4.7 Article

Effectiveness of Australia's Get Healthy Information and Coaching Service®: Translational research with population wide impact

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 55, 期 4, 页码 292-298

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.07.022

关键词

Obesity; Lifestyle interventions; Telephone-based counselling

资金

  1. NSW Ministry of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. With increasing rates of non-communicable disease, there is a need for implementing population-wide, evidence-based interventions for improving behavioural risk factors. Telephone-based interventions provide one option. This study reports on the evaluation of the Australia's Get Healthy Information and Coaching Service (R), to improve lifestyle behaviours, amongst a population-wide sample who completed the 6-month coaching programme. Methods. Using a pre-post design, New South Wales participants who completed telephone-based coaching between February 2009 and December 2011 were included. Outcomes comprised self-reported weight, waist circumference, height, physical activity and dietary behaviours. Matched pair analyses and multivariate modelling were performed to assess behavioural changes. Results. Participants (n = 1440) reported statistically significant improvements in weight (-3.9 kg (5.1)); waist circumference (-5.0 cm (6.0)); and Body Mass Index (-1.4 BMI units (1.8)); number of walking and moderate-vigorous physical activity sessions of >= 30 min per week; number of vigorous physical activity sessions of >= 20 min per week and servings of vegetables; fruit; take-away meals and sweetened drinks (all p<0.001). Improvements in weight, waist, moderate physical activity, fruit and vegetable and take-away meals consumption remained significant after adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics. Conclusions. These results support the effectiveness of replicating an evidence-based intervention in improving population risk factors for chronic disease. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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