4.5 Article

An Exploratory Randomized Controlled Study of a Healthy Living Intervention in Early Intervention Services for Psychosis: the INTERvention to Encourage ACTivity, Improve Diet, and Reduce Weight Gain (INTERACT) Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 75, 期 5, 页码 498-505

出版社

PHYSICIANS POSTGRADUATE PRESS
DOI: 10.4088/JCP.13m08503

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIHR (London, United Kingdom) [RP-PG-0606-1302]
  2. Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust
  3. MRC [G0401181] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [G0401181] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: People with psychosis often experience weight gain, which places them at risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and early death. Objective: To determine the uptake, adherence, and clinical effectiveness of a healthy living intervention designed to reduce weight gain. Method: An exploratory randomized controlled trial, comparing the intervention with treatment as usual (TAU) in 2 early intervention services for psychosis in England. DSM-IV classification was the diagnostic criteria used to assign the psychiatric diagnoses. The primary outcome was change in body mass index (BMI) from baseline to 12-month follow-up. The study was conducted between February 2009 and October 2012. Results: 105 service users, with a BMI of = 25 (= 24 in South Asians), were randomized to intervention (n = 54) or TAU (n = 51) after stratification by recent commencement of antipsychotic medication. Ninety-three service users (89%) were followed up at 12 months. Between-group difference in change in BMI was not significant (effect size = 0.11). The effect of the intervention was larger (effect size = 0.54, not significant) in 15 intervention (28%) and 10 TAU (20%) participants who were taking olanzapine or clozapine at randomization. Conclusions: The healthy living intervention did not show a significant difference in BMI reduction compared to the TAU group. (C) Copyright 2014 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据