| Literature DB >> 31133946 |
Lauren B Shomaker1,2,3, Bernadette Pivarunas1, Shelly K Annameier1, Lauren Gulley1,3, Jordan Quaglia4, Kirk Warren Brown5, Patricia Broderick6, Christopher Bell7.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To explore if a brief mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) leads to sustained, improved clinical outcomes in adolescents at-risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D).Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; cognitive-behavioral therapy; depression; insulin resistance; mindfulness; type 2 diabetes
Year: 2019 PMID: 31133946 PMCID: PMC6517501 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01040
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Summary of univariate analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) predicting change in outcome from group condition.
| Baseline to 1-year change | MBI‡ | CBT‡ | Between-group effect‡ | Cohen’s | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Depression symptoms | −14.17 [−18.23, −10.12] | −7.65 [−11.67, −3.63] | −6.52 [−12.22, −0.82] | 0.03 | 0.68 |
| Insulin resistance | −1.26 [−2.07, −0.44] | 0.57 [−0.22, 1.36] | −1.83 [−2.92, −0.73] | <0.01 | 0.73 |
| Dispositional mindfulness | 0.53 [0.14, 0.93] | 0.38 [−0.01, 0.77] | 0.16 [−0.38, 0.69] | 0.55 | 0.17 |
| Body fat (%) | −2.01 [−3.93, −0.10] | −1.31 [−3.21, 0.58] | −0.70 [−3.34, 1.94] | 0.59 | 0.18 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | −0.43 [−1.57, 0.71] | 0.40 [−0.67, 1.48] | −0.83 [−2.36, 0.70] | 0.27 | 0.44 |
| BMI, | −0.16 [−0.30, −0.03] | −0.10 [−0.24, 0.03] | −0.06 [−0.24, 0.13] | 0.54 | 0.25 |
FIGURE 1Baseline to 1-year change (Mean, SE) in (A) depression symptoms, (B) homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), (C) dispositional mindfulness, (D) adiposity (%), (E) body mass index (BMI; k/gm2), and (F) BMI z-score by condition: MBI (mindfulness-based group intervention; n = 17) vs. CBT (cognitive-behavioral therapy; n = 16) group intervention. P-values refer to the between-group difference in baseline to 1-year change, derived from univariate analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) using the intent-to-treat sample with EM (expectation–maximation) to handle missing data. Models a, b, and c accounted for race/ethnicity, baseline level of the outcome, baseline age, baseline weight status (overweight BMI 85th–94th percentile vs. obesity BMI ≥ 95th percentile), baseline puberty (Tanner 5 reported breast development vs. Tanner 3–4), baseline adiposity, and 1-year change in adiposity. Models d and e accounted for race/ethnicity, baseline level of the outcome, baseline age, baseline weight status, and baseline puberty.