ArticleHealth psychology and behavioral medicine2024
Does intervention sequence impact self-regulatory and behavioral outcomes in an adaptive trial among adults with prediabetes?
Article in Health psychology and behavioral medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Lifestyle interventions can promote improvement in dietary intake and physical activity (PA), on average, by strengthening motivation, self-regulatory efforts, and commitment to behavioral change. However, maintenance of behavioral change is challenging, and slow responders during treatment often experience less overall success. Adaptive intervention sequences tailored to treatment response may be more effective in sustaining behavioral change. Methods: Adults ≥ 21 years old with prediabetes (n = 187) were stratified at week five to the standard Group Lifestyle Balance (GLB) intervention, if they achieved > 2.5% weight loss, or to the augmented intervention GLB Plus (GLB+) at week five, if they did not. At month five, each person in a matched pair was randomly assigned to GLB or GLB + for the extended intervention phase (months 5-12) followed by no study conduct (months 13-18). The primary comparison of interest was the change in outcomes between the standard (GLB followed by GLB) and augmented (GLB + followed by GLB+) intervention sequences post-intervention at 12 - and 18-months using linear mixed effect models. Results: The augmented GLB + intervention sequence reported a decline in the change in self-efficacy for reducing fat intake, self-efficacy for 'sticking to' healthy eating and exercise, and hopeful thought and planning compared to the standard GLB intervention sequence (all Conclusions: No significant change in behavioral measures across intervention sequences occurred at study end. An 18-month decline in self-efficacy regarding diet and PA and hopeful thought and planning among slow responders following no intervention for six months indicates greater extended care is likely needed. The type of extended care that is most effective for slow treatment responders requires additional research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.