不同行为干预方式对不同种族-性别亚群减肥效果的影响:POWER 试验分析。

IF 2.2 Q3 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Clinical Obesity Pub Date : 2024-05-13 DOI:10.1111/cob.12670
Kristal L. Brown, Nae-Yuh Wang, Wendy L. Bennett, Kimberly A. Gudzune, Gail Daumit, Arlene Dalcin, Gerald J. Jerome, Janelle W. Coughlin, Lawrence J. Appel, Jeanne M. Clark
{"title":"不同行为干预方式对不同种族-性别亚群减肥效果的影响:POWER 试验分析。","authors":"Kristal L. Brown,&nbsp;Nae-Yuh Wang,&nbsp;Wendy L. Bennett,&nbsp;Kimberly A. Gudzune,&nbsp;Gail Daumit,&nbsp;Arlene Dalcin,&nbsp;Gerald J. Jerome,&nbsp;Janelle W. Coughlin,&nbsp;Lawrence J. Appel,&nbsp;Jeanne M. Clark","doi":"10.1111/cob.12670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Prior in-person behavioural intervention studies have documented differential weight loss between men and women and by race, with Black women receiving the least benefit. Remotely delivered interventions are now commonplace, but few studies have compared outcomes by race-gender groups and delivery modality. We conducted a secondary analysis of POWER, a randomized trial (NCT00783315) designed to determine the effectiveness of 2 active, lifestyle-based, weight loss interventions (remote vs. in-person) compared to a control group. Participants with obesity and at least one cardiovascular disease risk factor (<i>N</i> = 415) were recruited in the Baltimore, MD area. Data from 233 white and 170 Black individuals were used for this analysis. Following an intention-to-treat approach, we compared the mean percent weight loss at 24 months by race-gender subgroups using repeated-measures, mixed-effects models. Everyone lost weight in the active interventions however, weight loss differed by race and gender. white and Black men had similar results for both interventions (white: in-person (−7.6%) remote (−7.4%); Black: in-person (−4.7%) remote (−4.4%)). In contrast, white women lost more weight with the in-person intervention (in-person (−7.2%) compared to the remote (−4.4%)), whereas Black women lost less weight in the in-person group compared to the remote intervention at 24 months (−2.0% vs. −3.0%, respectively; <i>p</i> for interaction &lt;.001). We found differences between the effectiveness of the 2 weight loss interventions—in-person or remote—in white and Black women at 24 months. Future studies should consider intervention modality when designing weight loss interventions for women.</p>","PeriodicalId":10399,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Obesity","volume":"14 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cob.12670","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in weight-loss outcomes among race-gender subgroups by behavioural intervention delivery mode: An analysis of the POWER trial\",\"authors\":\"Kristal L. Brown,&nbsp;Nae-Yuh Wang,&nbsp;Wendy L. Bennett,&nbsp;Kimberly A. Gudzune,&nbsp;Gail Daumit,&nbsp;Arlene Dalcin,&nbsp;Gerald J. Jerome,&nbsp;Janelle W. Coughlin,&nbsp;Lawrence J. Appel,&nbsp;Jeanne M. Clark\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cob.12670\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Prior in-person behavioural intervention studies have documented differential weight loss between men and women and by race, with Black women receiving the least benefit. Remotely delivered interventions are now commonplace, but few studies have compared outcomes by race-gender groups and delivery modality. We conducted a secondary analysis of POWER, a randomized trial (NCT00783315) designed to determine the effectiveness of 2 active, lifestyle-based, weight loss interventions (remote vs. in-person) compared to a control group. Participants with obesity and at least one cardiovascular disease risk factor (<i>N</i> = 415) were recruited in the Baltimore, MD area. Data from 233 white and 170 Black individuals were used for this analysis. Following an intention-to-treat approach, we compared the mean percent weight loss at 24 months by race-gender subgroups using repeated-measures, mixed-effects models. Everyone lost weight in the active interventions however, weight loss differed by race and gender. white and Black men had similar results for both interventions (white: in-person (−7.6%) remote (−7.4%); Black: in-person (−4.7%) remote (−4.4%)). In contrast, white women lost more weight with the in-person intervention (in-person (−7.2%) compared to the remote (−4.4%)), whereas Black women lost less weight in the in-person group compared to the remote intervention at 24 months (−2.0% vs. −3.0%, respectively; <i>p</i> for interaction &lt;.001). We found differences between the effectiveness of the 2 weight loss interventions—in-person or remote—in white and Black women at 24 months. Future studies should consider intervention modality when designing weight loss interventions for women.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Obesity\",\"volume\":\"14 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cob.12670\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Obesity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cob.12670\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Obesity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cob.12670","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前的面对面行为干预研究记录了男女之间以及不同种族之间体重减轻的差异,其中黑人妇女受益最少。远程干预现在已很普遍,但很少有研究对不同种族-性别群体和干预方式的结果进行比较。我们对 POWER 进行了二次分析,这是一项随机试验(NCT00783315),旨在确定两种积极的、基于生活方式的减肥干预(远程与面对面)与对照组相比的效果。该试验在马里兰州巴尔的摩地区招募了具有肥胖症和至少一种心血管疾病风险因素的参与者(N = 415)。本次分析使用了 233 名白人和 170 名黑人的数据。按照意向治疗方法,我们使用重复测量混合效应模型比较了不同种族-性别亚组在 24 个月时的平均体重减轻百分比。白人和黑人男性在两种干预措施中的结果相似(白人:面对面(-7.6%),远程(-7.4%);黑人:面对面(-4.7%),远程(-4.4%))。相比之下,白人妇女在面对面干预中的体重减轻幅度更大(面对面(-7.2%)与远程(-4.4%)相比),而黑人妇女在面对面干预组中的体重减轻幅度在 24 个月时与远程干预组相比更小(分别为-2.0%与-3.0%;交互作用 p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Differences in weight-loss outcomes among race-gender subgroups by behavioural intervention delivery mode: An analysis of the POWER trial

Prior in-person behavioural intervention studies have documented differential weight loss between men and women and by race, with Black women receiving the least benefit. Remotely delivered interventions are now commonplace, but few studies have compared outcomes by race-gender groups and delivery modality. We conducted a secondary analysis of POWER, a randomized trial (NCT00783315) designed to determine the effectiveness of 2 active, lifestyle-based, weight loss interventions (remote vs. in-person) compared to a control group. Participants with obesity and at least one cardiovascular disease risk factor (N = 415) were recruited in the Baltimore, MD area. Data from 233 white and 170 Black individuals were used for this analysis. Following an intention-to-treat approach, we compared the mean percent weight loss at 24 months by race-gender subgroups using repeated-measures, mixed-effects models. Everyone lost weight in the active interventions however, weight loss differed by race and gender. white and Black men had similar results for both interventions (white: in-person (−7.6%) remote (−7.4%); Black: in-person (−4.7%) remote (−4.4%)). In contrast, white women lost more weight with the in-person intervention (in-person (−7.2%) compared to the remote (−4.4%)), whereas Black women lost less weight in the in-person group compared to the remote intervention at 24 months (−2.0% vs. −3.0%, respectively; p for interaction <.001). We found differences between the effectiveness of the 2 weight loss interventions—in-person or remote—in white and Black women at 24 months. Future studies should consider intervention modality when designing weight loss interventions for women.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Obesity
Clinical Obesity ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.00%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: Clinical Obesity is an international peer-reviewed journal publishing high quality translational and clinical research papers and reviews focussing on obesity and its co-morbidities. Key areas of interest are: • Patient assessment, classification, diagnosis and prognosis • Drug treatments, clinical trials and supporting research • Bariatric surgery and follow-up issues • Surgical approaches to remove body fat • Pharmacological, dietary and behavioural approaches for weight loss • Clinical physiology • Clinically relevant epidemiology • Psychological aspects of obesity • Co-morbidities • Nursing and care of patients with obesity.
期刊最新文献
Healthcare utilization associated with obesity management in Ontario, Canada. Effect of the National Enhanced Service for weight management on the content of annual review consultations for patients living with obesity and hypertension and/or diabetes. Issue Information A cluster randomised controlled trial investigating the efficacy of family-centred obesity management program in primary care settings: A study protocol. Effect of interdisciplinary obesity care on metabolic markers and body weight in people with type 2 diabetes in a rural setting: A randomised controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1