BACKGROUND: Intensive lifestyle intervention trials in type 2 diabetes contribute evidence on what can be achieved under optimal conditions, but are less informative for translation in applied settings. PURPOSE:Living Well with Diabetes is a telephone-delivered weight loss intervention designed for real-world delivery. METHODS: This study is a randomized controlled trial of telephone counseling (n = 151) versus usual care (n = 151); 6-month primary outcomes of weight, physical activity, HbA1c; secondary diet outcomes; analysis was by adjusted generalized linear models. RESULTS: Relative to usual care, telephone counseling participants had small but significantly better weight loss [-1.12 % of initial body weight; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -1.92, -0.33 %]; physical activity [relative rate (RR) = 1.30; 95 % CI, 1.08, 1.57]; energy intake reduction (-0.63 MJ/day; 95 % CI, -1.01, -0.25); and diet quality (3.72 points; 95 % CI, 1.77, 5.68), with no intervention effect for HbA1c (RR = 0.99; 95 % CI, 0.96, 1.01). CONCLUSIONS: Results are discussed in light of challenges to intervention delivery.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Intensive lifestyle intervention trials in type 2 diabetes contribute evidence on what can be achieved under optimal conditions, but are less informative for translation in applied settings. PURPOSE: Living Well with Diabetes is a telephone-delivered weight loss intervention designed for real-world delivery. METHODS: This study is a randomized controlled trial of telephone counseling (n = 151) versus usual care (n = 151); 6-month primary outcomes of weight, physical activity, HbA1c; secondary diet outcomes; analysis was by adjusted generalized linear models. RESULTS: Relative to usual care, telephone counseling participants had small but significantly better weight loss [-1.12 % of initial body weight; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -1.92, -0.33 %]; physical activity [relative rate (RR) = 1.30; 95 % CI, 1.08, 1.57]; energy intake reduction (-0.63 MJ/day; 95 % CI, -1.01, -0.25); and diet quality (3.72 points; 95 % CI, 1.77, 5.68), with no intervention effect for HbA1c (RR = 0.99; 95 % CI, 0.96, 1.01). CONCLUSIONS: Results are discussed in light of challenges to intervention delivery.
Authors: Raman Khanna; Pamela J Stoddard; Elizabeth N Gonzales; Mariana Villagran-Flores; Joan Thomson; Paul Bayard; Ana Gabriela Palos Lucio; Dean Schillinger; Stefano Bertozzi; Ralph Gonzales Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2014-09-19
Authors: M E Whelan; A D Goode; E G Eakin; J L Veerman; E A H Winkler; I J Hickman; M M Reeves Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Genevieve N Healy; Elisabeth A H Winkler; Charlotte L Brakenridge; Marina M Reeves; Elizabeth G Eakin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David W Dunstan; Glen Wiesner; Elizabeth G Eakin; Maike Neuhaus; Neville Owen; Anthony D LaMontagne; Marj Moodie; Elisabeth A H Winkler; Brianna S Fjeldsoe; Sheleigh Lawler; Genevieve N Healy Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-11-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Jacquie Boyang Lu; Kristin J Danko; Michael D Elfassy; Vivian Welch; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Noah M Ivers Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Brianna Fjeldsoe; Philayrath Phongsavan; Adrian Bauman; Ana Goode; Genevieve Maher; Elizabeth Eakin Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 3.295