↓ Skip to main content

Effects of nutrition education on weight gain prevention: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
211 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of nutrition education on weight gain prevention: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Nutrition Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12937-016-0150-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine J. Metzgar, Sharon M. Nickols-Richardson

Abstract

Body weight (BW) reduction through energy restriction is ineffective at impacting the obesity epidemic. Shifting from an obesity treatment to weight gain prevention focus may be more effective in decreasing the burden of adult obesity. This was a 1-year randomized controlled trial of weight gain prevention in healthy premenopausal women, aged 18-45 y, with a body mass index (BMI) of >18.5 kg/m(2). Eighty-seven women were randomized to a weight gain prevention intervention delivered by a registered dietitian (RDG) or counselor (CSG), or to a control (CON) group. Eighty-one women (mean ± SD, age: 31.4 ± 8.1 y; BW: 76.1 ± 19.0 kg; BMI: 27.9 ± 6.8 kg/m(2)) completed baseline testing and were included in intention-to-treat analyses; anthropometric, blood pressure, dietary intake and physical activity measurements and biochemical markers of health were measured every three months. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANCOVA, with significance at P < 0.01. Sixty-two percent of women met the weight gain prevention criteria (BW change within ±3 %) after one year; this did not differ by group assignment. Body fat % was lower in the RDG versus CSG and CON groups at all intervals (P < 0.001). Systolic blood pressure increased from month 6 to 9 and decreased from month 6 to 12 in the CON group (P < 0.001), with a significant group x time interaction (P < 0.01). Estimated carbohydrate intake (%) was higher in the RDG vs. CON group at month 9 (P < 0.01); fat intake (%) was lower in the RDG vs. CON group and CSG vs. CON group at months 3 and 9, respectively (P < 0.01). Estimated fruit intake (svgs/d) was higher in the RDG vs. CON group at months 3, 6, 9 and 12 (P < 0.01), and non-meat protein sources (svgs/d) was higher in the RDG vs. CSG and CON groups at month 3 (P < 0.001). Estimated energy, macronutrient and food group intakes did not change over time. A majority of all participants maintained BW over one year and were able to do so regardless of whether they received nutrition education. Additional studies that include a variety of clinical outcomes are needed to evaluate further aspects of nutrition education on weight gain prevention and health status over the long term.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 210 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 17%
Student > Bachelor 29 14%
Researcher 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 5%
Other 32 15%
Unknown 71 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 42 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Sports and Recreations 12 6%
Psychology 7 3%
Other 22 10%
Unknown 86 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,366,627
of 24,974,461 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#548
of 1,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,625
of 307,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#14
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,974,461 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 307,122 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.