| Literature DB >> 26867588 |
Manbinder S Sidhu1, Amanda Daley2, Kate Jolly3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many overweight people find it difficult to maintain weight loss after attending a weight reduction programme. Self-weighing and telephone support are known to be useful methods for self-monitoring for weight loss. We examined the effectiveness of an SMS-text messaging based weight maintenance programme to encourage regular self-weighing in adults who had completed a 12 week commercial weight loss programme.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26867588 PMCID: PMC4751717 DOI: 10.1186/s12966-016-0346-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Fig. 1Study design and participant flow
Participant characteristics
| Variable | All participants | Intervention group | Control group |
|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
| Number | 380 (100) | 190 (50) | 190 (50) |
| Mean age in years (SD) | 47.4 (13.4) | 47.8 (13.1) | 47.0 (13.7) |
| Weight on joining Lighten Up Service/kg (SD) | 99.4 (17.0) | 99.7 (17.3) | 99.3 (16.6) |
| Weight on joining Lighten Up Plus/kg (SD) | 93.1 (16.1) | 93.4 (16.2) | 93.0 (16.0) |
| Baseline BMI (SD) | 34.4 (5.0) | 34.5 (4.8) | 34.4 (5.3) |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 39 (10.3) | 20 (10.5) | 19 (10.0) |
| Female | 341 (87.3) | 170 (89.5) | 171 (90.0) |
| Ethnicity | |||
| White British/ Irish/Other | 304 (80.0) | 152 (80.0) | 152 (80.0) |
| Mixed Caribbean/African/other | 11 (2.9) | 6 (3.2) | 5 (2.6) |
| Black Caribbean/African/Other | 31 (8.2) | 14 (7.4) | 17 (8.9) |
| Asian Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi Other | 26 (6.9) | 15 (7.9) | 11 (5.8) |
| Declined | 8 (2.1) | 3 (1.6) | 5 (2.6) |
| Weight loss programme | |||
| Rosemary Conley | 48 (12.6) | 23 (12.1) | 25 (13.2) |
| Slimming World | 243 (63.9) | 118 (62.1) | 125 (65.8) |
| Weight Watchers | 89 (23.4) | 49 (25.8) | 40 (21.1) |
| Occupation | |||
| Employed/Education/Carer | 128 (33.7) | 65 (33.2) | 63 (34.2) |
| Not working/unemployed | 27 (7.1) | 16 (8.4) | 11 (5.8) |
| Retired | 28 (7.4) | 14 (7.4) | 14 (7.4) |
| Unable to code/Missing | 197 (51.8) | 95 | 102 |
| IMD quartile | |||
| 1 (least deprived) | 15 (3.9) | 9 (4.7) | 6 (3.2) |
| 2 | 28 (7.4) | 16 (8.4) | 12 (6.3) |
| 3 | 66 (17.4) | 38 (20.0) | 28 (14.7) |
| 4 | 74 (19.5) | 31 (16.3) | 43 (22.6) |
| 5 (most deprived) | 197 (51.8) | 96 (50.5) | 101 (53.2) |
Weight difference from baseline vs comparator at 3 and 9 months follow up
| Intervention | Control | Mean differenceb | 95 % CI | Adjusted mean differencec | 95 % CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 months | ||||||
| Crude weight difference/kg (sd) | −1.92 (4.44) | −1.76 (5.59) | −0.15 | −1.28, 0.98 | −0.18 | −1.33, 0.98 |
| Weight difference imputed for missing dataa/kg (sd) | −1.90 (3.98) | −1.78 (5.06) | −0.12 | −1.04, 0.79 | −0.11 | −1.05, 0.82 |
| 9 months | ||||||
| Crude weight difference/kg (sd) | 1.02 (8.23) | 1.81 (7.65) | −0.80 | −2.87, 1.28 | −0.80 | −2.80, 1.21 |
| Weight difference imputed for missing dataa/kg (sd) | 1.36 (6.24) | 1.81 (6.02) | −0.46 | −1.69, 0.78 | −0.45 | −1.67, 0.78 |
aMissing data imputed with mean weight change for usual care group; bAdjusted for baseline weight; cAdjusted for baseline weight, age, gender, ethnic group; self-reported data at 3 months
Weight management strategies
| Variable | 3 months | 9 months | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | |||
| Intervention | Control | Intervention | Control | |
| Self-weighing frequency |
|
|
|
|
| Never | 0 (0) | 5 (2.6) | 6 (6.2) | 8 (7.6) |
| Once a year | 2 (1.1) | 0 (0) | 5 (5.2) | 5 (4.8) |
| Several times per year | 2 (1.1) | 10 (5.3) | 10 (10.3) | 6 (5.7) |
| Once a month | 23 (12.1) | 28 (14.7) | 13 (13.4) | 13 (12.4) |
| Weekly | 112 (58.9) | 91 (47.9) | 49 (50.5) | 55 (52.4) |
| Several times a week | 8 (4.2) | 16 (8.4) | 9 (9.3) | 14 (13.3) |
| Daily | 4 (2.1) | 5 (2.6) | 5 (5.2) | 4 (3.8) |
| Regular weight management strategies used |
|
|
|
|
| Planning meals | 77 (40.5) | 78 (41.1) | 41 (43.6) | 48 (47.5) |
| Pacing eating | 59 (31.1) | 51 (26.8) | 33 (36.3) | 23 (24.0) |
| Keeping a record | 26 (13.7) | 50 (26.3) | 14 (15.4) | 22 (21.8) |
| Portion control | 102 (53.7) | 103 (54.2) | 45 (47.4) | 52 (51.5) |
| Increased activity | 53 (27.9) | 63 (33.2) | 26 (28.3) | 35 (35.0) |
| Regular eating | 129 (67.9) | 128 (67.4) | 67 (72.0) | 72 (73.5) |
| Attending commercial programmes |
|
|
|
|
| Weight Watchers | 18 (11.9) | 13 (8.4) | 7 (7.4) | 6 (5.7) |
| Slimming World | 58 (38.4) | 46 (29.7) | 27 (28.7) | 36 (34.3) |
| Rosemary Conley | 7 (4.6) | 4 (2.6) | 3 (3.2) | 2 (1.9) |
| Other | 0 (0) | 1 (0.6) | 5 (5.3) | 3 (2.9) |
| None | 68 (45.0) | 91 (58.7) | 52 (55.3) | 58 (55.2) |
Participant characteristics of those followed-up and lost to follow-up at 9 months
| Variable | Followed-up at 9 m | Lost to follow-up at 9 m |
|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | |
| Number | 227 (59.7) | 153 (40.3) |
| Mean age in years (SD) | 50.5 (12.3) | 42.8 (13.6) |
| Weight on joining Lighten Up Service/kg (SD) | 98.7 (16.0) | 100.5 (18.3) |
| Weight on joining Lighten Up Plus/kg (SD) | 92.4 (15.4) | 94.5 (16.8) |
| Baseline BMI (SD) | 34.0 (4.8) | 35.1 (5.4) |
| Weight loss during Lighten Up (SD) | 6.4 (4.0) | 6.2 (4.0) |
| Gender | ||
| Male (%) | 30 (76.9) | 9 (23.1) |
| Female (%) | 197 (57.8) | 144 (42.2) |
| Ethnicity | ||
| White British/ Irish/Other | 176 (58.3) | 126 (41.7) |
| Minority ethnic group/Mixed | 47 (67.1) | 23 (32.9) |
| Weight loss programme | ||
| Rosemary Conley | 33 (68.8) | 15 (31.3) |
| Slimming World | 140 (57.6) | 103 (42.4) |
| Weight Watchers | 54 (60.7) | 35 (39.3) |
| Occupation | ||
| Employed/Education/Carer | 68 (53.1) | 60 (46.8) |
| Not working/unemployed | 14 (58.3) | 10 (41.7) |
| Retired/sick/disabled | 20 (64.5) | 11 (35.5) |
| Unable to code/Missing | 125 (63.5) | 72 (36.5) |
| IMD quintile | ||
| 1 (least deprived) | 7 (3.1) | 8 (5.2) |
| 2 | 18 (7.9) | 11 (7.2) |
| 3 | 43 (18.9) | 24 (15.7) |
| 4 | 52 (22.9) | 22 (14.4) |
| 5 (most deprived) | 107 (47.1) | 88 (57.5) |
Behaviour change techniques used in the SMS-text based Lighten UP Plus intervention
| Name of behavioural change technique | Description |
|---|---|
| Provide information on consequences of behaviour in general | Information about the relationship between the behaviour and its possible or likely consequences in the general case, usually based on epidemiological data, and not personalised for the individual |
|
| |
|
| |
| Goal setting (outcome) | The person is encouraged to set a general goal that can be achieved by behavioural means but is not defined in terms of behaviour (e.g. to reduce blood pressure or lose/maintain weight), as opposed to a goal based on changing behaviour as such. |
|
| |
|
| |
| Prompt review of behavioural goals | Involves a review or analysis of the extent to which previously set behavioural goals (e.g. take more exercise next week) were achieved. In most cases this will follow previous goal setting and an attempt to act on those goals, followed by a revision or readjustment of goals, and/ or means to attain them. |
|
| |
|
| |
| Prompt rewards contingent on effort or progress towards behaviour | Involves the person using praise or rewards for attempts at achieving a behavioural goal. This might include efforts made towards achieving the behaviour, or progress made in preparatory steps towards the behaviour, but not merely participation in intervention. |
|
| |
|
| |
| Prompt self-monitoring of behavioural outcome | The person is asked to keep a record of specified measures expected to be influenced by the behaviour change, e.g. blood pressure, blood glucose, weight loss, physical fitness. |
|
| |
|
| |
| Provide feedback on performance | This involves providing the participant with data about their own recorded behaviour or commenting on a person’s behavioural performance |
|
| |
|
|