Lemstra Mark, Bird Yelena, Nwankwo Chijioke, Rogers Marla, Moraros John
Alliance Wellness and Rehabilitation, Moose Jaw.
School of Public Health.
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016 Aug 12;10:1547-59. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S103649. eCollection 2016.
Adhering to weight loss interventions is difficult for many people. The majority of those who are overweight or obese and attempt to lose weight are simply not successful. The objectives of this study were 1) to quantify overall adherence rates for various weight loss interventions and 2) to provide pooled estimates for factors associated with improved adherence to weight loss interventions.
We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of all studies published between January 2004 and August 2015 that reviewed weight loss intervention adherence.
After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria and checking the methodological quality, 27 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The overall adherence rate was 60.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 53.6-67.2). The following three main variables were found to impact adherence: 1) supervised attendance programs had higher adherence rates than those with no supervision (rate ratio [RR] 1.65; 95% CI 1.54-1.77); 2) interventions that offered social support had higher adherence than those without social support (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.24-1.34); and 3) dietary intervention alone had higher adherence than exercise programs alone (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.19-1.35).
A substantial proportion of people do not adhere to weight loss interventions. Programs supervising attendance, offering social support, and focusing on dietary modification have better adherence than interventions not supervising attendance, not offering social support, and focusing exclusively on exercise.
对许多人来说,坚持减肥干预措施很困难。大多数超重或肥胖且试图减肥的人根本没有成功。本研究的目的是:1)量化各种减肥干预措施的总体坚持率;2)提供与改善减肥干预措施坚持情况相关因素的合并估计值。
我们对2004年1月至2015年8月期间发表的所有回顾减肥干预措施坚持情况的研究进行了系统的文献综述和荟萃分析。
在应用纳入和排除标准并检查方法学质量后,27项研究被纳入荟萃分析。总体坚持率为60.5%(95%置信区间[CI]53.6 - 67.2)。发现以下三个主要变量会影响坚持情况:1)有监督的出勤计划的坚持率高于无监督的计划(率比[RR]1.65;95%CI 1.54 - 1.77);2)提供社会支持的干预措施的坚持率高于无社会支持的措施(RR 1.29;95%CI 1.24 - 1.34);3)单纯饮食干预的坚持率高于单纯运动计划(RR 1.27;95%CI 1.19 - 1.35)。
很大一部分人不坚持减肥干预措施。监督出勤、提供社会支持并专注于饮食调整的计划比不监督出勤、不提供社会支持且仅专注于运动的干预措施有更好的坚持率。