Ammerman Alice S, Keyserling Thomas C, Atwood Jan R, Hosking James D, Zayed Hany, Krasny Cristina
Department of Nutrition, Schools of Public Health and Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 27599, USA.
Prev Med. 2003 Mar;36(3):340-51. doi: 10.1016/s0091-7435(02)00042-7.
Many rural residents do not have access to high-quality nutrition counseling for high blood cholesterol. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of an intervention program designed to facilitate dietary counseling for hypercholesterolemia by rural public health nurses.
Eight health departments (216 participants) were randomized to give the special intervention (SI) and nine (252 participants) to give the minimal intervention (MI). The SI consisted of three individual diet counseling sessions given by a public health nurse, using a structured dietary intervention (Food for Heart Program), referral to a nutritionist if lipid goals were not achieved at 3-month follow-up, and a reinforcement phone call and newsletters. Diet was assessed by the Dietary Risk Assessment (DRA), a validated food frequency questionnaire, at baseline, 3-, and 12-month follow-up; blood lipids and weight were assessed at baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up.
Participants were largely female (71%), older (mean age 55), and white (80%). At 3-month follow-up, the average reduction (indicating dietary improvement) in total Dietary Risk Assessment score was 3.7 units greater in the SI group (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9 to 5.5, P = 0.0006), while both groups experienced a similar reduction in blood cholesterol, 14.1 mg/dL (0.37 mmol/L) for SI and 14.5 mg/dL (0.38 mmol/L) for minimal intervention group (difference -0.4 mg/dL [-0.010 mmol/L], 95% CI -12.5 to 11.7 [-0.32 to 0.30], P = 0.9). At 12-month follow-up, the reduction in total Dietary Risk Assessment score was 2.1 units greater in the SI group (95% CI 0.8 to 3.5, P = 0.005), while the reduction in blood cholesterol was similar in both groups, 18.4 mg/dL (0.48 mmol/L) for SI and 15.6 mg/dL (0.40 mmol/L) for minimal intervention group (difference 2.8 mg/dL [0.07 mmol/L], 95% CI -7.5 to 13.1 [-0.19 to 0.34], P = 0.6). During follow-up, weight loss was greater in the SI group; the difference between groups was statistically significant at 3 (1.9 lb [0.86 kg], 95% CI 0.3 to 3.4 [0.14 to 1.55], P = 0.022) and 6 months (2.1 lb [0.95 kg], 95% CI 0.1 to 4.1 [0.04 to 1.86], P = 0.04). At 12 months, the difference was not significant (1.6 lb [0.73 kg], 95% CI -0.05 to 3.7 [-0.02 to 1.68], P = 0.13).
Improvement in self-reported dietary intake was significantly greater in the SI group, while reduction in blood cholesterol was similar in both groups.
许多农村居民无法获得针对高血胆固醇的高质量营养咨询服务。本研究的目的是评估一项干预计划的效果,该计划旨在促进农村公共卫生护士为高胆固醇血症患者提供饮食咨询服务。
将8个卫生部门(216名参与者)随机分配接受特殊干预(SI),9个卫生部门(252名参与者)随机分配接受最小干预(MI)。特殊干预包括由公共卫生护士进行的三次个体饮食咨询,采用结构化饮食干预(心脏健康饮食计划),如果在3个月随访时未达到血脂目标则转诊至营养师处,并进行强化电话随访和发放时事通讯。在基线、3个月和12个月随访时,通过饮食风险评估(DRA)(一种经过验证的食物频率问卷)评估饮食情况;在基线、3个月、6个月和12个月随访时评估血脂和体重。
参与者大多为女性(71%),年龄较大(平均年龄55岁),且为白人(80%)。在3个月随访时,特殊干预组的饮食风险评估总分平均降低(表明饮食改善)幅度比最小干预组大3.7个单位(95%置信区间[CI]为1.9至5.5,P = 0.0006),而两组的血胆固醇降低幅度相似,特殊干预组为14.1mg/dL(0.37mmol/L),最小干预组为14.5mg/dL(0.38mmol/L)(差值为 -0.4mg/dL [-0.010mmol/L],95%CI为 -12.5至11.7 [-0.32至0.30],P = 0.9)。在12个月随访时,特殊干预组的饮食风险评估总分降低幅度比最小干预组大2.1个单位(95%CI为0.8至3.5,P = 0.005),而两组的血胆固醇降低幅度相似,特殊干预组为18.4mg/dL(0.48mmol/L),最小干预组为15.6mg/dL(0.40mmol/L)(差值为2.8mg/dL [0.07mmol/L],95%CI为 -7.5至13.1 [-0.19至0.34],P = 0.6)。在随访期间,特殊干预组的体重减轻幅度更大;两组之间的差异在3个月时具有统计学意义(1.9磅[0.86千克],95%CI为0.3至3.4 [0.14至1.55],P = 0.022),在6个月时也具有统计学意义(2.1磅[0.95千克],95%CI为0.1至4.1 [0.04至1.86],P = 0.04)。在12个月时,差异不显著(1.6磅[0.73千克],95%CI为 -0.05至3.7 [-0.02至1.68],P = 0.13)。
特殊干预组自我报告的饮食摄入量改善幅度显著更大,而两组的血胆固醇降低幅度相似。