Department of Health Education and Behavior, College of Health and Human Performance, University of Florida, PO Box 118210, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA.
Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, 501 Douglas Street, Duke Diet & Fitness Center, Durham, NC, USA.
BMC Public Health. 2018 Jul 11;18(1):854. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5795-9.
Evidence-based behavioral weight loss interventions are under-utilized. To inform efforts to increase uptake of these interventions, it is important to understand the perspectives of adults with obesity regarding barriers and facilitators of weight loss intervention initiation.
We conducted a qualitative study in adults with obesity who had recently attempted weight loss either with assistance from an evidence-based behavioral intervention (intervention initiators) or without use of a formal intervention (intervention non-initiators). We recruited primary care patients, members of a commercial weight loss program, and members of a Veterans Affairs weight loss program. Intervention initiators and non-initiators were interviewed separately using a semi-structured interview guide that asked participants about barriers and facilitators of weight loss intervention initiation. Conversations were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed with qualitative content analysis. Two researchers used open coding to generate the code book on a subset of transcripts and a single researcher coded remaining transcripts. Codes were combined into subthemes, which were combined in to higher order themes. Intervention initiators and non-initiators were compared.
We conducted three focus groups with participants who had initiated interventions (n = 26) and three focus groups (n = 24) and 8 individual interviews with participants who had not initiated interventions. Intervention initiators and non-initiators were, respectively, 65% and 37.5% white, 62% and 63% female, mean age of 55 and 54 years old, and mean BMI of 34 kg/m. Three themes were identified. One theme was practical factors, with subthemes of reasonable cost and scheduling compatibility. A second theme was anticipated effectiveness of intervention, with subthemes of intervention content addressing individual needs; social aspects influencing effectiveness; and evaluating evidence of effectiveness. A third theme was anticipated pleasantness of intervention, with subthemes of social aspects influencing enjoyment; anticipated dietary and tracking prescriptions; and identity and self-reliance factors. Different perspectives were identified from intervention initiators and non-initiators.
Strategies to engage individuals in evidence-based weight loss interventions can be developed using these results. Strategies could target individuals' perceived barriers and benefits to initiating interventions, or could focus on refining interventions to appeal to more individuals.
循证行为减肥干预措施未得到充分利用。为了推动这些干预措施的应用,了解肥胖成年人对减肥干预启动的障碍和促进因素的看法是很重要的。
我们对最近通过循证行为干预(干预启动者)或不使用正式干预(干预非启动者)尝试减肥的肥胖成年人进行了一项定性研究。我们招募了初级保健患者、商业减肥计划的成员和退伍军人事务部减肥计划的成员。干预启动者和非启动者分别使用半结构化访谈指南进行访谈,该指南要求参与者回答减肥干预启动的障碍和促进因素。对话被录音并转录。使用定性内容分析对数据进行分析。两位研究人员使用开放式编码对部分转录本生成代码簿,一位研究人员对其余转录本进行编码。代码被合并成子主题,然后合并成更高阶的主题。对干预启动者和非启动者进行了比较。
我们分别对 26 名干预启动者和 24 名干预非启动者进行了 3 次焦点小组访谈,对 8 名未启动干预者进行了 8 次单独访谈。干预启动者和非启动者分别为 65%和 37.5%为白人,62%和 63%为女性,平均年龄为 55 岁和 54 岁,平均 BMI 为 34kg/m。确定了三个主题。一个主题是实际因素,其子主题为合理的成本和时间安排兼容性。第二个主题是干预的预期效果,其子主题为干预内容满足个人需求;影响效果的社会因素;评估效果的证据。第三个主题是干预的预期愉悦度,其子主题为影响享受的社会因素;预期的饮食和跟踪处方;身份和自力更生因素。从干预启动者和非启动者那里得到了不同的看法。
可以根据这些结果制定让个人参与循证减肥干预的策略。这些策略可以针对个人对启动干预的感知障碍和益处,或者可以专注于改进干预措施,以吸引更多的人。