Kathryn I Pollak1, Stewart C Alexander2, Gary Bennett3, Pauline Lyna4, Cynthia J Coffman5, Alicia Bilheimer4, David Farrell6, Michael E Bodner7, Geeta K Swamy8, Truls Østbye9. 1. Cancer Control and Populations Sciences, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, USA; Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, USA. Electronic address: kathryn.pollak@duke.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, USA; Health Services Research and Development Service, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, USA. 3. Cancer Control and Populations Sciences, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, USA; Department of Psychology & Neuroscience and Duke Obesity Prevention Program, Duke University, Durham, USA. 4. Cancer Control and Populations Sciences, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, USA. 5. Health Services Research and Development Service, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, USA; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, USA. 6. People Designs, Durham, USA. 7. Cancer Control and Populations Sciences, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, USA; School of Human Kinetics, Trinity Western University, Langley, USA. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, USA. 9. Cancer Control and Populations Sciences, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, USA; Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:Excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) puts women and children at risk of obesity. We piloted an SMS-texting intervention to promote healthy GWG among overweight and obese women. METHODS: We recruited 35 women and randomized them in a 2:1 fashion to: a tailored SMS-texting intervention (Preg CHAT) vs. a generic texting intervention (Txt4baby). Preg CHAT texts provided personalized feedback based on women's intake of sweetened beverages, fruits and vegetables, fast food, daily steps taken, and weight. We abstracted women's weights from charts and surveyed women at baseline and 32 weeks gestation. RESULTS: Few women refused the study; many (30%) did not complete the study, however. Of those in the Preg CHAT arm, 86% responded to texts, and 80% said they would recommend this program to a friend. For women who completed the surveys (n=23), those in the Preg CHAT arm had a mean gain of 6 less pounds than women in the Txt4Baby arm (95% CI -15.9, 4.0; p=0.24). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study shows feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of a low-intensity and disseminable intervention to help overweight and obese women reduce GWG. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: An SMS texting program might help overweight women reduce excessive GWG.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES:Excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) puts women and children at risk of obesity. We piloted an SMS-texting intervention to promote healthy GWG among overweight and obesewomen. METHODS: We recruited 35 women and randomized them in a 2:1 fashion to: a tailored SMS-texting intervention (Preg CHAT) vs. a generic texting intervention (Txt4baby). Preg CHAT texts provided personalized feedback based on women's intake of sweetened beverages, fruits and vegetables, fast food, daily steps taken, and weight. We abstracted women's weights from charts and surveyed women at baseline and 32 weeks gestation. RESULTS: Few women refused the study; many (30%) did not complete the study, however. Of those in the Preg CHAT arm, 86% responded to texts, and 80% said they would recommend this program to a friend. For women who completed the surveys (n=23), those in the Preg CHAT arm had a mean gain of 6 less pounds than women in the Txt4Baby arm (95% CI -15.9, 4.0; p=0.24). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study shows feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of a low-intensity and disseminable intervention to help overweight and obesewomen reduce GWG. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: An SMS texting program might help overweight women reduce excessive GWG.
Authors: Tiffany A Moore Simas; Xun Liao; Anne Garrison; Gina M T Sullivan; Allison E Howard; Janet R Hardy Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Suzanne Phelan; Maureen G Phipps; Barbara Abrams; Francine Darroch; Andrew Schaffner; Rena R Wing Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Kimberly K Vesco; Andrea J Sharma; Patricia M Dietz; Joanne H Rizzo; William M Callaghan; Lucinda England; F Carol Bruce; Donald J Bachman; Victor J Stevens; Mark C Hornbrook Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Robyn Whittaker; Sabrina Matoff-Stepp; Judy Meehan; Juliette Kendrick; Elizabeth Jordan; Paul Stange; Amanda Cash; Paul Meyer; Julie Baitty; Pamela Johnson; Scott Ratzan; Kyu Rhee Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-10-18 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Shelly M Asbee; Todd R Jenkins; Jennifer R Butler; John White; Mollie Elliot; Allyson Rutledge Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Kevin Patrick; Fred Raab; Marc A Adams; Lindsay Dillon; Marian Zabinski; Cheryl L Rock; William G Griswold; Gregory J Norman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2009-01-13 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jodie M Dodd; Jennie Louise; Courtney Cramp; Rosalie M Grivell; Lisa J Moran; Andrea R Deussen Journal: Matern Child Nutr Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Ellen M Greene; Eileen C O'Brien; Maria A Kennelly; Orna A O'Brien; Karen L Lindsay; Fionnuala M McAuliffe Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Diana Sherifali; Kara A Nerenberg; Shanna Wilson; Kristi B Adamo; Kevin Semeniuk; Muhammad Usman Ali; Leanne M Redman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-10-13 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Abigail Gamble; Monica L Baskin; Katherine L Cranston; Sharon J Herring; Elizabeth Hinton; Mary Margaret Saulters; Justin B Moore; Michael A Welsch; Bettina M Beech Journal: JBI Evid Synth Date: 2020-11