Margaret Raber1,2, Yue Liao1, Anne Rara1, Susan M Schembre3, Kate J Krause4, Larkin Strong5, Carrie Daniel-MacDougall6, Karen Basen-Engquist1. 1. Department of Behavioral Science, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1100 Bates Ave, Houston, TX77030, USA. 2. Department of Pediatrics-Nutrition, USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine-Tucson, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 4. Research Medical Library, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Department of Health Disparities, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Department of Epidemiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify dietary self-monitoring implementation strategies in behavioural weight loss interventions. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of eight databases and examined fifty-nine weight loss intervention studies targeting adults with overweight/obesity that used dietary self-monitoring. SETTING: NA. PARTICIPANTS: NA. RESULTS: We identified self-monitoring implementation characteristics, effectiveness of interventions in supporting weight loss and examined weight loss outcomes among higher and lower intensity dietary self-monitoring protocols. Included studies utilised diverse self-monitoring formats (paper, website, mobile app, phone) and intensity levels (recording all intake or only certain aspects of diet). We found the majority of studies using high- and low-intensity self-monitoring strategies demonstrated statistically significant weight loss in intervention groups compared with control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, lower and higher intensity dietary self-monitoring may support weight loss, but variability in adherence measures and limited analysis of weight loss relative to self-monitoring usage limits our understanding of how these methods compare with each other.
OBJECTIVE: To identify dietary self-monitoring implementation strategies in behavioural weight loss interventions. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of eight databases and examined fifty-nine weight loss intervention studies targeting adults with overweight/obesity that used dietary self-monitoring. SETTING: NA. PARTICIPANTS: NA. RESULTS: We identified self-monitoring implementation characteristics, effectiveness of interventions in supporting weight loss and examined weight loss outcomes among higher and lower intensity dietary self-monitoring protocols. Included studies utilised diverse self-monitoring formats (paper, website, mobile app, phone) and intensity levels (recording all intake or only certain aspects of diet). We found the majority of studies using high- and low-intensity self-monitoring strategies demonstrated statistically significant weight loss in intervention groups compared with control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, lower and higher intensity dietary self-monitoring may support weight loss, but variability in adherence measures and limited analysis of weight loss relative to self-monitoring usage limits our understanding of how these methods compare with each other.
Entities:
Keywords:
Behavioural intervention; Self-monitoring; Weight loss
Authors: N E Sherwood; R W Jeffery; N P Pronk; J L Boucher; A Hanson; R Boyle; K Brelje; K Hase; V Chen Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2006-03-21 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: A-M Teeriniemi; T Salonurmi; T Jokelainen; H Vähänikkilä; T Alahäivälä; P Karppinen; H Enwald; M-L Huotari; J Laitinen; H Oinas-Kukkonen; M J Savolainen Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2018-07-04 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Christine M Hunter; Alan L Peterson; Lisa M Alvarez; Walker C Poston; Antoinette R Brundige; C Keith Haddock; David L Van Brunt; John P Foreyt Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Cheryl L Rock; Shirley W Flatt; Tim E Byers; Graham A Colditz; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Patricia A Ganz; Kathleen Y Wolin; Anthony Elias; Helen Krontiras; Jingxia Liu; Michael Naughton; Bilgé Pakiz; Barbara A Parker; Rebecca L Sedjo; Holly Wyatt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gary G Bennett; Sharon J Herring; Elaine Puleo; Evelyn K Stein; Karen M Emmons; Matthew W Gillman Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2009-08-20 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Craig A Johnston; Chermaine Tyler; Brian K McFarlin; Walker S C Poston; C Keith Haddock; Rebecca Reeves; John P Foreyt Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Mark G Wilson; Cynthia M Castro Sweet; Michael D Edge; Erica N Madero; Megan McGuire; Megan Pilsmaker; Dan Carpenter; Scott Kirschner Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 2.162