Desroches Sophie, Lapointe Annie, Ratté Stéphane, Gravel Karine, Légaré France, Turcotte Stéphane
Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec (CHUQ), St-François d’Assise Hôpital, Québec, Canada.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Feb 28(2):CD008722. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008722.pub2.
It has been recognized that poor adherence can be a serious risk to the health and wellbeing of patients, and greater adherence to dietary advice is a critical component in preventing and managing chronic diseases.
To assess the effects of interventions for enhancing adherence to dietary advice for preventing and managing chronic diseases in adults.
We searched the following electronic databases up to 29 September 2010: The Cochrane Library (issue 9 2010), PubMed, EMBASE (Embase.com), CINAHL (Ebsco) and PsycINFO (PsycNET) with no language restrictions. We also reviewed: a) recent years of relevant conferences, symposium and colloquium proceedings and abstracts; b) web-based registries of clinical trials; and c) the bibliographies of included studies.
We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated interventions enhancing adherence to dietary advice for preventing and managing chronic diseases in adults. Studies were eligible if the primary outcome was the client's adherence to dietary advice. We defined 'client' as an adult participating in a chronic disease prevention or chronic disease management study involving dietary advice.
Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the studies. They also assessed the risk of bias and extracted data using a modified version of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group data extraction template. Any discrepancies in judgement were resolved by discussion and consensus, or with a third review author. Because the studies differed widely with respect to interventions, measures of diet adherence, dietary advice, nature of the chronic diseases and duration of interventions and follow-up, we conducted a qualitative analysis. We classified included studies according to the function of the intervention and present results in a narrative table using vote counting for each category of intervention.
We included 38 studies involving 9445 participants. Among studies that measured diet adherence outcomes between an intervention group and a control/usual care group, 32 out of 123 diet adherence outcomes favoured the intervention group, 4 favoured the control group whereas 62 had no significant difference between groups (assessment was impossible for 25 diet adherence outcomes since data and/or statistical analyses needed for comparison between groups were not provided). Interventions shown to improve at least one diet adherence outcome are: telephone follow-up, video, contract, feedback, nutritional tools and more complex interventions including multiple interventions. However, these interventions also shown no difference in some diet adherence outcomes compared to a control/usual care group making inconclusive results about the most effective intervention to enhance dietary advice. The majority of studies reporting a diet adherence outcome favouring the intervention group compared to the control/usual care group in the short-term also reported no significant effect at later time points. Studies investigating interventions such as a group session, individual session, reminders, restriction and behaviour change techniques reported no diet adherence outcome showing a statistically significant difference favouring the intervention group. Finally, studies were generally of short duration and low quality, and adherence measures varied widely.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for further, long-term, good-quality studies using more standardized and validated measures of adherence to identify the interventions that should be used in practice to enhance adherence to dietary advice in the context of a variety of chronic diseases.
人们已经认识到,依从性差可能对患者的健康和福祉构成严重风险,而更好地遵循饮食建议是预防和管理慢性病的关键组成部分。
评估旨在提高成年人预防和管理慢性病饮食建议依从性的干预措施的效果。
我们检索了截至2010年9月29日的以下电子数据库:Cochrane图书馆(2010年第9期)、PubMed、EMBASE(Embase.com)、CINAHL(Ebsco)和PsycINFO(PsycNET),无语言限制。我们还查阅了:a)近年来相关会议、研讨会和学术座谈会的会议记录及摘要;b)临床试验的网络注册库;c)纳入研究的参考文献目录。
我们纳入了评估旨在提高成年人预防和管理慢性病饮食建议依从性干预措施的随机对照试验。如果主要结局是受试者对饮食建议的依从性,则这些研究符合纳入标准。我们将“受试者”定义为参与涉及饮食建议的慢性病预防或慢性病管理研究的成年人。
两位综述作者独立评估研究的纳入资格。他们还评估了偏倚风险,并使用Cochrane消费者与传播综述小组数据提取模板的修改版提取数据。判断上的任何差异通过讨论和协商解决,或由第三位综述作者解决。由于研究在干预措施、饮食依从性测量方法、饮食建议、慢性病性质以及干预和随访持续时间方面差异很大,我们进行了定性分析。我们根据干预措施的功能对纳入研究进行分类,并使用每类干预措施的计数表决法在叙述性表格中呈现结果。
我们纳入了38项研究,涉及9445名参与者。在测量干预组与对照组/常规护理组之间饮食依从性结局的研究中,123项饮食依从性结局中有32项有利于干预组,4项有利于对照组,而62项在组间无显著差异(25项饮食依从性结局因未提供组间比较所需的数据和/或统计分析而无法评估)。已证明能改善至少一项饮食依从性结局的干预措施有:电话随访、视频、合同、反馈、营养工具以及包括多种干预措施在内的更复杂干预措施。然而,与对照组/常规护理组相比,这些干预措施在某些饮食依从性结局上也无差异,这使得关于增强饮食建议的最有效干预措施的结果尚无定论。与对照组/常规护理组相比,大多数在短期内报告饮食依从性结局有利于干预组的研究在后期时间点也未报告有显著效果。调查诸如小组会议、个体会议、提醒、限制和行为改变技术等干预措施的研究未报告有饮食依从性结局显示有利于干预组的统计学显著差异。最后,研究通常持续时间短且质量低,依从性测量方法差异很大。
需要进行更多长期、高质量的研究,使用更标准化和经过验证的依从性测量方法,以确定在各种慢性病背景下实践中应采用哪些干预措施来增强对饮食建议的依从性。