| Literature DB >> 34123396 |
Michelle I Cardel1,2,3, Alexandra M Lee1, Xiaofei Chi1, Faith Newsome1, Darci R Miller1, Angelina Bernier3, Lindsay Thompson1,3, Matthew J Gurka1,3, David M Janicke4, Meghan L Butryn5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Behavioral obesity interventions using an acceptance-based therapy (ABT) approach have demonstrated efficacy for adults, yet feasibility and acceptability of tailoring an ABT intervention for adolescents remains unknown.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; feasibility; intervention; obesity
Year: 2021 PMID: 34123396 PMCID: PMC8170570 DOI: 10.1002/osp4.483
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Obes Sci Pract ISSN: 2055-2238
FIGURE 1Conceptual model of proposed protective effects of ABT on adolescent body weight and CVD risk. In the conceptual model, physiological drivers generate a “hedonic treadmill,” which is characterized by a chronic desire for highly palatable food and conservation of energy. These drivers are activated by our current obesogenic environment, with an omnipresence of food stimuli and availability, and encouragement of physical inactivity (e.g., labor‐saving devices). Coupled with internal cues (e.g., stress), the physiological response is a desire to reach a higher perceived hedonic state via consumption of highly palatable, energy dense food, and sedentary behavior. These drives often result in choices at odds with an adolescent's goals, including dietary and physical activity lapses. Thus, unless self‐regulation skills are learned and utilized, and ability to engage in behaviors consistent with their values and goals despite uncomfortable thoughts, feelings, or cravings, excess energy consumption, and sedentary activity can become default behaviors, increasing an adolescent's risk for CVD over a lifespan. Others have demonstrated ABT effectiveness for adult weight loss, and we posit and demonstrate preliminary evidence that ABT is a feasible and acceptable intervention for adolescent girls with OW/OB. An ABT intervention has the potential to be effective in reducing excess adiposity among adolescent girls. ABT includes a focus on self‐regulation skills to improve: (1) tolerance of uncomfortable internal states (e.g., anxiety, stress) and perceived reduction of pleasure (e.g., choosing physical activity instead of watching TV); (2) behavioral commitment to clearly defined values, which will increase motivation to maintain difficult weight‐control behaviors; and (3) metacognitive awareness of decision‐making. Developing these self‐regulation skills is posited to be protective against dietary and physical activity lapses, leading to negative energy balance, decreased weight, and improved CVD risk in adolescents over the long‐term
FIGURE 2Participant flow
Demographics
| Variable | All intervention participants | Completers |
|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | |
|
|
| |
| Age (in years) | 16.69 (1.65) | 16.73 (1.68) |
| Race | 7 (53.85%)5 (38.46%)1 (7.69%) | 6 (54.55%)4 (36.36%)1 (9.09%) |
| White | ||
| Black | ||
| Multiple races | ||
| Ethnicity | 2 (15.38%)11 (84.62%) | 2 (18.18%)9 (81.82%) |
| Hispanic/Latina | ||
| Not Hispanic/Latina | ||
| Highest parental education | 1 (9.09%)3 (27.27%)3 (27.27%)4 (36.36%)0 (0%) | |
| High school diploma/GED | 2 (15.38%) | |
| Some college/associate degree | 3 (23.08%) | |
| College graduate | 3 (23.08%) | |
| Graduate or professional degree | 4 (30.77%) | |
| Unknown | 1 (7.69%) | |
| BMI | 35.28 (5.50) | 35.04 (5.58) |
Primary and Secondary outcomes: a priori benchmarks versus feasibility study outcomes regarding recruitment and retention
| Variable | A priori benchmark | Study results |
|---|---|---|
| Enrollment w/in 8‐week period (two cohorts) |
|
|
| Percent of enrollees who decide to participate in the intervention | 80% | 81.3% |
| Retention of intervention participants at postintervention | >50% | 84.6% |
| Intervention completers session attendance at all 15 sessions | ≥70% | 90.9% |
| BMI Z‐score | Clinically significant reduction by ≥−0.15 | −0.15 ± 0.34 |
Has been shown to lead to improvements in ≥1 CVD risk factor.
Changes in obesity‐related factors, health‐related behaviors, and psychological factors among intervention completers (n = 11)
| Variable | Baseline (mean, | Post‐intervention (mean, | Change from baseline to vpostintervention (mean, SD, 95% CI) | Cohen's |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obesity‐related factors | ||||
| Weight (kg) | 94.07 (15.42) | 93.59 (19.02) | −0.48 (5.63), (−4.26, 3.30) | −0.09 (−0.24, 0.07) |
| Height (cm) | 163.78 (4.15) | 164.18 (4.45) | 0.40 (0.79), (−0.13, 0.93) | 0.50 (0.26, 0.74) |
| BMI Z‐score | 2.02 (0.44) | 1.87 (0.71) | −0.15 (0.34), (−0.37, 0.08) | −0.44 (−0.73, −0.14) |
| 95th BMI percentile (%) | 119.84 (21.36) | 117.38 (26.42) | −2.46 (7.02), (−7.18, 2.26) | −0.35 (−0.55, −0.15) |
| Body fat (%) | 41.71 (5.94) | 40.83 (6.39) | −0.88 (2.54), (−2.83, 1.07) | −0.35 (−0.66, −0.03) |
| Systolic BP (mm Hg) | 121.00 (14.47) | 122.11 (12.86) | 1.11 (11.23), (−7.52, 9.75) | 0.10 (−0.44, 0.63) |
| Diastolic BP (mm Hg) | 77.94 (11.07) | 78.39 (11.95) | 0.44 (11.30), (−8.24, 9.13) | 0.04 (−0.60, 0.68) |
| Health‐related behaviors | ||||
| Healthy eating index | 53.82 (13.76) | 50.68 (14.03) | −3.15 (17.14), (−14.66, 8.37) | −0.18 (−0.92, 0.55) |
| Minutes in MVPA/day | 3.35 (3.17) | 2.58 (2.23) | −0.77 (3.29), (−2.98, 1.43) | −0.24 (−0.94, 0.47) |
| Minutes sedentary/day | 696.11 (87.68) | 740.44 (132.21) | 44.34 (140.00), (−49.72, 138.39) | 0.32 (−0.42, 1.06) |
| Hours asleep/day | 7.99 (1.50) | 7.20 (1.62) | −0.79 (2.49), (−2.46, 0.88) | −0.32 (−1.27, 0.63) |
| Psychological factors | ||||
| Quality of life | 63.14 (8.80) | 67.89 (5.42) | 4.74 (6.67), (0.26, 9.23) | 0.71 (0.13, 1.29) |
| Psychological flexibility | 88.18 (16.00) | 75.27 (19.58) | −12.91 (15.08), (−23.04, −2.78) | −0.86 (−1.47, −0.24) |
| Depression | 22.82 (11.29) | 14.27 (8.08) | −8.55 (9.89), (−15.19, −1.90) | −0.86 (−1.56, −0.17) |
| Perceived stress | 24.20 (4.32) | 24.30 (4.06) | 0.10 (6.24), (−4.37, 4.57) | 0.02 (−0.91, 0.94) |
Based on n = 9 with complete data due to COVID‐19.
Based on n = 10 with complete data.