Randomised controlled feasibility trial of an evidence-informed behavioural intervention for obese adults with additional risk factors

Citation

Sniehotta FF, Dombrowski SU, Avenell A, Johnston M, McDonald S, Murchie P, Ramsay CR, Robertson K & Araujo-Soares V (2011) Randomised controlled feasibility trial of an evidence-informed behavioural intervention for obese adults with additional risk factors. PLoS ONE, 6 (8), Art. No.: e23040. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023040

Abstract
Background: Interventions for dietary and physical activity changes in obese adults may be less effective for participants with additional obesity-related risk factors and co-morbidities than for otherwise healthy individuals. This study aimed to test the feasibility and acceptability of the recruitment, allocation, measurement, retention and intervention procedures of a randomised controlled trial of an intervention to improve physical activity and dietary practices amongst obese adults with additional obesity related risk factors. Method: Pilot single centre open-labelled outcome assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial of obese (Body Mass Index (BMI)≥30 kg/m2) adults (age≥18 y) with obesity related co-morbidities such as type 2 diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or hypertension. Participants were randomly allocated to a manual-based group intervention or a leaflet control condition in accordance to a 2:1 allocation ratio. Primary outcome was acceptability and feasibility of trial procedures, secondary outcomes included measures of body composition, physical activity, food intake and psychological process measures. Results: Out of 806 potentially eligible individuals identified through list searches in two primary care general medical practices N = 81 participants (63% female; mean-age = 56.56(11.44); mean-BMI = 36.73(6.06)) with 2.35(1.47) co-morbidities were randomised. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) was the only significant predictor of providing consent to take part in the study (higher chances of consent for invitees with lower levels of deprivation). Participant flowcharts, qualitative and quantitative feedback suggested good acceptance and feasibility of intervention procedures but 34.6% of randomised participants were lost to follow-up due to overly high measurement burden and sub-optimal retention procedures. Participants in the intervention group showed positive trends for most psychological, behavioural and body composition outcomes. Conclusions: The intervention procedures were found to be acceptable and feasible. Attrition rates were unacceptably high and areas for improvements of trial procedures were identified.

Journal
PLoS ONE: Volume 6, Issue 8