TN: Telenutrition Interventions by Registered Dietitians (2012)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to develop and test an exchange list Greek-Mediterranean diet that could be used in future clinical trials of breast cancer prevention. The hypothesis was that telephone counseling would result in large dietary changes because this type of counseling has been used in other studies that targeted increases in fruit and vegetable consumption.

Inclusion Criteria:
  • Women between the ages of 25 to 65 years were eligible
  • Provided written informed consent
  • In good overall health
  • Currently a non-smoker
  • In the normal to overweight range (BMI 18.5 to 30kg/m2)
  • Had a diet with a fat intake of at least 23% of calories from seven-day food records with no more than 48% of fat intake being from MUFA
  • Fruit and vegetable intakes considered as eligible were <5.5 servings per day, not including white potatoes and iceberg lettuce.
Exclusion Criteria:
  • Reported having a chronic disease such as diabetes mellitus, autoimmune disease or high blood pressure
  • On a medically prescribed diet or taking dietary supplements >150% of Recommended Dietary Allowances
  • Being pregnant or lactating or being treated with therapies or supplements that could obscure the ability to detect diet effects.
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

  • Advertisements in community newspapers and at health fairs were used as well as flyers and employee newsletters
  • Recruitment spanned April 2004 to August 2005.

 Design

Randomized controlled trial with a six-month diet intervention 

Blinding used

Not applicable

Intervention

  • Subjects were randomized to the non-intervention (usual diet) or intervention diet (Modified Mediterranean Diet) for six months plus dietitian counseling weekly for the first three months and then biweekly thereafter
  • Intervention goals were to decrease usual fat intakes by about half and to replace those fats with olive oil and other high-MUFA foods, increase fruit and vegetable servings to seven to nine servings per day, depending on energy intake, and consume at least one serving per day of culinary herbs and allium vegetables.
  • Registered dietitians provided exchange goals and individualized telephone counseling, and diets were self-selected using a Mediterranean exchange list developed specifically for this study.

Statistical Analysis

  • All analyses were carried out with SPSS v 15.0 with a significance level of 0.05
  • Demographic characteristics of the two diet groups at baseline were compared by two-sample t-tests for continuous measures such as age, BMI, weight, waist circumference and X2 tests
  • Changes in dietary intakes from seven-day food records at each time point were modeled using repeated measures analysis of variance
  • The correlation between the measurements at baseline, three months, and six months within each subject was modeled using a completely unstructured variance-covariance matrix thereby providing a robust option
  • Post hoc tests used a Bonferroni correction protecting overall type I error at 5%.

 

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

  • All subjects filled out demographic questionnaires, were measured for weight and waist circumference and were asked to return seven-day food records at baseline, three months, and six months
  • Height was measured at baseline only with a stadiometer to the nearest 0.5cm.

Dependent Variables

  • Weight, BMI
  • Waist circumference
  • Change in diet (The change in diet was measured by seven-day food records and self-report)
  • Food records were analyzed using the Nutrition Data System Research software from the University of Minnesota.

Independent Variables

  • Non-intervention diet: Women assigned to this group did not receive any dietary counseling, if their intake of any vitamin or mineral was <67% of Recommended Dietary Allowances they were given a list of foods that are rich in that nutrient. The National Cancer Institute's Action Guide to Healthy Eating which emphasized fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and reduced fat intake was given to all women in this group.
  • Intervention diet: Modified Mediterranean Diet. The diet goals were based on considerations of Greek intakes and on the types of foods available in the United States. The fruit and vegetable goal was seven to nine servings per day depending on energy intake and the fat intake goal that was both feasible and close to the Greek intakes was a PUFA:SFA:MUFA ratio of 1:2:5. To achieve change in the type of fat consumed, subjects were asked to choose "very lean" meats and "lean" meats from the exchange list and to limit meat intake overall. Registered dietitians determined exchange goals for each subject at the baseline visit. Participants received seven days of example menus for their own particular caloric and fat intake level. The intervention was implemented using telephone appointments and subjects were asked to mail or fax their self-monitoring records to the RD before the call. The counseling was weekly for the first three months and biweekly thereafter.

Control Variables

Demographic variables assessed through questionnaire

 

Description of Actual Data Sample:
  • Initial N: 69 women
  • Attrition (final N): 60 women completed six months of participation
    • 33 in the control arm
    • 27 in the intervention arm
  • Age: Mean age 44 years (range 25 to 59 years)
  • Ethnicity: Not described
  • Other relevant demographics: Not reported
  • Anthropometrics: Mean BMI of enrolled women was 24 (range=19 to 30)
  • Location: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

 

Summary of Results:

Key Findings

  • Counseling using the Mediterranean exchange list was effective for large dietary changes relative to non-intervention group. There were statistically significant differences between the groups at three and six months, indicating an intervention effect.
  • Repeated measures ANOVA indicated a statistically significant 48% increase in the dietary monounsaturated fat with no appreciable change in total fat intake, as well as a significant increase in fruit and vegetable intake from 4.0 to 8.6 servings per day (P<0.05)
  • Compared to the non-intervention group, the Mediterranean group had a significantly higher intake of MUFA, fruit, vegetables, a-tocopherol, lutein, lycopene, a-carotene, B-carotene, and B-cryptoxanthin when averaged over time
  • The intervention was successful in increasing categories of fruit and vegetables that were targeted by the exchange list. Specifically, while beta carotene is found in most fruits and vegetables, lutein is high in dark green vegetables and herbs, alpha carotene in dark orange vegetables, lycopene in tomatoes, and B-cryptoxanthin and vitamin c are high in many fruits.
  • Total fat intake and percentage of energy from fat did not change substantially in the Mediterranean group, although the percentage of energy from fat did increase slightly
  • PUFA and SFA intakes decreased by about 30% and MUFA intake increased by 45%. Changes in these fat intakes were evident at three months and were maintained to six months. This indicates that the targeted fat intakes were largely met in the Mediterranean group using the exchange list diet. 


 

 


 

Author Conclusion:

The exchange list allowed women to meet the study goals while giving them flexibility in food choices within the food exchange categories. This self-selected diet may be useful for interventions that seek to decrease cardiovascular and cancer risks, and for people seeking to follow a Mediterranean style of eating using Western foods.

Funding Source:
Government: American Institute for Cancer Research Grant no. 03B043, NIH, GCRC at University of Michigan
Not-for-profit
Chemistry Laboratory of the Michigan Diabetes Research and Training Center
Reviewer Comments:

The authors did note some limitations to this study. Limitations of the intervention design include its small size, lack of specific goals for foods high in n-3 fatty acids that were quite high in traditional Greek diets, the short frame of the study, and the fact that waist measures were performed by multiple observers. The approach could be further modified for subsequent studies, and the optimal extent of counseling determined. With longer studies, dietary changes may become more automatic and therefore easier to maintain without as much record-keeping.

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? No
  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? Yes
  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? No
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  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? Yes
  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? Yes
  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? N/A
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? N/A
  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.) N/A
  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? ???
  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? ???
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? ???
  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? ???
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)? N/A
  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? Yes
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