Overstatement of results in the nutrition and obesity peer-reviewed literature.

BACKGROUND: Scientific authors who overreach in presenting results can potentially, without intending to, distort the state of knowledge and inappropriately influence clinicians, decision makers, the media, and the public. PURPOSE: The goal of the study was to determine the extent to which authors present overreaching statements in the obesity and nutrition literature, and whether journal, author, or study characteristics are associated with this practice. METHODS: A total of 937 papers on nutrition or obesity published in 2001 and 2011 in leading specialty, medical, and public health journals were systematically studied to estimate the extent to which authors overstate the results of their study in the published abstract. Focus was placed on overreaching statements that may include (1) reporting an associative relationship as causal; (2) making policy recommendations based on observational data that show associations only (e.g., not cause and effect); and (3) generalizing to a population not represented by their sample. Data were compiled in 2012 and analyzed in 2013. RESULTS: Results indicate that 8.9% of studies have overreaching conclusions with a higher percentage in 2011 compared to 2001 (OR=2.14, risk difference=+3.9%, p=0.020). Unfunded studies (OR=2.41, p=0.039) were more likely to have an overstatement of results of the type described here. In contrast, those with a greater number of coauthors were significantly less likely than those with four or fewer authors (the reference group) to have overstated results (seven or eight authors: OR=0.30, risk difference=-6.1%, p=0.008; ≥9 authors: OR=0.41, risk difference= -4.0%, p=0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Overreaching in presenting results in studies focused on nutrition and obesity topics is common in articles published in leading journals. Testable strategies are proposed to reduce the prevalence of such instances in the literature.

Boosting workplace stair utilization: a study of incremental reinforcement.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine whether engagement in stair taking can be increased in a worksite setting through the provision of an employer-sponsored, behavior-based incentive system in which employees (members) accumulate points that can be redeemed for merchandise. METHODS/DESIGN: ChipRewards implemented stair utilization in one employer as a part of a larger health incentive engagement program. Using an AB (baseline-intervention) design, members (N = 216) were observed for 6 months (6.17.10 to 12.14.10 or 129 weekdays after excluding 52 weekend days) before the intervention (baseline) and after 6 months (1.1.11 to 6.30.11 with the same number of weekdays) of implementation. RESULTS: Members were 84% female, 51% Caucasian, 48% African American, 3% Hispanic, and 45 years average age. The number of total stair transactions for all members for all days monitored increased from 5,070 to 38,900, and the average number of stair transactions per day rose from 39 to 301, representing over a 600% increase. The overall cost of incentives for stair utilization was $3,739.30 or $17.55 per member on average. CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS: This study supports that stair usage in the workplace is a viable way to increase physical activity. This study adds to existing research that attempted to increase stair utilization through promotion only by adding a behavioral reinforcement strategy. Finally, this study demonstrates that a physical activity among employees at the worksite can be increased with minimal relative cost.