Jihong Liu1,2, Sara Wilcox2,3, Ellen Wingard2, Gabrielle Turner-McGrievy2,4, Brent Hutto2, Judith Burgis5. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA. 2. Prevention Research Center, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA. 3. Department of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA. 4. Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of an antenatal behavioral lifestyle intervention on total gestational weight gain (GWG) and perinatal outcomes. METHODS: Pregnant women with overweight and obesity in South Carolina were recruited into a theory-based randomized controlled trial (n = 112 intervention, n = 105 standard care), which was designed to target weight self-monitoring, increased physical activity, and improved dietary practices. RESULTS: Participants were racially/ethnically diverse (44% African American). Intervention and standard care participants had similar total GWG at delivery (12.9 ± 6.9 vs. 12.4 ± 8.3 kg, respectively), but intervention participants had a smaller standard deviation (P = 0.04) in total GWG. The treatment effects were moderated by race/ethnicity and prepregnancy BMI. Among African American participants with overweight, intervention participants gained 4.5 kg less, whereas, among African American women with obesity, intervention participants gained 4.1 kg more than standard care participants. Total GWG among White participants was similar regardless of weight status and group assignment. Fewer intervention participants than standard care participants had adverse pregnancy outcomes (P ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The behavioral lifestyle intervention favorably impacted GWG in African American participants with overweight but not African American participants with obesity. The intervention's overall favorable impact on perinatal outcomes suggests that the mechanisms beyond total GWG may drive these outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of an antenatal behavioral lifestyle intervention on total gestational weight gain (GWG) and perinatal outcomes. METHODS: Pregnant women with overweight and obesity in South Carolina were recruited into a theory-based randomized controlled trial (n = 112 intervention, n = 105 standard care), which was designed to target weight self-monitoring, increased physical activity, and improved dietary practices. RESULTS: Participants were racially/ethnically diverse (44% African American). Intervention and standard care participants had similar total GWG at delivery (12.9 ± 6.9 vs. 12.4 ± 8.3 kg, respectively), but intervention participants had a smaller standard deviation (P = 0.04) in total GWG. The treatment effects were moderated by race/ethnicity and prepregnancy BMI. Among African American participants with overweight, intervention participants gained 4.5 kg less, whereas, among African American women with obesity, intervention participants gained 4.1 kg more than standard care participants. Total GWG among White participants was similar regardless of weight status and group assignment. Fewer intervention participants than standard care participants had adverse pregnancy outcomes (P ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The behavioral lifestyle intervention favorably impacted GWG in African American participants with overweight but not African American participants with obesity. The intervention's overall favorable impact on perinatal outcomes suggests that the mechanisms beyond total GWG may drive these outcomes.
Authors: Katie M Smith; Lorraine M Lanningham-Foster; Gregory J Welk; Christina G Campbell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Linda Van Horn; Alan Peaceman; Mary Kwasny; Eileen Vincent; Angela Fought; Jami Josefson; Bonnie Spring; Lisa M Neff; Niki Gernhofer Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Suzanne Phelan; Rena R Wing; Anna Brannen; Angelica McHugh; Todd A Hagobian; Andrew Schaffner; Elissa Jelalian; Chantelle N Hart; Theresa O Scholl; Karen Munoz-Christian; Elaine Yin; Maureen G Phipps; Sarah Keadle; Barbara Abrams Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Mark A Pereira; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Ken P Kleinman; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Karen E Peterson; Matthew W Gillman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Rebecca F Goldstein; Sally K Abell; Sanjeeva Ranasinha; Marie Misso; Jacqueline A Boyle; Mary Helen Black; Nan Li; Gang Hu; Francesco Corrado; Line Rode; Young Ju Kim; Margaretha Haugen; Won O Song; Min Hyoung Kim; Annick Bogaerts; Roland Devlieger; Judith H Chung; Helena J Teede Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alison G Cahill; Debra Haire-Joshu; W Todd Cade; Richard I Stein; Candice L Woolfolk; Kelle Moley; Amit Mathur; Kenneth Schechtman; Samuel Klein Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Sharon J Herring; Jane F Cruice; Gary G Bennett; Marisa Z Rose; Adam Davey; Gary D Foster Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Leigh Ann Simmons; Jennifer E Phipps; Courtney Overstreet; Paige M Smith; Elizabeth Bechard; Siwei Liu; Cheryl Walker; Devon Noonan Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-11-20 Impact factor: 2.261