Literature DB >> 34293164

Making large changes or small changes to prevent weight gain in young adulthood: which is preferred and by whom?

Jacqueline F Hayes1, Deborah F Tate2, Mark A Espeland3, Jessica Gokee LaRose4, Amy A Gorin5, Cora E Lewis6, Elissa Jelalian1, Judy Bahnson2, Shira I Dunsiger7, Rena R Wing1.   

Abstract

Knowledge of participant treatment preferences can inform decision-making regarding treatment dissemination and future participant adoption. To compare participant perceptions of two evidence-based approaches for weight gain prevention in young adults to identify the intervention with the greatest likelihood of adoption. As part of a randomized trial (Study of Novel Approaches to Weight Gain Prevention [SNAP]; n = 599) testing weight gain prevention interventions in young adults (18-35 years), individuals assigned to self-regulation interventions using either large changes or small changes reported on perceived personal effectiveness and difficulty of treatment over 3 years. Treatment satisfaction at 2-year follow-up was also reported. Pre-randomization, participants believed the large change intervention would be more personally effective than the small change intervention, although they also considered it more complex. Older age, lower body mass index (p = 0.056), and desire to maintain versus lose weight predicted greater perceived effectiveness of the small change relative to large change intervention. Over follow-up, the large change intervention was no longer perceived as more effective, but perceived effectiveness aligned with assigned treatment. The small change intervention was rated as less complex than the large change intervention at 4 months, but not at other follow-ups. At study conclusion, participants were largely satisfied with both treatments; however, in the small change intervention, individuals who were not successful at preventing weight gain were less satisfied than individuals who were successful. The large and small change interventions are both appropriate for dissemination with no clear advantages based on the participant perceptions. © Society of Behavioral Medicine 2021. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diffusion of innovation; Small changes; Treatment preferences; Weight gain prevention; Young adults

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34293164      PMCID: PMC8670413          DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibab099

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Behav Med        ISSN: 1613-9860            Impact factor:   3.626


  15 in total

1.  The impact of client treatment preferences on outcome: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Joshua K Swift; Jennifer L Callahan
Journal:  J Clin Psychol       Date:  2009-04

2.  Client preferences affect treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Oliver Lindhiem; Charles B Bennett; Christopher J Trentacosta; Caitlin McLear
Journal:  Clin Psychol Rev       Date:  2014-06-16

Review 3.  Managing temptation in obesity treatment: A neurobehavioral model of intervention strategies.

Authors:  Bradley M Appelhans; Simone A French; Sherry L Pagoto; Nancy E Sherwood
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2015-10-22       Impact factor: 3.868

Review 4.  NIH working group report: Innovative research to improve maintenance of weight loss.

Authors:  Paul S MacLean; Rena R Wing; Terry Davidson; Leonard Epstein; Bret Goodpaster; Kevin D Hall; Barry E Levin; Michael G Perri; Barbara J Rolls; Michael Rosenbaum; Alexander J Rothman; Donna Ryan
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 5.002

5.  Satisfaction with weight loss: examining the longitudinal covariation between people's weight-loss-related outcomes and experiences and their satisfaction.

Authors:  Austin S Baldwin; Alexander J Rothman; Robert W Jeffery
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2009-12

6.  Are standard behavioral weight loss programs effective for young adults?

Authors:  J Gokee-LaRose; A A Gorin; H A Raynor; M N Laska; R W Jeffery; R L Levy; R R Wing
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 5.095

7.  Patient perceptions of a personal health record: a test of the diffusion of innovation model.

Authors:  Srinivas Emani; Cyrus K Yamin; Ellen Peters; Andrew S Karson; Stuart R Lipsitz; Jonathan S Wald; Deborah H Williams; David W Bates
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2012-11-05       Impact factor: 5.428

8.  Weight gain prevention in young adults: design of the study of novel approaches to weight gain prevention (SNAP) randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Rena R Wing; Deborah Tate; Mark Espeland; Amy Gorin; Jessica Gokee LaRose; Erica Ferguson Robichaud; Karen Erickson; Letitia Perdue; Judy Bahnson; Cora E Lewis
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  A randomized trial comparing structured and lifestyle goals in an internet-mediated walking program for people with type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Caroline R Richardson; Kathleen S Mehari; Laura G McIntyre; Adrienne W Janney; Laurie A Fortlage; Ananda Sen; Victor J Strecher; John D Piette
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2007-11-16       Impact factor: 6.457

10.  25-year weight gain in a racially balanced sample of U.S. adults: The CARDIA study.

Authors:  Gareth R Dutton; Yongin Kim; David R Jacobs; Xuelin Li; Catherine M Loria; Jared P Reis; Mercedes Carnethon; Nefertiti H Durant; Penny Gordon-Larsen; James M Shikany; Stephen Sidney; Cora E Lewis
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 9.298

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.