ReviewJournal of religion and health2015
Review and evaluation of faith-based weight management interventions that target African American women.
Review in Journal of religion and health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of church-based interventions to improve cardiovascular disease risk factors.The American journal of the medical sciences · 2023Pooled it
- The Effect of a Priest-Led Intervention on the Choice and Preference of Soda Beverages: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial in Catholic Parishes.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2020Trial
- A Narrative Review of Ethnic Minority Studies for Faith-Based Health Promotion Interventions with Special Reference to the Contemporary Christian Nurse.Journal of religion and health · 2021Review
- Building Capacity Among Laity: A Faith-Based Health Ministry Initiative.Journal of religion and health · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This integrative review was conducted to present results of the use of recommended criteria to evaluate faith-based weight management interventions (WMIs) that target African American women. This group experiences the highest prevalence of adult obesity in the US when compared to other ethnic groups. "Best practice" WMIs can help to alleviate obesity. Faith-based interventions hold promise for helping to address the problem of obesity in African American women since a significant portion of these persons views the church as a trusted entity that advocates for their well-being. No systematic evaluation of faith-based WMIs has been reported even though there is an ongoing plea for the need for better evaluation of health interventions that prioritizes comprehensive description of their attributes (e.g., linkage to theory, interventionists' background, and dosage) to enable replication and a broader assessment of their validity to include appropriateness and feasibility). Critique criteria were applied to faith-based WMIs (n = 5) that target African American women. Findings highlighted the need for increased disclosure about the (1) interventionists' background, (2) intervention's location within the church setting, and (3) nature of any "pre-intervention"’ treatment. The review also indicated the need for interventions that are (1) designed from robust research methodologies (effectiveness) that include randomization of both church setting and participants, (2) deemed appropriate from the perspective of African American women targeted, and (3) are financially feasible-without steep participant incentives/implementation costs that compromise internal validity and any positive outcomes generated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25015128What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.