Six-Month Outcomes from Living Well with Diabetes: A Randomized Trial of a Telephone-Delivered Weight Loss and Physical Activity Intervention to Improve Glycemic Control

• Published in: Annals of behavioral medicine 2013-10, Vol.46 (2), p.193-203
• Main Authors: Eakin, E. G., Reeves, M. M., Winkler, E., Healy, G. N., Dunstan, D. W., Owen, N., Marshal, A. M., Wilkie, K. C.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Blood Glucose - metabolism; Diabetes; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - metabolism; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - therapy; Disease management; Exercise; Family Medicine; Feeding Behavior - psychology; Female; General Practice; Glycated Hemoglobin A - metabolism; Glycemic Index; Health Psychology; Humans; Intervention; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Motor Activity; Original Article; Patient Education as Topic - methods; Telemedicine; Telephone; Treatment Outcome; Weight control; Weight Reduction Programs - methods
• ISSN: 0883-6612; 1532-4796
• DOI: 10.1007/s12160-013-9498-2

Background Intensive lifestyle intervention trials in type 2 diabetes contribute evidence on what can be achieved under optimal conditions, but are less informative for translation in applied settings. Purpose Living Well with Diabetes is a telephone-delivered weight loss intervention designed for real-world delivery. Methods This study is a randomized controlled trial of telephone counseling ( n  = 151) versus usual care ( n  = 151); 6-month primary outcomes of weight, physical activity, HbA1c; secondary diet outcomes; analysis was by adjusted generalized linear models. Results Relative to usual care, telephone counseling participants had small but significantly better weight loss [−1.12 % of initial body weight; 95 % confidence interval (CI) −1.92, −0.33 %]; physical activity [relative rate (RR) = 1.30; 95 % CI, 1.08, 1.57]; energy intake reduction (−0.63 MJ/day; 95 % CI, −1.01, −0.25); and diet quality (3.72 points; 95 % CI, 1.77, 5.68), with no intervention effect for HbA1c (RR = 0.99; 95 % CI, 0.96, 1.01). Conclusions Results are discussed in light of challenges to intervention delivery.