3.9 Article

Results of an adjunct dietary intervention program in the Women's Health Initiative

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION
Volume 102, Issue 11, Pages 1631-1637

Publisher

AMER DIETETIC ASSOC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-8223(02)90347-0

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The purpose of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate the efficacy of an intensive intervention program (IIP) based on motivational interviewing to motivate participants within the dietary study of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) to meet the study's nutritional goals. Subjects/Design WHI dietary intervention participants (n=175) from 3 clinical centers were randomly assigned to either intervention or control status. Participants assigned to IIP intervention received 3 individual motivational interviewing contacts from a dietitian, plus the usual WHI Dietary Intervention. Participants randomly assigned to IIP control received the usual WHI dietary modification (DM) Intervention. Percent of energy from fat was estimated at study baseline and at follow-up (1 year later) using the WHI Food Frequency Questionnaire. Results The change in percent energy from fat between IIP baseline and IIP 1-year follow-up was -1.2% for IIP intervention participants and +1.4% for IIP control participants, giving an overall difference of 2.6% (P<.001). Participants having the highest IIP baseline fat intake (greater than or equal to30% energy) showed the largest overall change in percent energy from fat between UP baseline and IIP follow-up. Conclusions The results of this study indicate that a protocol based on motivational interviewing and delivered through contacts with trained dietitians is an efficacious way to further lower dietary fat intake among participants exposed to ongoing intervention. These data will be useful in future intervention situations when there is a need to increase motivation to change.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available