Trial design: Blood pressure control and weight gain prevention in prehypertensive and hypertensive smokers: The treatment and prevention study

Weg, Mark W. Vander; Klesges, Robert C.; Ebbert, Jon O.; Lichty, Ellen J.; DeBon, Margaret; North, Frederick; Schroeder, Darrell R.

doi:10.1016/j.cct.2007.07.003

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In all, 29 design and methods papers that met the search criteria were identified (16–44). Of these, 11 focused on school‐aged children and adolescents (17–19,24,31,32,34,36,38,41,42) and three on infants or preschool‐aged children (22,30,39).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these, 11 focused on school‐aged children and adolescents (17–19,24,31,32,34,36,38,41,42) and three on infants or preschool‐aged children (22,30,39). Thirteen papers reported on studies focused on adult populations (20,21,23,25–29,33,37,40,43,44), of which six focused only on employed adults, through workplace‐based interventions (20,25–29) and three targeted high risk groups of adults (23,37,40). Two papers had pregnant women as the focus of intervention (16,35).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1. General health risks of overweight and obesity, including the risk of developing obesity or complications later in life, were the most common justification provided (16–19,22–30,32,33,35–40,42,43), followed by evidence of high or increasing prevalence of obesity (17–19,22,25,26,29,30,32,34–40,42,43). An absolute high level of risk from obesity among the selected population group, however, was not a common justification.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An absolute high level of risk from obesity among the selected population group, however, was not a common justification. Just two studies (23,40) provided this rationale. In both of these studies, participants had been selected according to an existing risk factor, rather than a broader population‐based approach to prevention.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ease of access to the selected group and opportunities to have an impact through specified settings was given as a rationale in 14 papers, primarily those relating to school‐ or workplace‐based interventions (16,17,19–21,25–29,32,34,36,38). A lack of existing evidence relating to obesity prevention in the selected group was given as a rationale in 13 studies (16–18,24,28–30,32,33,35,36,40,43), while previous evidence of successful pilots or interventions in different contexts for the group was mentioned in seven studies (20,21,23,25,27,32,34). Evidence of high levels of obesity promoting behaviours was mentioned as a reason to focus on the selected group in 12 papers (17,18,21,23,28–30,32,34,36,38,39) and economic justifications were suggested in five papers (17,19,20,26,37).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Selection of priority groups for obesity prevention: current approaches and development of an evidence‐informed framework

Nichols

Swinburn

2010

Obesity Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resources for obesity prevention interventions are inevitably limited, necessitating the selection of priority groups to ensure effective and equitable use of funds. This paper aims to review published approaches to selection of priority groups ('target populations') for obesity prevention, and to present the development of a new systematic framework for organizing and assessing evidence for selecting priority groups. A review was conducted of the process and justification described for selecting priority groups in a sample of obesity prevention publications. Using the results of this review and adaptation of theory and frameworks in both the obesity prevention and health promotion priority-setting literature, a framework was developed for assessment of potential priority groups for obesity prevention. The published literature lacks discussion of and explicit processes for selection of priority groups for obesity prevention intervention. The new framework describes specific types of evidence that should be considered in the assessment of a potential priority group for obesity prevention and has applications for funding and implementing community-based or settings-level obesity prevention interventions and research. Application of this framework has the potential to enhance the effective use of limited obesity prevention resources and to identify areas in need of additional research evidence.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Selection of priority groups for obesity prevention: current approaches and development of an evidence‐informed framework

Nichols

Swinburn

2010

Obesity Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

Ussher

Taylor

Faulkner

2008

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

225

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Taking regular exercise may help people give up smoking by moderating nicotine withdrawal and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain. Objectives To determine whether exercise-based interventions alone, or combined with a smoking cessation programme, are more effective than a smoking cessation intervention alone. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in April 2014, and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus in May 2014. Selection criteria We included randomized trials which compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme (which we considered the control in this review). Studies were required to recruit smokers or recent quitters and have a follow-up of six months or more. Studies that did not meet the full inclusion criteria because they only assessed the acute effects of exercise on smoking behaviour, or because the outcome was smoking reduction, are summarised but not formally included. Data collection and analysis We extracted data on study characteristics and smoking outcomes. Because of differences between studies in the characteristics of the interventions used we summarized the results narratively, making no attempt at meta-analysis. We assessed risk of selection and attrition bias using standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Main results We identified 20 trials with a total of 5,870 participants. The largest study was an internet trial with 2,318 participants, and eight trials had fewer than 30 people in each treatment arm. Studies varied in the timing and intensity of the smoking cessation and exercise programmes offered. Only one included study was judged to be at low risk of bias across all domains assessed. Four studies showed significantly higher abstinence rates in a physically active group versus a control group at end of treatment. One of these studies also showed a significant benefit for exercise versus control on abstinence at the three-month follow-up and a benefit for exercise of 1 Exercise interventions for smoking cessation (Review)

show abstract