Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39104715›Full record

ArticleHealth psychology and behavioral medicine2024

Does intervention sequence impact self-regulatory and behavioral outcomes in an adaptive trial among adults with prediabetes?

Carla K Miller, Danielle King, Haikady N Nagaraja, Kentaro Fujita, Jennifer S Cheavens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Carla K MillerDept. of Human Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1002-7288
Danielle KingDept. of Human Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3600-9667
Haikady N NagarajaSchool of Public Health, Division of Biostatistics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8896-0804
Kentaro FujitaDept. of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3527-6002
Jennifer S CheavensDept. of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3778-9346

Funding

The OSU Center for Clinical and Translational Science: Advancing Today's Discoveries to Improve HealthUL1TR002733 · NCATS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI RINGEL, MATTHEW D · 2018 to 2022
$28.9M
Impact of Augmented Care at the Worksite for Diabetes PreventionR01DK112930 · NIDDK · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI MILLER, CARLA K · 2017 to 2021
$3.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002733NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK112930
6 · The paper itself

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

behavior therapybody weight maintenancedietexerciseLifestyle risk reduction

Identifiers

PMID39104715
PMCPMC11299451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.