| Literature DB >> 28224713 |
Jacob Naparstek1, Rena R Wing2, Xiaomeng Xu3, Tricia M Leahey1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In-person lifestyle interventions for obesity treatment yield significant improvements in depression. These improvements may be attributed to the excellent weight losses produced by in-person interventions. In contrast, Internet programs yield more modest weight losses, and their effect on depression is unknown. This study is the first to examine whether Internet-delivered obesity treatment impacts depressive symptoms.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28224713 PMCID: PMC5373949 DOI: 10.1002/oby.21773
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) ISSN: 1930-7381 Impact factor: 5.002
Baseline participant characteristics.
| Overall | IBWL | Control | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (% Female) | 81.6 | 80.7 | 83.3 | .72 |
| Age (M±SD) | 46.9±11.5 | 46.4±12.0 | 47.8±10.5 | .54 |
| Race/ethnicity (% Non-Hispanic White) | 90.4 | 90.4 | 90.5 | .98 |
| Education (% College Grad) | 64.0 | 74.7 | 42.9 | <.001 |
| Baseline BMI (M±SD) | 34.9±7.3 | 34.8±6.4 | 35.1±8.8 | .80 |
| Baseline total CES-D depression score (M±SD) | 10.7±7.4 | 10.9±7.4 | 10.3±7.2 | .64 |
| Baseline % depression score ≥ 16 | 25.6 | 26.5 | 23.8 | .74 |
| Baseline CES-D subscales (M±SD) | ||||
| Depressed affect | 2.9±3.1 | 2.9±3.2 | 2.8±3.1 | .91 |
| Positive affect | 2.2±2.3 | 2.2±2.2 | 2.1±2.5 | .78 |
| Somatic | 5.0±3.1 | 5.1±3.1 | 4.9±3.0 | .74 |
| Interpersonal | 0.7±1.0 | 0.8±1.1 | 0.5±0.8 | .15 |
CES-D scores ≥ 16 are indicative of high risk for clinical depression
Figure 1Changes in depressive symptoms in IBWL vs. control from baseline to post treatment in all participants (overall; N=125) and in the subgroup of participants who met the clinical cut-off for elevated risk for depression at baseline (i.e., CESD≥16; N=32).
* indicates statistically significant (p<.05) differences between IBWL and Control.
Changes in depression from pre- to post-treatment.
| IBWL | Control | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Change in total CES-D depression score (M±SD) | −3.0±6.9 | +0.6±7.8 | .04 |
| Change in CES-D subscales scores (M±SD) | |||
| Depressed affect | −1.1±3.2 | +0.3±2.9 | .004 |
| Positive affect | −0.5±2.3 | −0.05±2.4 | .29 |
| Somatic | −1.0±3.1 | +0.4±3.6 | .04 |
| Interpersonal | −0.4±1.1 | −0.1±0.7 | .64 |
|
| |||
| Change in total CES-D depression score (M±SD) | −8.7±5.7 | −2.2±7.9 | .03 |
| Change in CES-D sub scale scores (M±SD) | |||
| Depressed affect | −3.4±4.5 | −0.6±3.9 | .03 |
| Positive affect | −1.9±2.6 | −1.5±1.8 | .68 |
| Somatic | −2.5±4.1 | +0.5±4.9 | .05 |
| Interpersonal | −0.9±1.0 | −0.6±1.0 | .68 |
CES-D scores ≥ 16 are indicative of high risk for clinical depression