Do people with type 2 diabetes find continuous and intermittent low-energy diets for weight loss and diabetes remission acceptable?
acceptability
continuous low‐energy diet
diabetes remission
intermittent low‐energy diet
qualitative
weight loss
Journal
Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association
ISSN: 1365-277X
Titre abrégé: J Hum Nutr Diet
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8904840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 May 2024
27 May 2024
Historique:
received:
23
10
2023
accepted:
13
04
2024
medline:
27
5
2024
pubmed:
27
5
2024
entrez:
27
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The Manchester Intermittent versus Daily Diet App Study (MIDDAS) tested the feasibility and potential efficacy of two remotely delivered low-energy diet (LED) programmes (800 kcal/day) to support weight loss and remission of type 2 diabetes: continuous [CLED] (8 weeks of daily LED) and intermittent [ILED] (2 days of LED/week for 28 weeks). Understanding participant experiences can help us to understand the acceptability of LED programmes to people with type 2 diabetes, informing future programme development and implementation. Twenty participants (10 CLED; 10 ILED) took part in interviews conducted at the end of the active weight loss phase (CLED week 12, ILED week 28). Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically using the template analysis approach, with an a priori focus on acceptability. Four themes are presented: prospective acceptability, intervention coherence and perceived effectiveness, opportunity costs and self-efficacy. Both remotely supported CLED and ILED interventions appeared acceptable to participants. CLED participants found the rapid initial weight loss phase comparatively easy and highly motivating but expressed more concerns around weight maintenance. ILED participants found the more gradual weight loss initially frustrating but expressed greater confidence in their longer-term adherence. The importance of continued individualised support from healthcare professionals was emphasised, and evidence of weight loss and improvement in other medical markers through monitoring via the mobile phone app was useful. Different approaches to remotely delivered LEDs appear acceptable; therefore asking patients which approach may be more acceptable to them may be a useful way to offer individualised and tailored support.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Manchester Intermittent versus Daily Diet App Study (MIDDAS) tested the feasibility and potential efficacy of two remotely delivered low-energy diet (LED) programmes (800 kcal/day) to support weight loss and remission of type 2 diabetes: continuous [CLED] (8 weeks of daily LED) and intermittent [ILED] (2 days of LED/week for 28 weeks). Understanding participant experiences can help us to understand the acceptability of LED programmes to people with type 2 diabetes, informing future programme development and implementation.
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty participants (10 CLED; 10 ILED) took part in interviews conducted at the end of the active weight loss phase (CLED week 12, ILED week 28). Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically using the template analysis approach, with an a priori focus on acceptability. Four themes are presented: prospective acceptability, intervention coherence and perceived effectiveness, opportunity costs and self-efficacy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Both remotely supported CLED and ILED interventions appeared acceptable to participants. CLED participants found the rapid initial weight loss phase comparatively easy and highly motivating but expressed more concerns around weight maintenance. ILED participants found the more gradual weight loss initially frustrating but expressed greater confidence in their longer-term adherence. The importance of continued individualised support from healthcare professionals was emphasised, and evidence of weight loss and improvement in other medical markers through monitoring via the mobile phone app was useful.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Different approaches to remotely delivered LEDs appear acceptable; therefore asking patients which approach may be more acceptable to them may be a useful way to offer individualised and tailored support.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Nestlé Health Science
Organisme : Oviva
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Dietetic Association.
Références
Saeedi P, Petersohn I, Salpea P, Malanda B, Karuranga S, Unwin N, et al. Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th edition. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;157:107843.
Lean ME, Leslie WS, Barnes AC, Brosnahan N, Thom G, McCombie L, et al. Primary care‐led weight management for remission of type 2 diabetes (DiRECT): an open‐label, cluster‐randomised trial. Lancet. 2018;391:541–551.
Lean MEJ, Leslie WS, Barnes AC, Brosnahan N, Thom G, McCombie L, et al. Durability of a primary care‐led weight‐management intervention for remission of type 2 diabetes: 2‐year results of the DiRECT open‐label, cluster randomised trial. Lancet Diab Endocrinol. 2019;7:344–355.
Rehackova L, Rodrigues AM, Thom G, Brosnahan N, Barnes AC, McCombie L, et al. Participant experiences in the Diabetes REmission Clinical Trial (DiRECT). Diabet Med. 2022;39:e14689.
Rehackova L, Araújo‐Soares V, Adamson AJ, Steven S, Taylor R, Sniehotta FF. Acceptability of a very‐low‐energy diet in Type 2 diabetes: patient experiences and behaviour regulation. Diabet Med. 2017;34:1554–1567.
Rehackova L, Araújo‐Soares V, Steven S, Adamson AJ, Taylor R, Sniehotta FF. Behaviour change during dietary Type 2 diabetes remission: a longitudinal qualitative evaluation of an intervention using a very low energy diet. Diabet Med. 2020;37:953–962.
Sumithran P, Prendergast LA, Delbridge E, Purcell K, Shulkes A, Kriketos A, et al. Ketosis and appetite‐mediating nutrients and hormones after weight loss. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2013;67:759–764.
Astbury NM, Aveyard P, Nickless A, Hood K, Corfield K, Lowe R, et al. Doctor Referral of Overweight People to Low Energy total diet replacement Treatment (DROPLET): pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Br Med J. 2018;362:3760.
Brown A, Leeds AR. Very low‐energy and low‐energy formula diets: effects on weight loss, obesity co‐morbidities and type 2 diabetes remission – an update on the evidence for their use in clinical practice. Nutr Bull. 2019;44:7–24.
Digenio AG. Comparison of methods for delivering a lifestyle modification program for obese patients: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:255–262.
McDiarmid S, Harvie M, Johnson R, Vyas A, Aglan A, Moran J, et al. Intermittent versus continuous low‐energy diet in patients with type 2 diabetes: protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2021;10:e21116.
McDiarmid S, Harvie M, Johnson R, Vyas A, Aglan A, Moran J, et al. Manchester Intermittent versus Daily Diet App Study (MIDDAS): a pilot randomized controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes, Obes Metab. 2022;24:432–441.
Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:88.
Bartlett YK, Kenning C, Crosland J, Newhouse N, Miles LM, Williams V, et al. Understanding acceptability in the context of text messages to encourage medication adherence in people with type 2 diabetes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:608.
Brooks J, McCluskey S, Turley E, King N. The utility of Template Analysis in qualitative psychology research. Qual Res Psychol. 2015;12:202–222.
Harper C, Maher J, Grunseit A, Seimon RV, Sainsbury A. Experiences of using very low energy diets for weight loss by people with overweight or obesity: a review of qualitative research. Obes Rev. 2018;19:1412–1423.
Love J, McKenzie J, Nikokavoura EA, Broom I, Rolland C, Johnston K. The experiences of women with polycystic ovary syndrome on a very low‐calorie diet. Int J Wom Health. 2016;8:299–310.
Schroé H, Van Dyck D, De Paepe A, Poppe L, Loh WW, Verloigne M, et al. Which behaviour change techniques are effective to promote physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour in adults: a factorial randomized trial of an e‐ and m‐health intervention. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17:127.
Schwarzer R. Modeling health behavior change: how to predict and modify the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors. Appl Psychol. 2008;57:1–29.
Cradock KA, ÓLaighin G, Finucane FM, Gainforth HL, Quinlan LR, Ginis KAM. Behaviour change techniques targeting both diet and physical activity in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14:18.
Avery L, Flynn D, van Wersch A, Sniehotta FF, Trenell MI. Changing physical activity behavior in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of behavioral interventions. Diabetes Care. 2012;35:2681–2689.
NICE. Preventing type 2 diabetes: population and community level interventions in high‐risk groups and the general population. (2011). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph35/resources/type-2-diabetes-prevention-population-and-communitylevel-interventions-pdf-1996299153349. Accessed August 2023.
Bhopal RS, Douglas A, Wallia S, Forbes JF, Lean MEJ, Gill JMR, et al. Effect of a lifestyle intervention on weight change in south Asian individuals in the UK at high risk of type 2 diabetes: a family‐cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diab Endocrino. 2014;2:218–227.
Sheridan R, Martin‐Kerry J, Hudson J, Parker A, Bower P, Knapp P. Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators. Trials. 2020;21:259.
Burke LE, Warziski M, Styn MA, Music E, Hudson AG, Sereika SM. A randomized clinical trial of a standard versus vegetarian diet for weight loss: the impact of treatment preference. Int J Obes. 2008;32:166–176.
Bartlett R, Milligan C. Diary Method: Research Methods. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic; 2020.
Liu J, Davidson E, Bhopal R, White M, Johnson M, Netto G, et al. Adapting health promotion interventions to meet the needs of ethnic minority groups: mixed‐methods evidence synthesis. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2012;16:1–469.
Taheri S, Zaghloul H, Chagoury O, Elhadad S, Ahmed SH, El Khatib N, et al. Effect of intensive lifestyle intervention on bodyweight and glycaemia in early type 2 diabetes (DIADEM‐I): an open‐label, parallel‐group, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diab Endocrinol. 2020;8:477–489.
Farhat G, Majeed S, Rutter MK, Issa B, Harvie M. Comparing the acceptability of total diet replacement and food‐based low energy diets for type 2 diabetes remission amongst South Asians: a public and patient involvement activity. NIHR Open Res. 2022;1:24.
Lie SS, Karlsen B, Oord ER, Graue M, Oftedal B. Dropout from an eHealth intervention for adults with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19:e187.
Brooks J, Bratley R, Jones L, King N, Lucock M. Expectations and experiences of psychological therapy from the client perspective: a qualitative study. Br J Guid Counc. 2021;49:371–381.
Evans T, Dhir P, Radley D, Duarte C, Keyworth C, Homer C, et al. Does the design of the NHS Low‐Calorie Diet Programme have fidelity to the programme specification? A documentary review of service parameters and behaviour change content in a type 2 diabetes intervention. Diab Med. 2022;40:e15022.
NHS England. NHS type 2 diabetes path to remission programme. (2023). https://www.england.nhs.uk/diabetes/treatment-care/diabetes-remission/. Accessed September 2023.