| Literature DB >> 34960105 |
Chee Wai Ku1,2, Rachael Si Xuan Loo3, Cheryl Jia En Lim4, Jacinth J X Tan5, Joey Ee Wen Ho6, Wee Meng Han6, Xiang Wen Ng2, Jerry Kok Yen Chan1,2, Fabian Yap1,3,7, See Ling Loy1,2.
Abstract
There is a paucity of effective intervention tools for overweight/obese women to assess, guide and monitor their eating behavior. This study aimed to develop a lifestyle intervention tool, assess its acceptability and usefulness, and verify its construct validity in overweight/obese women. The 6P tool (Portion, Proportion, Pleasure, Phase, Physicality, Psychology) was developed and 15 women with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m2 were interviewed to assess its perceived acceptability and usefulness. Subsequently, the revised 6P tool was tested in 46 women with a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2. The Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ), International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short (IPAQ), and weight were measured at baseline and one-month. Most participants were satisfied with the presentation of the 6P tool (86.8%), and agreed it was useful in guiding healthy eating (81.6%) and raising awareness of eating behavior (97.4%). There were significant improvements in cognitive restraint (p = 0.010) and disinhibition (p = 0.030) (TFEQ), portion size (P1), pleasure behaviors (P3), and total composite 6P score (p < 0.001). However, there was no significant reduction in weight or increase in physical activity. The 6P tool is acceptable and presents with good validity for assessing lifestyle behaviors.Entities:
Keywords: 6P; healthy nutrition; lifestyle behavior tool; obesity
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34960105 PMCID: PMC8707061 DOI: 10.3390/nu13124553
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Steps involved in the development and validation of the 6P tool.
Figure 2Components of the 6P tool.
Figure 3Components of the 6P tool.
Themes and related quotes from participants for the 6P tool and 6P health messages.
| Themes | Subthemes | Examples of Quotes from Participants |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Perceived acceptability of the 6P tool | Comprehensive content and good language | I think it is quite comprehensive. Because currently I don’t see anything like that yet (05) I like that it’s coloured, (a) coloured copy. So, it is attractive, ‘winning’ all my other mailers. So, it will be enticing for me to fill (it) up…Very straightforward (to understand). I see the example (and) I know (what it means) already (07) |
| Suggestion for clearer definitions of food portion size | …the amount of rice, how do you define (what is) 1/3 of the rice, 2/3 of the rice, one whole plate of rice? …I think it would be better if you go by tablespoon (of rice) (04) | |
| Mobile application as an ideal delivery platform | Maybe (it can be in) some (form of a) pdf questionnaire then we (can) fill (it and) we just sent it to you all (12) An application (would be good)…because (a) the paper (form) might (be) lost very easily (01) | |
| Weekly or daily frequency of administration is ideal | (The 6P tool) preferably to be (filled) like weekly, so that you can easily recall (your food intake and habit) (13) | |
| Perceived relevance and usefulness of the 6P tool | Increased knowledge about healthy eating and more aware of unhealthy eating habits |
I mean, the habit is like more to me…especially the questions. I learn the good and bad (aspects of my eating behavior and pattern) … (I learned about) the correct timing (meal timing) (03) Based on this right, the portion… you’re over your 100% already. You have to be aware that you overeat (11). Because (answering) some questions make me feel guilty (about my eating habits), so (because of) that guiltiness, I’ll try to do something to let my guiltiness go off (by changing my behavior)…so definitely, these questions will help me…(to) exercise or eat healthier (15) |
| Useful to track their eating habits | They (the 6P tool) can actually sort of like monitor how did we change our intake of food (over time) and things like this (12) | |
| Adjuncts to the 6P tool | Suggestion for a feedback report | I want to see results (diagnosis) and recommendations at the end of filling the tool (07) |
| Suggestion for a monitoring chart | I think the logbook is a better way for me to monitor my progress. Its more convenient and keeps me motivated (03) | |
|
| ||
| Perceived acceptability of mobile health messages | Good content and language | Perfect, all the information is there (02) It explains clearly...it is not very lengthy (12) |
| Sending it via a mobile application is ideal | It will be best (delivered) by (a) mobile application (14) | |
| Weekly frequency of mobile health messages delivery | Weekly will be even better, because information retention would be there (07) | |
| Perceived usefulness of mobile health messages | Serves as a good reminder of their goals | Each of these nudges serves as a reminder (for us to improve our eating habits). Just like my running app, when it is time to run, they will ask me if it is time to go for a run (06) |
| Motivates them to improve eating habits | For me, if you have this kind of app or nudge, I feel (more) motivated (to work on my goal) because I know the direction in which to go (and how to improve) (05) | |
| Provides useful dietary information | I think the most important information that has (been) given (to us through mobile health messages) is the (about the importance of eating) three main meals. I think most of us... feel like I still feel like I should skip meals to lose weight. So, I think this information is good for us to let women know that skipping meals does not mean that it will be a healthier choice (to lose weight) (15) | |
| Suggestions for improving mobile health messages | Include more images | I believe it’s not just words, (adding in) some pictures would be good (12) |
| Messages that list the type of foods to be taken and avoided | (It will be good to include) which food is good to take, which food should be avoided (15) |
Notes: The number in brackets indicates the codes of the interviewees.
Pearson correlation coefficient (r) for the relationship of overall 6P composite scores with BMI, TFEQ, and IPAQ (n = 46).
| Measures |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| BMI | 0.26 | 0.086 |
| TFEQ- Cognitive restraint | −0.33 | 0.027 |
| TFEQ- Disinhibition | 0.50 | <0.001 |
| TFEQ- Hunger | 0.45 | 0.002 |
| IPAQ- Total MET | a −0.52 | 0.002 |
Abbreviation: BMI, Body Mass Index; TFEQ, Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire; IPAQ, International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short; MET, Metabolic Equivalent Task (MET). a Spearman’s rank correlation with P5-Physicality composite score.
Weight, eating behavior, physical activity, and 6P assessment at baseline and one-month follow-up (n = 38).
| Variable | Baseline | 1-Month Follow-Up | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight (kg) | 76.28 ± 11.29 | 76.37 ± 11.20 | 0.719 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 30.32 ± 4.09 | 30.36 ± 4.10 | 0.682 |
| TFEQ-51 | |||
| Cognitive restraint | 10.26 ± 4.10 | 11.82 ± 3.83 | 0.010 |
| Disinhibition | 7.63 ± 2.87 | 6.68 ± 2.90 | 0.030 |
| Hunger | 4.92 ± 2.88 | 4.50 ± 2.98 | 0.293 |
| Physical activity based on IPAQ scoring | |||
| Inactive | 10 (26.3) | 10 (26.3) | 0.931 |
| Minimally active | 18 (47.4) | 17 (44.7) | |
| High active (HEPA) | 10 (26.3) | 11 (29.0) | |
| P1 Portion (amount of carbohydrates per meal, scored from 0–7) | 3.00 (2.00–4.50) | 2.63 (1.25–3.67) | 0.004 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.039 |
| 1–2 (recommended) | 6 (15.8) | 13 (34.2) | |
| >2 | 32 (84.2) | 25 (65.8) | |
| P2 Proportion (portion of vegetables per day, scored from 0–100%) | 46.88 (6.25–100.00) | 40.62 (4.69–100.00) | 0.777 |
| <50% | 19 (50.0) | 20 (52.6) | 1.000 |
| ≥50% (recommended) | 19 (50.0) | 18 (47.4) | |
| P3 Pleasure (total snacks and beverages per day) | 2.00 (0.50–3.00) | 2.00 (0.50–3.00) | 0.601 |
| <3 (recommended) | 34 (89.5) | 32 (84.2) | 0.625 |
| ≥3 | 4 (10.5) | 6 (15.8) | |
| P4 Phase (proportion of daily intake after 7 pm, scored from 0–100%) | 25.00 (0–55.00) | 20.00 (0–50.00) | 0.179 |
| <50% (recommended) | 32 (84.2) | 34 (89.5) | 0.625 |
| ≥50% | 6 (15.8) | 4 (10.5) | |
| P5 Physicality (total duration per week in mins) | 195.00 (60.00–1200.00) | 285.00 (75.00–840.00) | 0.264 |
| <150 | 16 (42.1) | 13 (34.2) | 0.581 |
| ≥150 (recommended) | 22 (57.9) | 25 (65.8) | |
| P6 Psychology (motivational level, scored from 1–10) | 6 (4–8) | 6 (3–8) | 0.653 |
| ≤4 | 8 (21.1) | 4 (10.5) | 0.344 |
| ≥5 (recommended) | 30 (78.9) | 34 (89.5) |
Abbreviation: HEPA, Health Enhancing Physical Activity; BMI, Body Mass Index; TFEQ, Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire; IPAQ, International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short; MET, Metabolic Equivalent Task (MET). a Based on paired t-test, Wilcoxon sign rank test, or McNemar’s test. Values are presented in n (%) for categorical variables and means ± SDs or median (25th–75th percentiles) for continuous variables.
Figure 4Mean composite score and standard error bar for each P of the 6P intervention tool at baseline and one-month follow-up. * denotes p < 0.05.
6P diagnosis problem and goal selection at baseline and one-month follow-up.
| Baseline ( | Follow-Up ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6P Assessment | Diagnosis | Goal Selection | Diagnosis | Goal Selection |
|
| ||||
| Lack of carbohydrate | 2 (5.4%) | 2 (5.3%) | ||
| Overeating | 32 (86.5%) | 29 (76.3%) | ||
| Lack of whole grain | 17 (45.9%) | 15 (40.5%) | ||
| Eating too fast | 21 (56.8%) | 18 (47.4%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Inadequate vegetable & fruit intake | 32 (86.5%) | 34 (89.5%) | ||
| High fat intake | 21 (56.8%) | 20 (52.6%) | ||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Frequent snacking | 1 (2.7%) | 0 | ||
| Unhealthy snack and drink | 26 (70.3%) | 15 (39.5%) | ||
| Mindless snacking | 21 (56.8%) | 27 (71.1%) | ||
| Alcohol intake | 4 (10.8%) | 5 (13.2%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Irregular meal intake | 37 (100.0%) | 35 (92.1%) | ||
| Meal skipping | 28 (75.7%) | 22 (57.9%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Night eating | 16 (43.2%) | 13 (34.2%) | ||
| Bedtime eating | 9 (24.3%) | 8 (21.1%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Inadequate physical activity | 7 (18.9%) | 13 (34.2%) | ||
| Activity intensity | 4 (10.8%) | 1 (2.6%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Low motivation | 8 (21.6%) | 4 (10.5%) | ||