SSPSM: Compliance (2014)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:
To test whether the multifaceted Jenny Craig (JC) intervention is associated with a greater degree of weight loss and maintenance of that loss in overweight or obese women compared with control conditions.
Inclusion Criteria:
  • Age 18 years and older
  • Initial BMI at least 25.0kg/m2 (overweight or obese) and less than 40kg/m2 and a minimum of 15kg over ideal weight, as defined by the 1983 Metropolitan Life Insurance tables
  • Willing and able to participate in clinic visits and JC facility interactions at specified intervals and to maintain contact with the investigators for two years
  • Willing to allow blood collections; and capable of performing a simple step test for assessing cardiopulmonary fitness.
Exclusion Criteria:
  • Those who were unable to be physically active because of severe disability (e.g., severe arthritic conditions) or who reported a history or presence of a comorbid disease for which diet modification and increased physical activity might be contraindicated were not included
  • Those who reported being currently pregnant or breastfeeding or planning a pregnancy within the next two years
  • Current active involvement in another diet intervention study or organized weight loss program
  • Those having a history or presence of a significant psychiatric disorder or any other condition that, in the investigator’s judgment, would interfere with participation in the trial also disqualified women from participating.
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

Not reported.

Design

  • Randomized controlled trial
  • Participants were stratified by BMI (25.0kg/m2 to 29.9kg/m2 vs. 30.0kg/m2) and age (under 40 and over 40 years) and randomly assigned to one of the two study groups: Intervention (JC) or Control.

Blinding Used

Implied with measurements.

Intervention

The intervention arm consisted of referral to a conveniently located community-based JC facility, including the establishment of an initial appointment to begin the program. Subjects assigned to the commercial weight loss program intervention received all program materials, including pre-packaged prepared foods as needed to achieve a meal plan, free-of-charge. The food component consists of prescribing an energy-reduced diet (typically 1,200kcal to 2,000kcal per day, individualized based on energy requirements) that includes pre-packaged prepared food items that incorporate (and are accompanied by) increased vegetables, fruit and other additional strategies to reduce the energy density of the diet. The pre-packaged foods are generally provided at the weekly interactions at a community-based facility and food selections are determined by the preferences of the client and how the products fit into a nutritionally complete meal plan. The average energy contribution of the pre-packaged foods during that initial period is 820kcal per day, so that within a prescribed energy intake of 1,200kcal to 2,300kcal per day, the pre-packaged food would provide 35% to 68% of energy for clients who choose not to deviate from the plan.

Participants assigned to the Usual Care Control Group were provided consultation at baseline (after randomization) and again at 16 weeks with a research staff dietitian, who also provided publicly available print material that described dietary and physical activity guidelines to promote weight loss and maintenance. The dietitian initially discussed the interpretation of the participant’s anthropometric data and the concepts of healthy weight and energy balance. Baseline energy requirements for weight maintenance were then calculated and an energy intake level (accompanied by a menu plan based on food groups) to achieve a weight loss of 10% over a six-month period was prescribed, involving a deficit of 500kcal to 1,000kcal per day, as per current recommendations. Specific sample meal plans and recommendations to increase physical activity were provided to each participant. Written materials and resources for useful strategies and skills, such as reading food labels, estimating serving sizes and eating outside the home, were provided as well as information for healthy food choices (e.g., the US Department of Agriculture Food Guide Pyramid). Progress was reviewed and concepts and strategies were further discussed in the follow-up counseling session.

Statistical Analysis

Changes in anthropometric measures (change in weight, BMI, waist and hip circumferences and percentage weight change) were compared between the two groups at six months and at 12 months, using two-sample T-tests. Changes in step test (heart rate over 30 seconds) and changes in BDI and EDE-Q scores in the two study groups were also compared using two-sample T-tests. The drop-out rate was low [none at six months and five (7%) at 12 months] and we performed both an intent-to-treat and completers analysis on the 12-month data, substituting baseline values for any subjects for whom 12-month data were missing.

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

Information about demographic characteristics was collected by telephone at the time of recruitment and as part of the initial interview. Before the initial clinic visit, participants received detailed instructions on how to prepare for a clinic visit and the interview and written questionnaires were completed at the clinic visits. Trained staff obtained anthropometric measures, BMI was calculated with these measurements and a step test was conducted with each participant at the baseline and six- and 12-month clinic visits. Data collection (anthropometric measures, biochemical laboratory assays, questionnaires and step test) for all subjects occurred at three clinic visits: At baseline, at six and at 12 months. Information about demographic characteristics and weight history was collected only at baseline.

Dependent Variables

  • Anthropometric measurements (height, weight, waist and hip circumferences)
  • Three-minute step test (aerobic fitness)
  • Blood measures
  • Eating disorder examination questionnaire (EDE-Q)
  • Beck depression inventory.

Independent Variables

Group assignment: JC Intervention vs. Usual Care Control. 

Control Variables

Timing of measurements.

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N

A total of 70 women were randomized (35 in Usual Care Control, 35 in JC Intervention)

Attrition (Final N)

  • Six months: 35 in Usual Care, 35 in JC Intervention
  • 12 months: 33 in Usual Care, 32 in JC Intervention.

Age

Usual Care: 40±12 years
JC Intervention: 42±11 years.

Ethnicity

White: 57% in both groups
Hispanic: 31% in the Usual Care Group; 14% in the JC Intervention Group
African-American: 3% in the Usual Care Group; in the JC Intervention Group
Asian-American: 3% both groups
Other: 6% in the Usual Care Group; 9% in the JC Intervention Group.

Other Relevant Demographics

  • Anthropometrics: NS differences between groups at baseline
    • BMI: 33.8±3.4kg/m2 in the Usual Care Group; 34.2±3.7kg/min the JC Intervention Group
    • Weight: 89.6±9.4kg in the Usual Care Group; 94.4±12.2kg in the JC Intervention Group
  • Location: San Diego, CA, USA.
Summary of Results:

Key Findings
Change in weight, intent-to-treat analysis

Variables

Intervention (JC) Group

UC Control Group

 

Statistical Significance of Group Difference

Change in weight (kg)

6 months

-7.2±6.7

-0.3±3.9

P<0.01 between groups at both 6 and 12 months

12 months -6.6±10.2 -0.7±5.5
Change in percent weight 6 months -7.8±7.2 -0.3±4.5

P<0.01 between groups at both 6 and 12 months

12 months

-7.1±10.8

-0.7±6.0

Change in BMI (kg/m2) 6 months -2.6±2.5 -0.2±1.5

P<0.01 between groups at both 6 and 12 months

12 months

-2.4±3.8

-0.3±2.1

  • After 12 months, change in weight was 7.3±10.4kg (7.8±11.1%) in the Intervention Group vs. 0.7+5.6kg (0.7±6.2%) in the Control Group (P<0.01) for those who completed the trial
  • Importantly, at both follow-up time-points, the Intervention Group lost significantly more weight, BMI and waist and hip circumferences than the Usual Care Control Group (P<0.01)
  • Results from this study demonstrate that a commercial diet and lifestyle modification program that incorporates several specific strategies (individual counseling, low-energy density diet, pre-packaged foods and increased physical activity) successfully facilitated a weight loss of 8% of initial weight that was notably maintained at one year.

Other Findings

  • The two groups did not differ on their EDE-Q and BDI scores, with both groups showing very small improvements on each measure (data not shown)
  • Women assigned to the commercial weight loss program intervention experienced increases in plasma concentrations of alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, lycopene and HDL-cholesterol (P<0.01 paired T-tests) between baseline and 12 months
  • The Usual Care Control Group did not show any change in HDL-cholesterol or alpha-carotene concentrations, although the beta-carotene and lycopene concentrations also increased in the Control Group women
  • Total carotenoids, alpha-carotene and beta-carotene increased more in the Intervention Group than in the Usual Care Control Group between baseline and six months (P<0.05), but the difference was not sustained over 12 months. A key aspect of the approach to dietary guidance in the JC program is to encourage increased intake of vegetables and fruit as one approach to reducing the energy density of the diet. The increase in plasma carotenoids observed in this study confirms this change in diet composition.
Author Conclusion:

A commercial weight loss program that promotes diet and lifestyle modification successfully facilitates weight loss, which is notably maintained at one year.

Funding Source:
Industry:
Jenny Craig, Inc
In-Kind support reported by Industry: Yes
Reviewer Comments:
Only women studied.
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? 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
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? Yes
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? Yes
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? 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.) 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? N/A
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  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)? 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
  8.7. 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