Group Lifestyle Balance Adapted for Individuals With Impaired Mobility: Outcomes for 6-Month RCT and Combined Groups at 12 Months.

INTRODUCTION: This study examines the feasibility and effectiveness of an intensive lifestyle intervention adapted for people with impaired mobility. STUDY DESIGN: This was a randomized, wait-list controlled trial. The experimental group immediately received the 12-month weight loss program; the wait-list control group received it after a 6-month delay. Between-group comparisons were conducted for the 6-month RCT study design. Repeated measures were conducted for both groups combined after receiving the 12-month intervention. Data were collected August 2015-February 2017 and analyzed in 2017. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A community-based sample received 23, group-based sessions via a mix of telephone and in-person sessions in a hospital-based setting. Participants with impaired mobility (n=66) were middle-aged (49.80 [SD=11.37] years), mostly White (66.7%), female (66.7%), and most commonly had spinal cord injury (47.0%). INTERVENTION: The 12-month intervention delivered 23 group-based sessions that promoted weight loss through reducing caloric intake and increasing physical activity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were effectiveness measured as change in weight and time spent in moderate physical activity. Feasibility was assessed in 12-month combined group analyses, measured as retention, attendance, and dietary self-monitoring. RESULTS: The 6-month RCT results showed that the immediate and delayed groups differed significantly (p<0.05) in weight (-1.66 [SD=4.42] kg loss vs 0.05 [SD=4.15] kg gain) and moderate physical activity (52.93 [SD=90.74] minutes/week increase vs -14.22 [SD=96.02] minutes/week decrease), accounting for baseline weight, time with disability, and age of onset. The 12-month results with groups combined demonstrated 74.2% retention and 77.7% core session attendance. Self-monitoring was higher in the delayed group (77.3%), who used a smartphone app, than the immediate group (47.3%), who mostly used paper trackers. Participants achieved significant 12-month weight loss of 3.31 (SD=10.13) kg (d=0.33) in mixed modeling analyses with groups combined yet did not significantly increase moderate physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Group Lifestyle Balance Adapted for Individuals with Impaired Mobility is a feasible, effective approach to teach healthy lifestyle skills to individuals with mobility impairment, yielding modest weight loss and enhanced self-efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT03307187.

Reducing barriers to healthy weight: Planned and responsive adaptations to a lifestyle intervention to serve people with impaired mobility.

BACKGROUND: People with impaired mobility (IM) disabilities have a higher prevalence of obesity and obesity-related chronic conditions; however, lifestyle interventions that address the unique needs of people with IM are lacking. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes an adapted evidence-based lifestyle intervention developed through community-based participatory research (CBPR). METHODS: Individuals with IM, health professionals, disability group representatives, and researchers formed an advisory board to guide the process of thoroughly adapting the Diabetes Prevention Program Group Lifestyle Balance (DPP GLB) intervention after a successful pilot in people with IM. The process involved two phases: 1) planned adaptations to DPP GLB content and delivery, and 2) responsive adaptations to address issues that emerged during intervention delivery. RESULTS: Planned adaptations included combining in-person sessions with conference calls, providing arm-based activity trackers, and adding content on adaptive cooking, adaptive physical activity, injury prevention, unique health considerations, self-advocacy, and caregiver support. During the intervention, participants encountered numerous barriers, including health and mental health issues, transportation, caregivers, employment, adjusting to disability, and functional limitations. We addressed barriers with responsive adaptations, such as supporting electronic self-monitoring, offering make up sessions, and adding content and activities on goal setting, problem solving, planning, peer support, reflection, and motivation. CONCLUSIONS: Given the lack of evidence on lifestyle change in people with disabilities, it is critical to involve the community in intervention planning and respond to real-time barriers as participants engage in change. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is underway to examine the usability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of the adapted intervention.