Differences in weight‐loss outcomes among race‐gender subgroups by behavioural intervention delivery mode: An analysis of the POWER trial

Author:

Brown Kristal L.12ORCID,Wang Nae‐Yuh13,Bennett Wendy L.13,Gudzune Kimberly A.13ORCID,Daumit Gail13,Dalcin Arlene1,Jerome Gerald J.14ORCID,Coughlin Janelle W.35,Appel Lawrence J.13,Clark Jeanne M.13

Affiliation:

1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USA

2. Department of Creative Arts Therapies Drexel University, College of Nursing and Health Professions Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA

3. Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research Johns Hopkins Medical Institution Baltimore Maryland USA

4. Department of Kinesiology Towson University Baltimore Maryland USA

5. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USA

Abstract

SummaryPrior in‐person behavioural intervention studies have documented differential weight loss between men and women and by race, with Black women receiving the least benefit. Remotely delivered interventions are now commonplace, but few studies have compared outcomes by race‐gender groups and delivery modality. We conducted a secondary analysis of POWER, a randomized trial (NCT00783315) designed to determine the effectiveness of 2 active, lifestyle‐based, weight loss interventions (remote vs. in‐person) compared to a control group. Participants with obesity and at least one cardiovascular disease risk factor (N = 415) were recruited in the Baltimore, MD area. Data from 233 white and 170 Black individuals were used for this analysis. Following an intention‐to‐treat approach, we compared the mean percent weight loss at 24 months by race‐gender subgroups using repeated‐measures, mixed‐effects models. Everyone lost weight in the active interventions however, weight loss differed by race and gender. white and Black men had similar results for both interventions (white: in‐person (−7.6%) remote (−7.4%); Black: in‐person (−4.7%) remote (−4.4%)). In contrast, white women lost more weight with the in‐person intervention (in‐person (−7.2%) compared to the remote (−4.4%)), whereas Black women lost less weight in the in‐person group compared to the remote intervention at 24 months (−2.0% vs. −3.0%, respectively; p for interaction <.001). We found differences between the effectiveness of the 2 weight loss interventions—in‐person or remote—in white and Black women at 24 months. Future studies should consider intervention modality when designing weight loss interventions for women.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3