J C John, J Ho, M Raber, K Basen-Engquist, L Jacobson, L L Strong
{"title":"体力活动、饮食和体重减轻的双组干预:证据的系统回顾。","authors":"J C John, J Ho, M Raber, K Basen-Engquist, L Jacobson, L L Strong","doi":"10.1007/s10865-023-00457-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Studies show that interpersonal relations impact behavior change. Yet, a comprehensive review of their efficacy remains unclear. This systematic review examines the efficacy of dyadic and group-based studies that intervened on primary endpoints: diet, PA, and weight loss in adults and their networks. We searched five databases for eligible articles published from 1980 to present. Final inclusion and risk of bias were independently determined and agreed upon by two of the paper's co-authors. Nine dyads and twelve group-based studies were eligible. Of the studies, 36% (4/11) of PA studies, 60% (3/5) of diet studies and 57% (8/14) of studies with weight loss as primary outcomes, reported significant findings. Compared to dyadic interventions, a greater proportion of group-based interventions demonstrated efficacy in PA gain and weight loss as outcomes. Approximately 43% of studies demonstrated low to moderate methodological quality. This systematic review synthesized the evidence of dyadic and group studies that intervened on PA, diet, and weight in adults from the same network. Moderately-high risk of bias and lack of diverse representation restricts inferences around efficacy. High-quality rigorous research is needed to understand the efficacy of dyadic and group-based interventions in addressing these co-occurring endpoints of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":48329,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"355-373"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dyad and group-based interventions in physical activity, diet, and weight loss: a systematic review of the evidence.\",\"authors\":\"J C John, J Ho, M Raber, K Basen-Engquist, L Jacobson, L L Strong\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10865-023-00457-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Studies show that interpersonal relations impact behavior change. Yet, a comprehensive review of their efficacy remains unclear. This systematic review examines the efficacy of dyadic and group-based studies that intervened on primary endpoints: diet, PA, and weight loss in adults and their networks. We searched five databases for eligible articles published from 1980 to present. Final inclusion and risk of bias were independently determined and agreed upon by two of the paper's co-authors. Nine dyads and twelve group-based studies were eligible. Of the studies, 36% (4/11) of PA studies, 60% (3/5) of diet studies and 57% (8/14) of studies with weight loss as primary outcomes, reported significant findings. Compared to dyadic interventions, a greater proportion of group-based interventions demonstrated efficacy in PA gain and weight loss as outcomes. Approximately 43% of studies demonstrated low to moderate methodological quality. This systematic review synthesized the evidence of dyadic and group studies that intervened on PA, diet, and weight in adults from the same network. Moderately-high risk of bias and lack of diverse representation restricts inferences around efficacy. High-quality rigorous research is needed to understand the efficacy of dyadic and group-based interventions in addressing these co-occurring endpoints of interest.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"355-373\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-023-00457-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-023-00457-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Dyad and group-based interventions in physical activity, diet, and weight loss: a systematic review of the evidence.
Studies show that interpersonal relations impact behavior change. Yet, a comprehensive review of their efficacy remains unclear. This systematic review examines the efficacy of dyadic and group-based studies that intervened on primary endpoints: diet, PA, and weight loss in adults and their networks. We searched five databases for eligible articles published from 1980 to present. Final inclusion and risk of bias were independently determined and agreed upon by two of the paper's co-authors. Nine dyads and twelve group-based studies were eligible. Of the studies, 36% (4/11) of PA studies, 60% (3/5) of diet studies and 57% (8/14) of studies with weight loss as primary outcomes, reported significant findings. Compared to dyadic interventions, a greater proportion of group-based interventions demonstrated efficacy in PA gain and weight loss as outcomes. Approximately 43% of studies demonstrated low to moderate methodological quality. This systematic review synthesized the evidence of dyadic and group studies that intervened on PA, diet, and weight in adults from the same network. Moderately-high risk of bias and lack of diverse representation restricts inferences around efficacy. High-quality rigorous research is needed to understand the efficacy of dyadic and group-based interventions in addressing these co-occurring endpoints of interest.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Behavioral Medicine is a broadly conceived interdisciplinary publication devoted to furthering understanding of physical health and illness through the knowledge, methods, and techniques of behavioral science. A significant function of the journal is the application of this knowledge to prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation and to the promotion of health at the individual, community, and population levels.The content of the journal spans all areas of basic and applied behavioral medicine research, conducted in and informed by all related disciplines including but not limited to: psychology, medicine, the public health sciences, sociology, anthropology, health economics, nursing, and biostatistics. Topics welcomed include but are not limited to: prevention of disease and health promotion; the effects of psychological stress on physical and psychological functioning; sociocultural influences on health and illness; adherence to medical regimens; the study of health related behaviors including tobacco use, substance use, sexual behavior, physical activity, and obesity; health services research; and behavioral factors in the prevention and treatment of somatic disorders. Reports of interdisciplinary approaches to research are particularly welcomed.