| Literature DB >> 34948964 |
Meaghan McCallum1, Annabell Suh Ho1, Christine N May1, Heather Behr1,2, Ellen Siobhan Mitchell1, Andreas Michealides1.
Abstract
According to recent research, body positivity and self-compassion are key outcomes that are tied to better psychological and physical health. To date, it is unclear whether body positivity and self-compassion improve, stay constant, or deteriorate over the course of a weight management program, particularly one that addresses the psychological roots of behavior change. Additionally, beyond controlled settings, there are no studies on body positivity and self-compassion in individuals who choose to join a commercial weight management program. Therefore, this single-arm prospective study examined changes in body positivity and self-compassion from baseline to the 16 week milestone of Noom Weight, a commercial behavior change weight management program informed by acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). We also examined how baseline and over-time changes in body positivity and self-compassion predicted engagement in program-measured relevant behaviors (e.g., exercises logged). Participants were a random subset of individuals who had recently self-enrolled in the program (n = 133). Body positivity and self-compassion were measured via survey at baseline and end of the core program (16 weeks). Self-reported weight and program-recorded engagement were extracted from the program database. Compared to baseline, body appreciation, body image flexibility, self-compassion, and body-focused rumination significantly improved at 16 weeks (all ps < 0.007). Participants lost a statistically significant amount of weight (3.9 kg; t(128)) = 10.64, p < 0.001) by 16 weeks, which was 4.4% body weight. Greater engagement, especially messaging a coach, reading articles, and logging meals, was associated with improvements over time in body appreciation (r = 0.17, p = 0.04), body image flexibility (r = -0.23, p = 0.007), and the brooding component of rumination (r = -0.23, p = 0.007). Greater engagement was also associated with baseline total self-compassion (r = 0.19, p = 0.03) and self-judgment (r = 0.24, p = 0.006). The results suggest that individuals experience improvements in body positivity and self-compassion while learning about ACT, DBT, and CBT through curriculum and coaching in this setting. The results also have important clinical implications, such as the possibility that psychologically-oriented (i.e., ACT, DBT, and CBT-based) weight management could be important to improve body positivity or that baseline self-compassion could be used to target individuals at risk for lower engagement. Future work should investigate these possibilities as well as delineate the causal relationships between body positivity, self-compassion, engagement, and weight loss.Entities:
Keywords: ACT; CBT; body dissatisfaction; body image; body positivity; digital health; mHealth; obesity; self-compassion; weight loss; weight management
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34948964 PMCID: PMC8708647 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182413358
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Diagram of study inclusion.
Change in primary outcomes from baseline to week 16.
| Outcome | Mean Difference | Test Statistic | Cohen’s d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body appreciation | +0.22 | t(132) = −5.23 | <0.001 *** | 0.45 |
| Body image flexibility 1 | −2.86 | t(132) = 3.56 | 0.001 *** | 0.31 |
| Total self-compassion | +2.22 | t(132) = −4.04 | <0.001 *** | 0.35 |
| Self-judgment subscale 2 | +0.56 | t(132) = −3.87 | <0.001 *** | 0.34 |
| Common humanity subscale | +0.56 | t(132) = −3.64 | <0.001 *** | 0.31 |
| Mindfulness subscale | +0.39 | t(132) = −2.71 | 0.007 ** | 0.24 |
| Self-kindness subscale | +0.24 | t(132) = −1.66 | 0.10 + | 0.14 |
| Isolation subscale 2 | +0.19 | t(132) = −1.12 | 0.27 | 0.10 |
| Overidentification subscale 2 | +0.29 | t(132) = −1.88 | 0.06 + | 0.16 |
| Total rumination | −0.95 | t(132) = 2.92 | 0.004 ** | 0.25 |
| Brooding subscale | −0.71 | t(132) = 3.11 | 0.002 ** | 0.27 |
| Reflection subscale | −0.24 | t(132) = 1.47 | 0.14 | 0.13 |
1 The body image flexibility scale is reverse coded such that higher scores denote worse body image flexibility. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, + p < 0.10. 2 These subscales are reverse-scored so that higher scores mean less self-judgment, isolation, and overidentification.