• Increase Font Size
  • Decrease Font Size
  • View as PDF

AWM: New Technology and Telenutrition (2013)

Citation:

Turner-McGrievy GM, Campbell MK, Tate DF, Truesdale KP, Bowling M, Crosby L. Pounds off digitally study: a randomized podcasting weight-loss intervention. Am J Prev Med. 2009; 37: 263-269.

PubMed ID: 19765496
 
Study Design:
Randomized Controlled Trial
Class:
A - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Positive POSITIVE: See Quality Criteria Checklist below.
Research Purpose:

To test a podcast designed with health behavior theories on weight loss. The hypothesis was that a weight-loss podcast designed with health behavior theories will produce a greater weight loss than a currently available podcast that is not theory-based.

Inclusion Criteria:
  • Overweight and obese men and women
  • Body mass index 25kg/m2 to 40kg/m2
  • Provided written informed consent.
Exclusion Criteria:

Unstable medical condition such as:

  • Cardiovascular disease
  • History of an eating disorder
  • Pregnancy
  • Alcohol or drug abuse
  • Tobacco use
  • Mental illness
  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Uncontrolled thyroid condition.
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

  • Newspaper advertisements
  • University e-mail in the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area.

Design

Randomized controlled trial.

Blinding Used

Implied with measurements.

Intervention: 

24 episodes of a currently available weight-loss podcast (control podcast) or a weight-loss podcast based on social cognitive theory (SCT) designed by the researchers (Registered Dietitians) for 12 weeks.

Statistical Analysis

  • All data collection and analyses were conducted in 2008 using intention-to treat by bringing baseline values forward for participants who attended the introductory meeting but did not complete the study
  • Between-subjects T-tests were calculated for all measures with the exception of the baseline demographic information the contained multiple categories such as education
  • For these measures a linear regression was used to predict follow-up weight adjusting for gender and group assignment and education and group assignment
  • All analyses were conducted using SPSS 16.0 for Windows software with P=0.05 used to indicate significant differences.
Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

Measurements made at baseline and 12 weeks.

 Dependent Variables

  • Weight measured on a digital scale
  • Baseline height was recorded with shoes off
  • Questionnaires were completed that assessed the knowledge of weight loss topics such as how to reduce calorie intake and increase exercise, food intake (Prime Screen Questionnaire), physical activity (short International Physical Activity Questionnaire IPAQ) and elaboration (the elaboration likelihood model), as well as questionnaires that assessed user control, cognitive load and social cognitive theory constructs (self-efficacy, expectancies and outcome expectations)
  • Changes in fruit, vegetable and fatty food intake were assessed using the Prime Screen Questionnaire by averaging the consumption category reported for servings of all vegetables, fruits and all fatty foods
  • Changes in physical activity were measured by self-report and not by an objective method such as the use of a pedometer. Using a Likert scale, participants were asked pre- and post-intervention to rate their knowledge of six weight-loss related topics such as dining out, exercise and calorie restriction.

 Independent Variables 

24 episodes of a currently available weight-loss podcast (control podcast) or a weight-loss podcast based on social cognitive theory (SCT) designed by the researchers for 12 weeks.

Control Variables

Information was collected at baseline on demographics and participants learned how to use the podcasts.

Description of Actual Data Sample:
  • Initial N: 120 men and women assessed for eligibility, 94 were randomized
  • Attrition (final N): 78 used for analysis (41 intervention group, 37 control)
  • Age: Mean age in control group (39.6±12.2 years), mean age in enhanced group (37.7±11.8 years)
  • Ethnicity:
    • Control group: 17% black, 78% white and 5% other
    • Enhanced group: 13% black, 85% white and 2% other
  • Other relevant demographics:
    • Control group: 31% high school or partial education, 50% college, 19% graduate degree
    • Enhanced group: 20% high school or partial education, 37% college, 43% graduate degree
  • Anthropometrics: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between completers and non-completers. The control and enhanced group did not differ significantly for any of the variables except that there were a disproportionately greater number of subjects in the control group without a graduate degree.
  • Location: North Carolina.
Summary of Results:

Key Findings

Enhanced group participants (N=41) had a greater decrease in weight (-2.9kg±3.5kg enhanced group vs. -0.3±2.1 control group; P<0.001 between groups) and BMI (-1.0±1.2kg/m2 enhanced group vs. -0.1±0.7kg/m2 control group; P<0.001 between groups) than the control group (N=37) and had greater weight loss related knowledge (P<0.05), elaboration (P<0.001) and user control (P<0.001) and less cognitive load (P<0.001).

 

 

 

Author Conclusion:

The results of this study suggest that the use of behavioral, theory-based podcasting may be an effective way to promote weight loss.

Funding Source:
Other: Lineberger Cancer Control Education Program
Reviewer Comments:

Limitations to the present study are a mostly white and highly educated sample. Dietary data were measured using a brief questionnaire instead of more detailed methods such as a 24-hour recall or food record. Physical activity was also measured using a questionnaire when less subjective methods such as a pedometer may have provided more accurate results.

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
  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
  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
  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
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
  1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.1. 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
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
  2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
  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
  2.1. 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
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? 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? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? Yes
  3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
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
  3.1. 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
  3.2. 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
  3.3. 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
  3.4. 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
  3.5. 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
  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. Was method of handling withdrawals described? Yes
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? 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
  4.2. 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
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? 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
  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? Yes
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? Yes
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? 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.) Yes
  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.) Yes
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? 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
  5.4. 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
  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. 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
  6.1. 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
  6.2. 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
  6.3. 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
  6.4. 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
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? Yes
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments 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
  6.7. 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
  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. 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
  7.1. 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
  7.2. 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
  7.3. 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
  7.4. 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
  7.5. 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
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? 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. 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
  8.1. 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
  8.2. 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
  8.3. 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)? 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)? Yes
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  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
  8.6. 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
  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. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? 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. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes