| Literature DB >> 32326541 |
Muhammad Daniel Azlan Mahadzir1, Kia Fatt Quek1, Amutha Ramadas1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While peer support interventions have shown to benefit adults with certain chronic conditions, there is limited evidence on its feasibility and effectiveness among people with metabolic syndrome (MetS). This paper describes the outcomes of a pre-post feasibility trial of "PEeR SUpport program for ADults with mEtabolic syndrome" (PERSUADE), an evidence-based and community-specific nutrition and lifestyle behavior peer support program for Malaysian adults with MetS.Entities:
Keywords: diet; feasibility; intervention; lifestyle; metabolic syndrome; peer support
Year: 2020 PMID: 32326541 PMCID: PMC7230344 DOI: 10.3390/nu12041091
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Study flow chart.
Characteristics of study participants (N = 48).
| Characteristics | All | PG1 | PG2 | PG3 | PG4 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (Years) | Median (IQR) | 46 (11) | 43.5 (11) | 47 (6) | 44 (17) | 46 (7) | 0.563 |
| Gender | Female | 25 (52.1) | 6 (42.9) | 6 (60.0) | 6 (40.0) | 7 (77.8) | 0.292 |
| Male | 23 (47.9) | 8 (57.1) | 4 (40.0) | 9 (60.0) | 2 (22.2) | ||
| Ethnicity | Malay | 41 (85.4) | 12 (85.7) | 9 (90.0) | 13 (86.7) | 7 (77.8) | 0.515 |
| Chinese | 3 (6.3) | 1 (7.1) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (13.3) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Indian | 4 (8.3) | 1 (7.1) | 1 (10.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (22.2) | ||
| Marital status | Single | 2 (4.2) | 1 (7.1) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) | 0.967 |
| Married | 44 (91.7) | 13 (92.9) | 9 (90.0) | 13 (86.7) | 9 (100.0) | ||
| Widowed | 2 (4.2) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (10.0) | 1 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Education | Primary | 5 (10.4) | 1 (7.1) | 1 (10.0) | 1 (6.7) | 2 (22.2) | 0.658 |
| Lower secondary | 13 (27.1) | 2 (14.3) | 4 (40.0) | 3 (20.0) | 4 (44.4) | ||
| Upper secondary | 16 (33.3) | 6 (42.9) | 3 (30.0) | 5 (33.3) | 2 (22.2) | ||
| Tertiary | 14 (29.2) | 5 (35.7) | 2 (20.0) | 6 (40.0) | 1 (11.1) | ||
| Occupation | Working | 47 (97.9) | 13 (92.9) | 10 (100.0) | 15 (100.0) | 9 (100.0) | 0.687 |
| Not working | 1 (2.1) | 1 (7.1) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||
PG = peer group. Age is presented as median (IQR) and analyzed with the Kruskal Wallis test. Categorical variables are presented as n (%) and were analyzed with Fisher’s Exact test.
Changes in nutrient intake of study participants (N = 48).
| Baseline | Post-Intervention | Post-Follow-Up |
| Pairwise Comparison | Change (%) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | |||||
| Energy (kcal) | 1685.42 | 1613.82 | 1453.24 | 0.001 | M0 vs. M3 | −4.25 | 0.045 |
| M3 vs. M6 | −9.90 | 0.015 | |||||
| Carbohydrate (g/1000 kcal) | 139.71 | 149.04 | 165.19 | 0.001 | M0 vs. M3 | −6.68 | 0.483 |
| M3 vs. M6 | 10.84 | 0.049 | |||||
| Protein (g/1000 kcal) | 32.91 | 33.33 | 39.93 | 0.004 | M0 vs. M3 | −1.19 | 1.000 |
| M3 vs. M6 | +19.80 | 0.041 | |||||
| Fat (g/1000 kcal) | 29.03 | 21.89 | 22.96 | 0.001 | M0 vs. M3 | −24.60 | <0.001 |
| M3 vs. M6 | +4.89 | 1.000 | |||||
| Total fiber c (g/1000 kcal) | 6.71 | 6.95 | 9.06 | <0.001 | M0 vs. M3 | +3.58 | 0.508 |
| M3 vs. M6 | +30.36 | <0.001 | |||||
| Total sugar (g/1000 kcal) | 40.02 | 32.05 | 44.57 | 0.001 | M0 vs. M3 | −24.87 | 0.056 |
| M3 vs. M6 | +39.06 | 0.002 | |||||
| Glycemic load (g/%) | 135.34 | 157.54 | 156.43 | <0.001 | M0 vs. M3 | +14.93 | <0.001 |
| M3 vs. M6 | −0.70 | 1.000 |
a Repeated measures; b Bonferroni pairwise post hoc; c Natural log transformation was performed.
Figure 2Distribution of study participants according to dietary behaviors at baseline (M0), 3-months post-intervention (M3), and 6-months post-intervention (M6) (N = 48). Note: The McNemar test was performed between baseline (M0) and post-intervention (M3) and between post-intervention (M3) and post-follow-up (M6). Only statistically significant p values (p < 0.05) are shown.
Figure 3Distribution of study participants according to (a) physical activity, (b) smoking and (c) sleeping pattern at baseline (M0), 3-months post-intervention (M3), and 6-months post-intervention (M6) (N = 48). Note: The McNemar test was performed between baseline (M0) and post-intervention (M3) and between post-intervention (M3) and post-follow-up (M6). Only statistically significant p values (p < 0.05) are shown.
Changes in anthropometry and metabolic parameters of study participants (N = 48).
| Baseline | Post-Intervention | Post Follow-Up |
| Pairwise Comparison | Change (%) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | |||||
| SBP (mmHg) | 135.29 | 130.50 | 130.42 | 0.001 | M0 vs. M3 | −3.54 | 0.001 |
| M3 vs. M6 | −0.06 | 1.000 | |||||
| DBP (mmHg) | 82.58 | 81.00 | 81.75 | 0.566 | |||
| FBG (mmol/L) | 8.60 | 7.57 | 7.57 | <0.001 | M0 vs. M3 | −11.98 | <0.001 |
| M3 vs. M6 | 0 | 1.000 | |||||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.84 | 25.42 | 25.50 | 0.001 | M0 vs. M3 | −1.63 | <0.001 |
| M3 vs. M6 | +0.31 | 1.000 | |||||
| WC (cm) | 91.72 | 91.07 | 91.29 | <0.001 | M0 vs. M3 | −0.71 | <0.001 |
| M3 vs. M6 | +0.24 | 0.018 | |||||
| BF (%) | 29.88 | 29.42 | 29.37 | 0.060 | |||
| TG (mmol/L) | 2.89 | 2.19 | 2.19 | <0.001 | M0 vs. M3 | −24.22 | <0.001 |
| M3 vs. M6 | 0 | 1.000 | |||||
| HDL (mmol/L) | 1.12 | 1.41 | 1.13 | <0.001 | M0 vs. M3 | 25.89 | 0.001 |
| M3 vs. M6 | −19.86 | <0.001 |
SBP = systolic blood pressure; DBP = diastolic blood pressure; FBG = fasting blood glucose; BMI= body mass index; WC = waist circumference; BF = body fat; TG = triglyceride; HDL= high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. a Repeated measures; b Bonferroni pairwise post hoc.