OBJECTIVES: In this randomized trial, we compared the effectiveness of 2 diets (enhanced stop light diet [eSLD] versus conventional meal plan diet [CD]) and 2 delivery strategies (face-to-face [FTF] versus remote delivery [RD]) on weight loss across 6 months in adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities who were overweight or obese. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 arms (FTF/CD, RD/CD, or RD/eSLD) and asked to attend one-on-one sessions with a health educator every 2 weeks to aid in maintaining compliance with recommendations for a reduced-energy diet and increased physical activity. The CD followed the US dietary guidelines. The eSLD used the stop light guide and was enhanced with portion-controlled meals. The FTF arm was delivered during in-person home visits. The RD arms were delivered by using video conferencing. RESULTS: A total of 110 adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities (aged ∼16 years, 53% female, BMI 33) were randomly assigned to the FTF/CD (n = 36), RD/CD (n = 39), or RD/eSLD (n = 35) group. Body weight at 6 months was obtained from 97%, 100%, and 86% of participants in the FTF/CD, RD/CD, and RD/eSLD arms, respectively. The eSLD elicited significantly greater weight loss than the CD: RD/eSLD (-5.0 ± 5.9 kg; -6.4%) versus RD/CD (-1.8 ± 4.0 kg; -2.4%) (P = .01). However, weight loss did not differ by delivery strategy: FTF/CD (-0.3 ± 5.0 kg; -0.2%) versus RD/CD (-1.8 ± 4.0 kg; -2.4%) (P = .20). CONCLUSIONS: The eSLD elicited significantly greater 6-month weight loss compared with a CD when both interventions were delivered remotely. Minimal 6-month weight loss, which did not differ significantly between FTF delivery and RD, was observed with a CD.
OBJECTIVES: In this randomized trial, we compared the effectiveness of 2 diets (enhanced stop light diet [eSLD] versus conventional meal plan diet [CD]) and 2 delivery strategies (face-to-face [FTF] versus remote delivery [RD]) on weight loss across 6 months in adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities who were overweight or obese. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 arms (FTF/CD, RD/CD, or RD/eSLD) and asked to attend one-on-one sessions with a health educator every 2 weeks to aid in maintaining compliance with recommendations for a reduced-energy diet and increased physical activity. The CD followed the US dietary guidelines. The eSLD used the stop light guide and was enhanced with portion-controlled meals. The FTF arm was delivered during in-person home visits. The RD arms were delivered by using video conferencing. RESULTS: A total of 110 adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities (aged ∼16 years, 53% female, BMI 33) were randomly assigned to the FTF/CD (n = 36), RD/CD (n = 39), or RD/eSLD (n = 35) group. Body weight at 6 months was obtained from 97%, 100%, and 86% of participants in the FTF/CD, RD/CD, and RD/eSLD arms, respectively. The eSLD elicited significantly greater weight loss than the CD: RD/eSLD (-5.0 ± 5.9 kg; -6.4%) versus RD/CD (-1.8 ± 4.0 kg; -2.4%) (P = .01). However, weight loss did not differ by delivery strategy: FTF/CD (-0.3 ± 5.0 kg; -0.2%) versus RD/CD (-1.8 ± 4.0 kg; -2.4%) (P = .20). CONCLUSIONS: The eSLD elicited significantly greater 6-month weight loss compared with a CD when both interventions were delivered remotely. Minimal 6-month weight loss, which did not differ significantly between FTF delivery and RD, was observed with a CD.
Authors: Carol Curtin; Linda G Bandini; Aviva Must; James Gleason; Keith Lividini; Sarah Phillips; Misha Eliasziw; Melissa Maslin; Richard K Fleming Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Richard P Troiano; David Berrigan; Kevin W Dodd; Louise C Mâsse; Timothy Tilert; Margaret McDowell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Sumaiya Islam; Cordelia Elaiho; Guedy Arniella; Sheydgi Rivera; Nita Vangeepuram Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-27 Impact factor: 4.614