G Norman; J Huang; E P Davila; J K Kolodziejczyk; J Carlson; J R Covin; M Gootschalk; K Patrick Journal: Pediatr Obes Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 4.000
Authors: Evan M Forman; Stephanie G Kerrigan; Meghan L Butryn; Adrienne S Juarascio; Stephanie M Manasse; Santiago Ontañón; Diane H Dallal; Rebecca J Crochiere; Danielle Moskow Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2018-08-25