Gretchen A Piatt1, Miriam C Seidel2, Robert O Powell3, Janice C Zgibor4. 1. Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Dr Piatt) 2. Chatham University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Ms Seidel) 3. Department of Exercise Science, Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia (Dr Powell) 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Florida College of Public Health, Tampa, Florida (Dr Zgibor)
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether weight loss and cardiovascular disease risk factor reduction was maintained following a lifestyle intervention. METHODS:Five hundred fifty-five individuals without diabetes from 8 rural communities were screened for BMI ≥25 kg/m(2) and abdominal obesity (86.1% female, 95.1% white, 55.8% obese). Communities and eligible participants (n = 493; mean age, 51 years, 87.6% female, 94.1% Caucasian) were assigned to 4 study groups: face-to-face, DVD, Internet, and self-selection (SS) (n = 101). Self-selection participants chose the intervention modality (60% face-to-face, 40% Internet, 0% DVD). Outcomes included weight change and risk factor reduction at 18 months. RESULTS: All groups achieved maintenance of 5% weight loss in over half of participants. Self-selection participants had the largest proportion maintain (89.5%). Similarly, nearly 75% of participants sustained risk factor reduction. After multivariate adjustment, participants in SS were 2.3 times more likely to maintain 5% weight loss compared to the other groups, but not risk factor reduction. CONCLUSION: Despite the modality, lifestyle intervention was effective at maintaining weight loss and risk reduction. However, SS participants were twice as likely to sustain improvements compared to other groups. The importance of patient-centered decision making in health care is paramount.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether weight loss and cardiovascular disease risk factor reduction was maintained following a lifestyle intervention. METHODS: Five hundred fifty-five individuals without diabetes from 8 rural communities were screened for BMI ≥25 kg/m(2) and abdominal obesity (86.1% female, 95.1% white, 55.8% obese). Communities and eligible participants (n = 493; mean age, 51 years, 87.6% female, 94.1% Caucasian) were assigned to 4 study groups: face-to-face, DVD, Internet, and self-selection (SS) (n = 101). Self-selection participants chose the intervention modality (60% face-to-face, 40% Internet, 0% DVD). Outcomes included weight change and risk factor reduction at 18 months. RESULTS: All groups achieved maintenance of 5% weight loss in over half of participants. Self-selection participants had the largest proportion maintain (89.5%). Similarly, nearly 75% of participants sustained risk factor reduction. After multivariate adjustment, participants in SS were 2.3 times more likely to maintain 5% weight loss compared to the other groups, but not risk factor reduction. CONCLUSION: Despite the modality, lifestyle intervention was effective at maintaining weight loss and risk reduction. However, SS participants were twice as likely to sustain improvements compared to other groups. The importance of patient-centered decision making in health care is paramount.
Authors: Rachel R Bian; Gretchen A Piatt; Ananda Sen; Melissa A Plegue; Mariana L De Michele; Dina Hafez; Christina M Czuhajewski; Lorraine R Buis; Neal Kaufman; Caroline R Richardson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 5.428