AWM: Nutrition Education (2006)
Miller CK, Jensen GL, Achterberg CL. Evaluation of a food label nutrition intervention for women with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Am Diet Assoc 1999; 99(3): 323-328.
PubMed ID: 10076584
NEUTRAL:Recruitment
Recruited through advertisements in newspapers, public service announcements on tv, an existing community diabetes support group, an outpatient general medicine clinic, and referrals from other participants.
Design
Pretest-posttest control group design with participants receiving random assignment through random numbers table.
Blinding used (if applicable)
Not used.
Intervention (if applicable)
9 weekly group sessions, 90 minutes each.
Statistical Analysis
Chi-square used to analyze discrete variables. Analysis of continuous variables using t test. ANOVA performed to compare groups. Paired t tests compared pretest and posttest results. Level of significance was 0.01.
Timing of Measurements
Pretest and posttest questionnaires after 9 weeks of group sessions.
Dependent Variables
- Effectiveness of food label education program on participants' knowledge was determined using multiple-choice test designed to measure declarative and procedural knowledge
- Skills inventory assessed perceived confidence in using the food label. Face validity, content validity and internal consistency had been established previously.
Independent Variables
- Participation in 9 weekly sessions led by same RD
Control Variables
Initial N: 53 were recruited and were screened. 49 were eligible and 1 declined to participate. 48 randomly assigned. 5 withdrew due to dissatisfaction with assignment. 43 women obtained, 21 in experimental.
Attrition (final N): 40 women completed (93%) the program, 22 controls, 18 experimental
Age: Controls: 51.4 +/- 6.7 years, Experimental: 51.3 +/- 6.2 years
Ethnicity: 38 (95%) of subjects were white, 1 African American, 1 Asian.
Other relevant demographics: Controls BMI: 32.1 +/- 7.1, Experimental BMI: 33.2 +/- 5.0
Anthropometrics: No significant differences between experimental and control groups for any variable measured, except that more women in experimental group managed their diabetes through diet only (P < 0.01).
Location: rural Pennsylvania
Other Findings
Pretest knowledge score between groups were not significantly different (P > 0.01).
Experimental group showed a greater gain than the control group in total knowledge (P < 0.001), declarative knowledge (P < 0.001), and procedural knowledge (P < 0.01) at posttest.
Posttest data showed a significant increase (P < 0.01) in experimental participants' perceived confidence in using the food label to make product selections.
| Not-for-profit |
|
|
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
|
|||
| Relevance Questions | |||
| 1. | Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
| 2. | Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Yes | |
| 3. | Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? | Yes | |
| 4. | Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
| Validity Questions | |||
| 1. | Was the research question clearly stated? | Yes | |
| 1.1. | Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? | Yes | |
| 1.2. | Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? | Yes | |
| 1.3. | Were the target population and setting specified? | Yes | |
| 2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | ??? | |
| 2.1. | Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? | ??? | |
| 2.2. | Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? | Yes | |
| 2.3. | Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? | Yes | |
| 2.4. | Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? | ??? | |
| 3. | Were study groups comparable? | ??? | |
| 3.1. | Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) | Yes | |
| 3.2. | Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? | ??? | |
| 3.3. | Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) | Yes | |
| 3.4. | If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? | N/A | |
| 3.5. | If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) | N/A | |
| 3.6. | If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? | N/A | |
| 4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | Yes | |
| 4.1. | Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? | Yes | |
| 4.2. | Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) | Yes | |
| 4.3. | Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? | Yes | |
| 4.4. | Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? | ??? | |
| 4.5. | If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? | N/A | |
| 5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | No | |
| 5.1. | In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? | No | |
| 5.2. | Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) | No | |
| 5.3. | In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? | N/A | |
| 5.4. | In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? | N/A | |
| 5.5. | In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? | N/A | |
| 6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | Yes | |
| 6.1. | In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? | Yes | |
| 6.2. | In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? | N/A | |
| 6.3. | Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? | Yes | |
| 6.4. | Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? | Yes | |
| 6.5. | Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? | Yes | |
| 6.6. | Were extra or unplanned treatments described? | Yes | |
| 6.7. | Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? | Yes | |
| 6.8. | In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? | N/A | |
| 7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Yes | |
| 7.1. | Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? | Yes | |
| 7.2. | Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? | Yes | |
| 7.3. | Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? | Yes | |
| 7.4. | Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? | Yes | |
| 7.5. | Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? | Yes | |
| 7.6. | Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? | Yes | |
| 7.7. | Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? | Yes | |
| 8. | Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Yes | |
| 8.1. | Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? | Yes | |
| 8.2. | Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? | Yes | |
| 8.3. | Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? | Yes | |
| 8.4. | Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? | N/A | |
| 8.5. | Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? | Yes | |
| 8.6. | Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? | Yes | |
| 8.7. | If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? | N/A | |
| 9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | Yes | |
| 9.1. | Is there a discussion of findings? | Yes | |
| 9.2. | Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? | Yes | |
| 10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |
| 10.1. | Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? | Yes | |
| 10.2. | Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? | Yes | |