基于极低碳水化合物网络计划的 2 型糖尿病成人心理支持策略:随机对照试验

Q2 Medicine JMIR Diabetes Pub Date : 2023-05-11 DOI:10.2196/44295
Laura R Saslow, Amanda L Missel, Alison O'Brien, Sarah Kim, Frederick M Hecht, Judith T Moskowitz, Hovig Bayandorian, Martha Pietrucha, Kate Raymond, Blair Richards, Bradley Liestenfeltz, Ashley E Mason, Jennifer Daubenmier, James E Aikens
{"title":"基于极低碳水化合物网络计划的 2 型糖尿病成人心理支持策略:随机对照试验","authors":"Laura R Saslow, Amanda L Missel, Alison O'Brien, Sarah Kim, Frederick M Hecht, Judith T Moskowitz, Hovig Bayandorian, Martha Pietrucha, Kate Raymond, Blair Richards, Bradley Liestenfeltz, Ashley E Mason, Jennifer Daubenmier, James E Aikens","doi":"10.2196/44295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A very low-carbohydrate (VLC) nutritional strategy may improve glycemic control and weight loss in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the supplementary behavioral strategies that might be able to improve outcomes using this nutritional strategy are uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to compare the impact of adding 3 different supplementary behavioral strategies to a web-based VLC diet intervention. To our knowledge, this is the first trial to randomize participants to different frequencies of dietary self-monitoring.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included 112 overweight adults with T2D (hemoglobin A<sub>1c</sub> ≥6.5%) taking no antiglycemic medications or only metformin. They received a remotely delivered 12-month VLC diet intervention. Participants were randomly assigned through a full factorial 2×2×2 design to supplementary strategies: either daily or monthly dietary self-monitoring, either mindful eating training or not, and either positive affect skills training or not. Our research goal was to determine whether 3 different supplemental strategies had at least a medium effect size (Cohen d=0.5).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, the VLC intervention led to statistically significant improvements in glycemic control (-0.70%, 95% CI -1.04% to -0.35%; P<.001), weight loss (-6.82%, 95% CI -8.57% to -5.08%; P<.001), and depressive symptom severity (Cohen d -0.67, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.41; P<.001). Furthermore, 30% (25/83) of the participants taking metformin at baseline reduced or discontinued their metformin. Only 1 Cohen d point estimate reached 0.5; daily (vs monthly) dietary self-monitoring had a worse impact on depressive symptoms severity (Cohen d=0.47, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.95; P=.06). None of the strategies had a statistically significant effect on outcomes. For changes in our primary outcome, hemoglobin A<sub>1c</sub>, the daily (vs monthly) dietary self-monitoring impact was 0.42% (95% CI -0.28% to 1.12%); for mindful eating, it was -0.47% (95% CI -1.15% to 0.22%); and for positive affect, it was 0.12% (95% CI -0.57% to 0.82%). Other results for daily (vs monthly) dietary self-monitoring were mixed, suggesting an increase in weight (0.98%) and depressive symptoms (Cohen d=0.47), less intervention satisfaction (Cohen d=-0.20), more sessions viewed (3.02), and greater dietary adherence (Cohen d=0.24). For mindful eating, the results suggested a benefit for dietary adherence (Cohen d=0.24) and intervention satisfaction (Cohen d=0.30). For positive affect, the results suggested a benefit for depressive symptoms (Cohen d=-0.32), the number of sessions viewed (3.68), dietary adherence (Cohen d=0.16), and intervention satisfaction (Cohen d=0.25).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, our results support the use of a VLC diet intervention in adults with T2D. The addition of monthly (not daily) dietary self-monitoring, mindful eating, and positive affect skills training did not show a definitive benefit, but it is worth further testing.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03037528; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03037528.</p>","PeriodicalId":52371,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Diabetes","volume":"8 ","pages":"e44295"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10214122/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychological Support Strategies for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in a Very Low-Carbohydrate Web-Based Program: Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Laura R Saslow, Amanda L Missel, Alison O'Brien, Sarah Kim, Frederick M Hecht, Judith T Moskowitz, Hovig Bayandorian, Martha Pietrucha, Kate Raymond, Blair Richards, Bradley Liestenfeltz, Ashley E Mason, Jennifer Daubenmier, James E Aikens\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/44295\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A very low-carbohydrate (VLC) nutritional strategy may improve glycemic control and weight loss in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the supplementary behavioral strategies that might be able to improve outcomes using this nutritional strategy are uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to compare the impact of adding 3 different supplementary behavioral strategies to a web-based VLC diet intervention. To our knowledge, this is the first trial to randomize participants to different frequencies of dietary self-monitoring.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included 112 overweight adults with T2D (hemoglobin A<sub>1c</sub> ≥6.5%) taking no antiglycemic medications or only metformin. They received a remotely delivered 12-month VLC diet intervention. Participants were randomly assigned through a full factorial 2×2×2 design to supplementary strategies: either daily or monthly dietary self-monitoring, either mindful eating training or not, and either positive affect skills training or not. Our research goal was to determine whether 3 different supplemental strategies had at least a medium effect size (Cohen d=0.5).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, the VLC intervention led to statistically significant improvements in glycemic control (-0.70%, 95% CI -1.04% to -0.35%; P<.001), weight loss (-6.82%, 95% CI -8.57% to -5.08%; P<.001), and depressive symptom severity (Cohen d -0.67, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.41; P<.001). Furthermore, 30% (25/83) of the participants taking metformin at baseline reduced or discontinued their metformin. Only 1 Cohen d point estimate reached 0.5; daily (vs monthly) dietary self-monitoring had a worse impact on depressive symptoms severity (Cohen d=0.47, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.95; P=.06). None of the strategies had a statistically significant effect on outcomes. For changes in our primary outcome, hemoglobin A<sub>1c</sub>, the daily (vs monthly) dietary self-monitoring impact was 0.42% (95% CI -0.28% to 1.12%); for mindful eating, it was -0.47% (95% CI -1.15% to 0.22%); and for positive affect, it was 0.12% (95% CI -0.57% to 0.82%). Other results for daily (vs monthly) dietary self-monitoring were mixed, suggesting an increase in weight (0.98%) and depressive symptoms (Cohen d=0.47), less intervention satisfaction (Cohen d=-0.20), more sessions viewed (3.02), and greater dietary adherence (Cohen d=0.24). For mindful eating, the results suggested a benefit for dietary adherence (Cohen d=0.24) and intervention satisfaction (Cohen d=0.30). For positive affect, the results suggested a benefit for depressive symptoms (Cohen d=-0.32), the number of sessions viewed (3.68), dietary adherence (Cohen d=0.16), and intervention satisfaction (Cohen d=0.25).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, our results support the use of a VLC diet intervention in adults with T2D. The addition of monthly (not daily) dietary self-monitoring, mindful eating, and positive affect skills training did not show a definitive benefit, but it is worth further testing.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03037528; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03037528.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52371,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Diabetes\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"e44295\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10214122/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Diabetes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/44295\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Diabetes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/44295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:极低碳水化合物(VLC)营养策略可改善成人 2 型糖尿病(T2D)患者的血糖控制和体重减轻。然而,目前还不确定哪些辅助行为策略可改善这种营养策略的效果:本研究旨在比较在基于网络的 VLC 饮食干预中添加 3 种不同辅助行为策略的影响。据我们所知,这是首次将参与者随机分配到不同频率的饮食自我监测中的试验:研究对象包括 112 名患有 T2D 的超重成人(血红蛋白 A1c ≥6.5%),他们未服用任何降糖药物或仅服用二甲双胍。他们接受了为期 12 个月的远程 VLC 饮食干预。通过全因子 2×2×2 设计,参与者被随机分配到辅助策略中:每天或每月进行饮食自我监测,接受或不接受正念饮食训练,接受或不接受积极情绪技能训练。我们的研究目标是确定三种不同的补充策略是否至少具有中等效果(Cohen d=0.5):总体而言,VLC 干预对血糖控制有统计学意义的改善(-0.70%,95% CI -1.04% 至 -0.35%;P1c,每日(与每月)饮食自我监控的影响为 0.42%(95% CI -0.28% 至 1.12%);注意饮食的影响为 -0.47%(95% CI -1.15% 至 0.22%);积极情绪的影响为 0.12%(95% CI -0.57% 至 0.82%)。每日(与每月)饮食自我监控的其他结果不一,表明体重(0.98%)和抑郁症状(Cohen d=0.47)增加,干预满意度降低(Cohen d=-0.20),查看次数增加(3.02),饮食依从性提高(Cohen d=0.24)。对于用心饮食,结果表明对坚持饮食(Cohen d=0.24)和干预满意度(Cohen d=0.30)有益处。在积极情绪方面,结果表明抑郁症状(Cohen d=-0.32)、观看次数(3.68)、饮食依从性(Cohen d=0.16)和干预满意度(Cohen d=0.25)均有益处:总的来说,我们的研究结果支持对患有 T2D 的成年人使用 VLC 饮食干预。总体而言,我们的结果支持在患有 T2D 的成人中使用 VLC 饮食干预,每月(而非每天)进行饮食自我监控、正念饮食和积极情绪技能培训并未显示出明确的益处,但值得进一步测试:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03037528;https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03037528。
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
Psychological Support Strategies for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in a Very Low-Carbohydrate Web-Based Program: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: A very low-carbohydrate (VLC) nutritional strategy may improve glycemic control and weight loss in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the supplementary behavioral strategies that might be able to improve outcomes using this nutritional strategy are uncertain.

Objective: This study aims to compare the impact of adding 3 different supplementary behavioral strategies to a web-based VLC diet intervention. To our knowledge, this is the first trial to randomize participants to different frequencies of dietary self-monitoring.

Methods: The study included 112 overweight adults with T2D (hemoglobin A1c ≥6.5%) taking no antiglycemic medications or only metformin. They received a remotely delivered 12-month VLC diet intervention. Participants were randomly assigned through a full factorial 2×2×2 design to supplementary strategies: either daily or monthly dietary self-monitoring, either mindful eating training or not, and either positive affect skills training or not. Our research goal was to determine whether 3 different supplemental strategies had at least a medium effect size (Cohen d=0.5).

Results: Overall, the VLC intervention led to statistically significant improvements in glycemic control (-0.70%, 95% CI -1.04% to -0.35%; P<.001), weight loss (-6.82%, 95% CI -8.57% to -5.08%; P<.001), and depressive symptom severity (Cohen d -0.67, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.41; P<.001). Furthermore, 30% (25/83) of the participants taking metformin at baseline reduced or discontinued their metformin. Only 1 Cohen d point estimate reached 0.5; daily (vs monthly) dietary self-monitoring had a worse impact on depressive symptoms severity (Cohen d=0.47, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.95; P=.06). None of the strategies had a statistically significant effect on outcomes. For changes in our primary outcome, hemoglobin A1c, the daily (vs monthly) dietary self-monitoring impact was 0.42% (95% CI -0.28% to 1.12%); for mindful eating, it was -0.47% (95% CI -1.15% to 0.22%); and for positive affect, it was 0.12% (95% CI -0.57% to 0.82%). Other results for daily (vs monthly) dietary self-monitoring were mixed, suggesting an increase in weight (0.98%) and depressive symptoms (Cohen d=0.47), less intervention satisfaction (Cohen d=-0.20), more sessions viewed (3.02), and greater dietary adherence (Cohen d=0.24). For mindful eating, the results suggested a benefit for dietary adherence (Cohen d=0.24) and intervention satisfaction (Cohen d=0.30). For positive affect, the results suggested a benefit for depressive symptoms (Cohen d=-0.32), the number of sessions viewed (3.68), dietary adherence (Cohen d=0.16), and intervention satisfaction (Cohen d=0.25).

Conclusions: Overall, our results support the use of a VLC diet intervention in adults with T2D. The addition of monthly (not daily) dietary self-monitoring, mindful eating, and positive affect skills training did not show a definitive benefit, but it is worth further testing.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03037528; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03037528.

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
JMIR Diabetes
JMIR Diabetes Computer Science-Computer Science Applications
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Use of Activity Trackers to Support Physical Activity and Reduce Sedentary Behavior in Adults Diagnosed With Type 2 Diabetes: Qualitative Interview Study Using the RE-AIM Framework. Exploring Opportunities and Challenges for the Spread, Scale-Up, and Sustainability of mHealth Apps for Self-Management of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the Netherlands: Citizen Science Approach. Personalized and Culturally Tailored Features of Mobile Apps for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Their Impact on Patient Self-Management: Scoping Review. Association of Blood Glucose Data With Physiological and Nutritional Data From Dietary Surveys and Wearable Devices: Database Analysis. Health and eHealth Literacy of Patients With Diabetes in Low-Income Countries: Perspective From Guinea and Burkina Faso.
×
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