Location: Location not imported yet.Title: Clinical and dietary outcome changes differ among adherence groups in a community based participatory research (CBPR) lifestyle intervention) Author
Submitted to: Meeting Abstract
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: 8/21/2012
Publication Date: N/A
Citation: N/A Interpretive Summary:
Technical Abstract: Increased study participation and adherence to study protocol are cited as two significant research strengths of partnering with the community. Hence, the objective of this study was to test for differences among adherence groups for changes (baseline to 6 months) in clinical and dietary outcomes. Participants included 190 primarily African American (n=181, 95.3%) women (n=161, 84.7%) in the 6-month HUB City Steps community based participatory research (CBPR) lifestyle intervention. A two-way adherence variable was created based on education session attendance (ESA) and pedometer diary submission (PDS). Both the ESA and PDS measures were dichotomized into high/low categories. Low and high ESA adherence were defined as attendance at 0-2 and 3-5 education sessions, respectively. Low and high PDS adherence were defined as submission of 0-13 and 14-27 weekly steps/day diaries, respectively. Due to the low sample size (n=12) of the high ESA/low PDS group, it was combined with the low ESA/high PDS group, resulting in low, mid and high adherence groups. General linear models were used to test for significant (P=0.05) differences in outcome changes among adherence groups. Significant differences were present among adherence groups for changes in body mass index, fat mass, diastolic blood pressure, low density lipoprotein, and dairy intake. Group differences were trending for significance (0.05 < P = 0.10) for percent body fat and intakes for fruit and vegetables and sugar. Consistent with findings of previous intervention research, improvements were generally larger for participants with higher adherence levels. The notable exception was dietary intake changes where trends were not monotonic across adherence groups. Future research is warranted to elucidate why there were apparent improvements in some health outcomes but not others and how CBPR trials may promote higher adherence among intervention participants.