4.1 Article

Sleeping Well Trial: Increasing the effectiveness of treatment with continuous positive airway pressure using a weight management program in overweight adults with obstructive sleep apnoea-A stepped wedge randomised trial protocol

期刊

NUTRITION & DIETETICS
卷 76, 期 1, 页码 110-117

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1747-0080.12435

关键词

modified fasting; obesity; obstructive sleep apnoea; weight management

资金

  1. Faculty Masters scholarship
  2. Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship [101167]
  3. Resmed
  4. Philips Respironics
  5. Air Liquide Healthcare

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The majority of adults diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) are overweight or obese. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the most common effective therapy for OSA. However, adherence declines over time with only 50% of patients prescribed CPAP continuing to use it long term. Furthermore, a recent prospective analysis indicated that those more adherent with CPAP therapy have enhanced weight gain trajectories which in turn may negatively impact their OSA. Aim The Sleeping Well Trial aims to establish whether the timing of starting a lifestyle weight loss intervention impacts on weight trajectory in those with moderate-severe OSA treated at home with CPAP, while testing the potential for smart phone technology to improve adherence with lifestyle interventions. Methods A stepped wedge design with randomisation of individuals from 1 to 6 months post-enrolment, with 5 months of additional prospective follow up after completion of the stepped wedge. This design will investigate the effect of the 6-month lifestyle intervention on people undergoing CPAP on body weight, body composition and health-related quality of life. Discussion This trial tests whether the timing of supporting the patient through a weight loss intervention is important in obtaining the maximum benefit of a lifestyle change and CPAP usage, and identify how best to support patients through this critical

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

4.1
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