Paul T Fuglestad1, Alexander J Rothman2, Robert W Jeffery3, Nancy E Sherwood4. 1. Department of Psychology, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA. paul.fuglestad@unf.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 4. HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, Bloomington, MN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Regulatory focus theory proposes 2 self-regulatory orientations: promotion focus - related to achieving aspirations and positive outcomes - and prevention focus - related to fulfilling responsibilities and preventing negative outcomes. The investigation examined whether regulatory focus and proximity to goal weight moderated the effectiveness of a weight-loss maintenance intervention. METHODS: Participants who lost ≥10% of their weight were assigned to guided or self-directed treatments and completed regulatory focus and weight goal measures. RESULTS: Across treatment groups, people who were more promotion-focused had better 2-year maintenance rates (defined as regain <25%) than people who were less promotion-focused, especially if far from their goal weight (.59 versus .44). In the guided group, people who were more prevention-focused had better maintenance rates than people who were less prevention-focused if closer to their goal weight (.69 versus .42), but poorer maintenance rates if farther from their goal (.36 versus .72). In the self-directed group, prevention focus was unrelated to maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: Regulatory focus and proximity to goal weight moderated intervention effectiveness. Maintenance may be enhanced by tailoring treatments to regulatory focus and goal weight (eg, prevention-focused people far from their goals may need extra weight-loss support before focusing on maintenance).
OBJECTIVES: Regulatory focus theory proposes 2 self-regulatory orientations: promotion focus - related to achieving aspirations and positive outcomes - and prevention focus - related to fulfilling responsibilities and preventing negative outcomes. The investigation examined whether regulatory focus and proximity to goal weight moderated the effectiveness of a weight-loss maintenance intervention. METHODS:Participants who lost ≥10% of their weight were assigned to guided or self-directed treatments and completed regulatory focus and weight goal measures. RESULTS: Across treatment groups, people who were more promotion-focused had better 2-year maintenance rates (defined as regain <25%) than people who were less promotion-focused, especially if far from their goal weight (.59 versus .44). In the guided group, people who were more prevention-focused had better maintenance rates than people who were less prevention-focused if closer to their goal weight (.69 versus .42), but poorer maintenance rates if farther from their goal (.36 versus .72). In the self-directed group, prevention focus was unrelated to maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: Regulatory focus and proximity to goal weight moderated intervention effectiveness. Maintenance may be enhanced by tailoring treatments to regulatory focus and goal weight (eg, prevention-focused people far from their goals may need extra weight-loss support before focusing on maintenance).
Authors: Jennifer A Linde; Gregory E Simon; Evette J Ludman; Laura E Ichikawa; Belinda H Operskalski; David Arterburn; Paul Rohde; Emily A Finch; Robert W Jeffery Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2011-02
Authors: Marike C Schokker; Joost C Keers; Jelte Bouma; Thera P Links; Robbert Sanderman; Bruce H R Wolffenbuttel; Mariët Hagedoorn Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Nancy E Sherwood; A Lauren Crain; Brian C Martinson; Marcia G Hayes; Julie D Anderson; Jessica M Clausen; Patrick J O'Connor; Robert W Jeffery Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2011-03-29 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: David B Sarwer; Amy von Sydow Green; Marion L Vetter; Thomas A Wadden Journal: Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Laura P Svetkey; Victor J Stevens; Phillip J Brantley; Lawrence J Appel; Jack F Hollis; Catherine M Loria; William M Vollmer; Christina M Gullion; Kristine Funk; Patti Smith; Carmen Samuel-Hodge; Valerie Myers; Lillian F Lien; Daniel Laferriere; Betty Kennedy; Gerald J Jerome; Fran Heinith; David W Harsha; Pamela Evans; Thomas P Erlinger; Arline T Dalcin; Janelle Coughlin; Jeanne Charleston; Catherine M Champagne; Alan Bauck; Jamy D Ard; Kathleen Aicher Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sarah Ellen Scott; Cristiana Duarte; Jorge Encantado; Elizabeth H Evans; Marja Harjumaa; Berit Lilienthal Heitmann; Graham W Horgan; Sofus C Larsen; Marta Moreira Marques; Elina Mattila; Marcela Matos; Marie-Louise Mikkelsen; António L Palmeira; Beth Pearson; Lauren Ramsey; Kirby Sainsbury; Inês Santos; Falko Sniehotta; Carol Stalker; P J Teixeira; R James Stubbs Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lise Solberg Nes; Julia E W C Van Gemert-Pijnen; Rikke Aune Asbjørnsen; Jobke Wentzel; Mirjam Lien Smedsrød; Jøran Hjelmesæth; Matthew M Clark Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 5.428