Kristal L. Brown, Nae-Yuh Wang, Wendy L. Bennett, Kimberly A. Gudzune, Gail Daumit, Arlene Dalcin, Gerald J. Jerome, Janelle W. Coughlin, Lawrence J. Appel, Jeanne M. Clark
{"title":"不同行为干预方式对不同种族-性别亚群减肥效果的影响:POWER 试验分析。","authors":"Kristal L. Brown, Nae-Yuh Wang, Wendy L. Bennett, Kimberly A. Gudzune, Gail Daumit, Arlene Dalcin, Gerald J. Jerome, Janelle W. Coughlin, Lawrence J. Appel, Jeanne M. Clark","doi":"10.1111/cob.12670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Prior 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 (<i>N</i> = 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; <i>p</i> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":10399,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Obesity","volume":"14 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cob.12670","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in weight-loss outcomes among race-gender subgroups by behavioural intervention delivery mode: An analysis of the POWER trial\",\"authors\":\"Kristal L. Brown, Nae-Yuh Wang, Wendy L. Bennett, Kimberly A. Gudzune, Gail Daumit, Arlene Dalcin, Gerald J. Jerome, Janelle W. Coughlin, Lawrence J. Appel, Jeanne M. Clark\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cob.12670\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Prior 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 (<i>N</i> = 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; <i>p</i> 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Obesity\",\"volume\":\"14 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cob.12670\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Obesity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cob.12670\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Obesity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cob.12670","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
先前的面对面行为干预研究记录了男女之间以及不同种族之间体重减轻的差异,其中黑人妇女受益最少。远程干预现在已很普遍,但很少有研究对不同种族-性别群体和干预方式的结果进行比较。我们对 POWER 进行了二次分析,这是一项随机试验(NCT00783315),旨在确定两种积极的、基于生活方式的减肥干预(远程与面对面)与对照组相比的效果。该试验在马里兰州巴尔的摩地区招募了具有肥胖症和至少一种心血管疾病风险因素的参与者(N = 415)。本次分析使用了 233 名白人和 170 名黑人的数据。按照意向治疗方法,我们使用重复测量混合效应模型比较了不同种族-性别亚组在 24 个月时的平均体重减轻百分比。白人和黑人男性在两种干预措施中的结果相似(白人:面对面(-7.6%),远程(-7.4%);黑人:面对面(-4.7%),远程(-4.4%))。相比之下,白人妇女在面对面干预中的体重减轻幅度更大(面对面(-7.2%)与远程(-4.4%)相比),而黑人妇女在面对面干预组中的体重减轻幅度在 24 个月时与远程干预组相比更小(分别为-2.0%与-3.0%;交互作用 p
Differences in weight-loss outcomes among race-gender subgroups by behavioural intervention delivery mode: An analysis of the POWER trial
Prior 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.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Obesity is an international peer-reviewed journal publishing high quality translational and clinical research papers and reviews focussing on obesity and its co-morbidities. Key areas of interest are: • Patient assessment, classification, diagnosis and prognosis • Drug treatments, clinical trials and supporting research • Bariatric surgery and follow-up issues • Surgical approaches to remove body fat • Pharmacological, dietary and behavioural approaches for weight loss • Clinical physiology • Clinically relevant epidemiology • Psychological aspects of obesity • Co-morbidities • Nursing and care of patients with obesity.