Dataset Information

Comparison of a family-based group intervention for youths with obesity to a brief individual family intervention: a practical clinical trial of positively fit.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the effectiveness of a family-based behavioral group intervention (Positively Fit; PF) for pediatric obesity relative to a brief family intervention (BFI) in a sample of treatment-seeking children and adolescents.

Methods

Families (n = 93) were randomized to treatment condition. Assessments were conducted at pre- and posttreatment and at 12-month follow-up. Outcome indices included standardized body mass index (BMI) and quality of life (QOL).

Results

Results indicated a significant reduction in zBMI at posttreatment and follow-up across both conditions. At follow-up, BFI and PF participants evidenced average reductions of .12 and .19 zBMI units, respectively. Children demonstrated better outcomes than adolescents across both conditions. Results indicated clinically significant improvements in parent-reported QOL at postintervention and in self-reported QOL at follow-up for PF participants.

Conclusions

Results suggest the effectiveness of family-based interventions for pediatric obesity in clinical settings among younger children. Neither intervention was effective in terms of reducing zBMI among adolescents.

SUBMITTER: Steele RG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3297018 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jan-Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of a family-based group intervention for youths with obesity to a brief individual family intervention: a practical clinical trial of positively fit.

Steele Ric G RG Aylward Brandon S BS Jensen Chad D CD Cushing Christopher C CC Davis Ann M AM Bovaird James A JA

Journal of pediatric psychology 20110818 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the effectiveness of a family-based behavioral group intervention (Positively Fit; PF) for pediatric obesity relative to a brief family intervention (BFI) in a sample of treatment-seeking children and adolescents.<h4>Methods</h4>Families (n = 93) were randomized to treatment condition. Assessments were conducted at pre- and posttreatment and at 12-month follow-up. Outcome indices included standardized body mass index (BMI) and quality of life (QOL).<h4>Results</h4>Re ...[more]

PMID: 21852343

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIn the US, 25% of youths have a chronic medical condition (CMC). Alcohol use is prevalent among youths with a CMC and is associated with treatment nonadherence, simultaneous exposure to contraindicated medications, poor self-care, and elevated rates of progression to heavy and problem use by young adulthood. Preventive interventions targeting these youths are scarce and lack evidence about longer-term risk-stratified effects.ObjectiveTo evaluate the 12-month effects of a preventive intervention for alcohol use among youths with a CMC reporting baseline no or low-risk alcohol use vs high-risk alcohol use, testing the hypothesis of no difference.Design, setting, and participantsThis presepecified secondary analysis used data from a 2-group, parallel randomized clinical trial of the Take Good Care (TGC) intervention. Convenience samples of youths (aged 14-18 years) with a CMC, such as type 1 diabetes, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, or inflammatory bowel disease, were randomly assigned to the intervention or treatment as usual (TAU) between May 11, 2017, and November 20, 2018, and were followed up for up to 12 months. High-risk alcohol use was defined as heavy episodic (binge) alcohol use in the past 3 months and alcohol-related blackouts, injuries, vomiting, or emergency department visits in the past 12 months. Data were analyzed from September 21, 2023, to February 3, 2024.InterventionsThe self-administered, tablet computer-based TGC intervention was developed with patient and expert input, and it delivers disease-tailored psychoeducational content about the effects of alcohol use on overall health, disease processes, and treatment safety and efficacy.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was self-reported frequency of alcohol use (in days) over the past 3 months, measured by a single validated question. Maximum likelihood methods incorporating all available data were used assuming data missing at random.ResultsThe trial included 451 participants (229 female youths [50.8%]), with a mean (SD) age of 16.0 (1.4) years. Of these youths, 410 (90.9%) participated in the 12-month follow-up. At baseline, 52 youths (11.5%) reported high-risk alcohol use. Among participants with high-risk alcohol use, the observed mean (SD) frequency of alcohol use from baseline to the 12-month follow-up decreased in the intervention group (from 6.3 [4.6] to 4.9 [4.3] days) and increased in the TAU group (from 5.5 [4.9] to 9.0 [5.8] days), with an adjusted relative rate ratio of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.94). There were no group differences among youths reporting no or low-risk alcohol use.Conclusions and relevanceIn this trial of a brief chronic illness-tailored preventive intervention, medically vulnerable youths with a high risk of alcohol use and harm decreased alcohol use. These findings support the use of a personalized preventive intervention with this group.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02803567.

Project description:BackgroundWomen with obesity and infertility are counseled to lose weight prior to conception and infertility treatment to improve pregnancy rates and birth outcomes, although confirmatory evidence from randomized trials is lacking. We assessed whether a preconception intensive lifestyle intervention with acute weight loss is superior to a weight neutral intervention at achieving a healthy live birth.Methods and findingsIn this open-label, randomized controlled study (FIT-PLESE), 379 women with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) and unexplained infertility were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 2 preconception lifestyle modification groups lasting 16 weeks, between July 2015 and July 2018 (final follow-up September 2019) followed by infertility therapy. The primary outcome was the healthy live birth (term infant of normal weight without major anomalies) incidence. This was conducted at 9 academic health centers across the United States. The intensive group underwent increased physical activity and weight loss (target 7%) through meal replacements and medication (Orlistat) compared to a standard group with increased physical activity alone without weight loss. This was followed by standardized empiric infertility treatment consisting of 3 cycles of ovarian stimulation/intrauterine insemination. Outcomes of any resulting pregnancy were tracked. Among 191 women randomized to standard lifestyle group, 40 dropped out of the study before conception; among 188 women randomized to intensive lifestyle group, 31 dropped out of the study before conception. All the randomized women were included in the intent-to-treat analysis for primary outcome of a healthy live birth. There were no significant differences in the incidence of healthy live births [standard 29/191(15.2%), intensive 23/188(12.2%), rate ratio 0.81 (0.48 to 1.34), P = 0.40]. Intensive had significant weight loss compared to standard (-6.6 ± 5.4% versus -0.3 ± 3.2%, P < 0.001). There were improvements in metabolic health, including a marked decrease in incidence of the metabolic syndrome (baseline to 16 weeks: standard: 53.6% to 49.4%, intensive 52.8% to 32.2%, P = 0.003). Gastrointestinal side effects were significantly more common in intensive. There was a higher, but nonsignificant, first trimester pregnancy loss in the intensive group (33.3% versus 23.7% in standard, 95% rate ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 2.50). The main limitations of the study are the limited power of the study to detect rare complications and the design difficulty in finding an adequate time matched control intervention, as the standard exercise intervention may have potentially been helpful or harmful.ConclusionsA preconception intensive lifestyle intervention for weight loss did not improve fertility or birth outcomes compared to an exercise intervention without targeted weight loss. Improvement in metabolic health may not translate into improved female fecundity.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02432209.

Project description:BackgroundObesity is a common cause of non-communicable disease. Guidelines recommend that physicians screen and offer brief advice to motivate weight loss through referral to behavioural weight loss programmes. However, physicians rarely intervene and no trials have been done on the subject. We did this trial to establish whether physician brief intervention is acceptable and effective for reducing bodyweight in patients with obesity.MethodsIn this parallel, two-arm, randomised trial, patients who consulted 137 primary care physicians in England were screened for obesity. Individuals could be enrolled if they were aged at least 18 years, had a body-mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 (or at least 25 kg/m2 if of Asian ethnicity), and had a raised body fat percentage. At the end of the consultation, the physician randomly assigned participants (1:1) to one of two 30 s interventions. Randomisation was done via preprepared randomisation cards labelled with a code representing the allocation, which were placed in opaque sealed envelopes and given to physicians to open at the time of treatment assignment. In the active intervention, the physician offered referral to a weight management group (12 sessions of 1 h each, once per week) and, if the referral was accepted, the physician ensured the patient made an appointment and offered follow-up. In the control intervention, the physician advised the patient that their health would benefit from weight loss. The primary outcome was weight change at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population, which was assessed blinded to treatment allocation. We also assessed asked patients' about their feelings on discussing their weight when they have visited their general practitioner for other reasons. Given the nature of the intervention, we did not anticipate any adverse events in the usual sense, so safety outcomes were not assessed. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN26563137.FindingsBetween June 4, 2013, and Dec 23, 2014, we screened 8403 patients, of whom 2728 (32%) were obese. Of these obese patients, 2256 (83%) agreed to participate and 1882 were eligible, enrolled, and included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 940 individuals in the support group and 942 individuals in the advice group. 722 (77%) individuals assigned to the support intervention agreed to attend the weight management group and 379 (40%) of these individuals attended, compared with 82 (9%) participants who were allocated the advice intervention. In the entire study population, mean weight change at 12 months was 2·43 kg with the support intervention and 1·04 kg with the advice intervention, giving an adjusted difference of 1·43 kg (95% CI 0·89-1·97). The reactions of the patients to the general practitioners' brief interventions did not differ significantly between the study groups in terms of appropriateness (adjusted odds ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·75-1·07, p=0·21) or helpfulness (1·05, 0·89-1·26, p=0·54); overall, four (<1%) patients thought their intervention was inappropriate and unhelpful and 1530 (81%) patients thought it was appropriate and helpful.InterpretationA behaviourally-informed, very brief, physician-delivered opportunistic intervention is acceptable to patients and an effective way to reduce population mean weight.FundingThe UK National Prevention Research Initiative.

Dataset Information

Comparison of a family-based group intervention for youths with obesity to a brief individual family intervention: a practical clinical trial of positively fit.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparison of a family-based group intervention for youths with obesity to a brief individual family intervention: a practical clinical trial of positively fit.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets