Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
A randomized clinical trial of a tailored lifestyle intervention for obese, sedentary, primary care patients |
Eaton CB, Hartman SJ, Perzanowski E, Pan G, Roberts MB, Risica PM, Gans KM, Jakicic JM, Marcus BH |
Annals of Family Medicine 2016 Jul-Aug;14(4):311-319 |
clinical trial |
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to test a tailored lifestyle intervention for helping obese primary care patients achieve weight loss and increase physical activity. METHODS: We conducted a 24-month randomized clinical trial in Rhode Island. Primary care physicians identified obese, sedentary patients motivated to lose weight and increase their moderate to vigorous physical activity. These patients were randomized to 1 of 2 experimental groups: enhanced intervention (EI) or standard intervention (SI). Both groups received 3 face-to-face weight loss meetings. The enhanced intervention group also received telephone counseling calls, individually tailored print materials, and DVDs focused on diet and physical activity. Active intervention occurred in year 1 with a tapered maintenance phase in year 2. RESULTS: Two hundred eleven obese, sedentary patients were recruited from 24 primary care practices. Participants were 79% women and 16% minorities. They averaged 48.6 years of age, with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 37.8 kg/m2, and 21.2 minutes/week of moderate to vigorous physical activity. Significantly more EI participants lost 5% of their baseline weight than SI participants (group by visit, p < 0.001). The difference was significant during active treatment at 6 months (37.2% EI versus 12.9% SI) and 12 months (47.8% versus 11.6%), but was no longer significant during the maintenance phase at 18 months (31.4% versus 26.7%,) or 24 months (33.3% versus 24.6%). The EI group reported significantly more minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity over time than the SI group (group by visit, p = 0.04). The differences in minutes per week at 6 months was 95.7 for the EI group versus 68.3 minutes for the SI group; at 12 months, it was 126.1 versus 73.7; at 18 months, 103.7 versus 63.7, and at 24 months, 101.3 versus 75.4. Similar trends were found for absolute weight loss and the percentage reaching national guidelines for physical activity. CONCLUSION: A home-based tailored lifestyle intervention in obese, sedentary primary care patients was effective in promoting weight loss and increasing moderate to vigorous physical activity, with the effects peaking at 12 months but waning at 24 months.
|