Helen Skouteris1, Skye McPhie1, Briony Hill1, Marita McCabe1, Jeannette Milgrom2, Bridie Kent3, Lauren Bruce1, Sharon Herring4, Janette Gale5, Cathrine Mihalopoulos6, Sophy Shih6, Glyn Teale7, Jennifer Lachal8. 1. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia. 2. School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 3. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Drake Circus, Plymouth University, Devon, UK. 4. Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. Healthchange Australia, Bomaderry, New South Wales, Australia. 6. Deakin Health Economics, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia. 7. Women's and Children's Services, Western Health, Sunshine Hospital, St Albans, Victoria, Australia. 8. Carrington Health, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of a health coaching (HC) intervention designed to prevent excessive gestational weight gain (GWG), and promote positive psychosocial and motivational outcomes in comparison with an Education Alone (EA) group. DESIGN: Randomized-controlled trial. METHODS:Two hundred and sixty-one women who were <18 weeks pregnant consented to take part. Those allocated to the HC group received a tailored HC intervention delivered by a Health Coach, whilst those in the EA group attended two education sessions. Women completed measures, including motivation, psychosocial variables, sleep quality, and knowledge, beliefs and expectations concerning GWG, at 15 weeks of gestation (Time 1) and 33 weeks of gestation (Time 2). Post-birth data were also collected at 2 months post-partum (Time 3). RESULTS: There was no intervention effect in relation to weight gained during pregnancy, rate of excessive GWG or birth outcomes. The only differences between HC and EA women were higher readiness (b = 0.29, 95% CIs = 0.03-0.55, p < .05) and the importance to achieve a healthy GWG (b = 0.27, 95% CIs = 0.02-0.52, p < .05), improved sleep quality (b = -0.22, 95% CIs = -0.44 to -0.03, p < .05), and increased knowledge for an appropriate amount of GWG that would be best for their baby's health (b = -1.75, 95% CI = -3.26 to -0.24, p < .05) reported by the HC at Time 2. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the HC intervention was not successful in preventing excessive GWG, several implications for the design of future GWG interventions were identified, including the burden of the intervention commitment and the use of weight monitoring. STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION: What is already known on the subject? Designing interventions to address gestational weight gain (GWG) continues to be a challenge. To date, health behaviour change factors have not been the focus of GWG interventions. What does this study add? Our health coaching (HC) intervention did not reduce GWG more so than education alone (EA). There was an intervention effect on readiness and importance to achieve healthy GWG. Yet there were no group differences regarding confidence to achieve healthy GWG post-intervention.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of a health coaching (HC) intervention designed to prevent excessive gestational weight gain (GWG), and promote positive psychosocial and motivational outcomes in comparison with an Education Alone (EA) group. DESIGN: Randomized-controlled trial. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-one women who were <18 weeks pregnant consented to take part. Those allocated to the HC group received a tailored HC intervention delivered by a Health Coach, whilst those in the EA group attended two education sessions. Women completed measures, including motivation, psychosocial variables, sleep quality, and knowledge, beliefs and expectations concerning GWG, at 15 weeks of gestation (Time 1) and 33 weeks of gestation (Time 2). Post-birth data were also collected at 2 months post-partum (Time 3). RESULTS: There was no intervention effect in relation to weight gained during pregnancy, rate of excessive GWG or birth outcomes. The only differences between HC and EA women were higher readiness (b = 0.29, 95% CIs = 0.03-0.55, p < .05) and the importance to achieve a healthy GWG (b = 0.27, 95% CIs = 0.02-0.52, p < .05), improved sleep quality (b = -0.22, 95% CIs = -0.44 to -0.03, p < .05), and increased knowledge for an appropriate amount of GWG that would be best for their baby's health (b = -1.75, 95% CI = -3.26 to -0.24, p < .05) reported by the HC at Time 2. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the HC intervention was not successful in preventing excessive GWG, several implications for the design of future GWG interventions were identified, including the burden of the intervention commitment and the use of weight monitoring. STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION: What is already known on the subject? Designing interventions to address gestational weight gain (GWG) continues to be a challenge. To date, health behaviour change factors have not been the focus of GWG interventions. What does this study add? Our health coaching (HC) intervention did not reduce GWG more so than education alone (EA). There was an intervention effect on readiness and importance to achieve healthy GWG. Yet there were no group differences regarding confidence to achieve healthy GWG post-intervention.
Authors: Suzanne Phelan; Rena R Wing; Anna Brannen; Angelica McHugh; Todd A Hagobian; Andrew Schaffner; Elissa Jelalian; Chantelle N Hart; Theresa O Scholl; Karen Munoz-Christian; Elaine Yin; Maureen G Phipps; Sarah Keadle; Barbara Abrams Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Rebecca F Goldstein; Jacqueline A Boyle; Clement Lo; Helena J Teede; Cheryce L Harrison Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 3.007