1
|
Boxall LR, Arden-Close E, James J, Appleton KM. Protocol: The effects of nutrient- vs food- vs food-substitution-based dietary recommendations for reducing free sugar intakes, on free sugar intakes, dietary profiles and sweet taste outcomes: A randomised controlled trial. Nutr Health 2024; 30:269-278. [PMID: 35818972 PMCID: PMC11141080 DOI: 10.1177/02601060221111234] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dietary guidelines are intended to inform and aid the general public, with the aim of improving healthy diets and reducing health risk. The effectiveness of these guidelines, however, is rarely investigated. AIM This work investigates the effects of three different types of dietary recommendations for reducing free sugars, on free sugar intakes over 12 weeks. Secondary aims will also investigate how these different recommendations affect secondary outcomes, outcomes in subsets of the trial population, and identify barriers and facilitators to dietary change. METHODS Using a randomised controlled parallel-group trial with three intervention and one control arms, 240 individuals consuming >5% total energy intake from free sugars will be randomized to receive: nutrient-based, nutrient- and food-based, nutrient-, food- and food-substitution-based recommendations or no recommendations, with outcomes assessed for the following 12 weeks. Our primary outcomes are free sugar intakes and adherence to the recommendations. Secondary outcomes are daily energy intake, dietary composition, anthropometry, sweet food perceptions and preferences, sweet food choice, attitudes towards sweet foods, eating behaviour and food choice, knowledge and lifestyle variables, quality of life, adverse events, and barriers and facilitators towards intervention adherence. RESULTS Data will contribute to three distinct analyses: 1) Analyses to investigate the effects of the three different dietary recommendations versus control; 2) Analyses of the effects of the dietary recommendations in different population subgroups, and 3) Investigation of the barriers and facilitators to success. CONCLUSION This work offers new perspectives on the effects of different dietary recommendations to enact behaviour change.
Collapse
|
2
|
Pfledderer CD, von Klinggraeff L, Burkart S, da Silva Bandeira A, Lubans DR, Jago R, Okely AD, van Sluijs EMF, Ioannidis JPA, Thrasher JF, Li X, Beets MW. Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2024; 10:57. [PMID: 38582840 PMCID: PMC10998328 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-024-01485-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/26/2024] [Indexed: 04/08/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences. METHODS To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences. RESULTS A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading. CONCLUSION We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher D Pfledderer
- Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health in Austin, Austin, TX, 78701, USA.
- Michael and Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health in Austin, Austin, TX, 78701, USA.
| | | | - Sarah Burkart
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| | | | - David R Lubans
- College of Human and Social Futures, The University of Newcastle Australia, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia
| | - Russell Jago
- Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1QU, UK
| | - Anthony D Okely
- Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia
| | | | - John P A Ioannidis
- Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - James F Thrasher
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| | - Xiaoming Li
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| | - Michael W Beets
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Pfledderer CD, von Klinggraeff L, Burkart S, da Silva Bandeira A, Lubans DR, Jago R, Okely AD, van Sluijs EM, Ioannidis JP, Thrasher JF, Li X, Beets MW. Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions. RESEARCH SQUARE 2023:rs.3.rs-3370077. [PMID: 38168263 PMCID: PMC10760234 DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3370077/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2024]
Abstract
Background In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences. Methods To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences. Results A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading. Conclusion We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Sarah Burkart
- University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health
| | | | | | - Russ Jago
- University of Bristol Population Health Sciences
| | | | | | | | | | - Xiaoming Li
- University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Norman-Burgdolf H, DeWitt E, Cardarelli KM, Gillespie R, Slone S, Gustafson A. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among adults in rural Appalachia. Prev Med Rep 2021; 24:101642. [PMID: 34976693 PMCID: PMC8684001 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101642] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2021] [Revised: 10/05/2021] [Accepted: 11/13/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption is decreasing nationally, yet intakes remain high in certain sub-populations as new varieties of SSBs are introduced. This study aims to expand on SSB intake patterns among adults living in Appalachia to develop policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) interventions to reduce consumption. Baseline cohort surveys were conducted to examine beverage consumption patterns of adults in one rural Appalachian county in Kentucky using a validated BEVQ-15 instrument. Ages were collapsed into three generational groups - Millennials (22-38 years), Generation X (39-54 years), and Boomers/Silents (≥55 years). Over half (n = 81; 54%) of the sample (n = 150) were Boomers/Silents. Age was a significant predictor of SSB consumption, with Millennials drinking more daily calories of SSB compared to older adults (329.2 kcal v 157.0 kcal v 134.6 kcal, p = 0.05); a significant amount of those calories coming from non-soda SSBs. Millennials were twice as likely to drink sweetened fruit juice drinks (p = 0.0002) and energy drinks (p = 0.01) daily and consumed six times more daily calories from sweetened fruit juice drinks than the other groups (73.5 kcal v 11.1 kcal v 8.0 kcal, p < 0.01). To our knowledge, this is the first study to show beverage choices and consumption patterns in Appalachian adults vary by age and non-soda SSBs are significant sources of added sugar. These findings inform PSE interventions for reducing SSB consumption, such as tailored marketing approaches and technology-based strategies, within a unique setting, and offer insight for nutrition educators and public health professionals working within rural, remote communities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Emily DeWitt
- Family and Consumer Sciences Extension, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Kathryn M. Cardarelli
- Department of Health, Behavior, & Society, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Rachel Gillespie
- Family and Consumer Sciences Extension, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Stacey Slone
- Department of Statistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Alison Gustafson
- Department of Dietetics and Human Nutrition, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Gardner B, Richards R, Lally P, Rebar A, Thwaite T, Beeken RJ. Breaking habits or breaking habitual behaviours? Old habits as a neglected factor in weight loss maintenance. Appetite 2021; 162:105183. [PMID: 33651994 DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105183] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2020] [Revised: 02/12/2021] [Accepted: 02/23/2021] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
Maintaining weight loss requires long-term behaviour change. Theory and evidence around habitual behaviour - i.e., action triggered by impulses that are automatically activated upon exposure to cues, due to learned cue-action associations - can aid development of interventions to support weight loss maintenance. Specifically, weight loss is more likely to be sustained where people develop new habits that support weight management, and break old habits that may undermine such efforts. Interventions seeking to break 'bad' weight-related habits have focused on inhibiting unwanted impulses or avoiding cues. This paper draws attention to the possibility that while such approaches may discontinue habitual behaviour, underlying habit associations may remain. We use evidence from existing qualitative studies to demonstrate that, left unchecked, unwanted habit associations can render people prone to lapsing into old patterns of unhealthy behaviours when motivation or willpower is momentarily weakened, or when returning to familiar settings following temporarily discontinued exposure. We highlight six behaviour change techniques especially suited to disrupting habit associations, but show that these techniques have been underused in weight loss maintenance interventions to date. We call for intervention developers and practitioners to adopt techniques conducive to forming new habit associations to directly override old habits, and to use the persistence of unwanted habit associations as a potential indicator of long-term weight loss intervention effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Phillippa Lally
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Amanda Rebar
- School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Australia
| | - Tanya Thwaite
- School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Australia
| | - Rebecca J Beeken
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|