This article was originally published as:
Morton, D., Kent, L., Rankin, P., Mitchell, B.G., Parker, K., Gobble, J., & Diehl, H. (2017). Optimizing the intensity of lifestyle medicine interventions: Similar outcomes for half the sessions. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 11(3), 274-279. doi:10.1177/1559827615612420
ANZSRC / FoR Code
111104 Public Nutrition Intervention| 111716 Preventive Medicine| 119999 Medical and Health Sciences not elsewhere classified
Lifestyle medicine interventions are typically intensive by design. This study explored the optimal “dosage” of a well-known lifestyle medicine intervention—the Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP). A total of 2383 individuals (mean age = 61.0 ± 9.2 years; 34% males) participated in either an 8-session (N = 448) or 16-session (N = 1935) version of the CHIP intervention conducted over 4 weeks in community settings throughout North America. Both the 8- and 16-session groups experienced significant improvements in all the chronic disease risk factors measured. There was no difference between the changes experienced by the 8- and 16-session groups in lipid profile, fasting plasma glucose, or systolic blood pressure. The 8-session group experienced a significantly greater reduction in body mass (0.3 percentage points or 0.8 lbs, P < .01), but the 16-session group recorded a significantly greater reduction in diastolic blood pressure (2.8 percentage points or 2.2 mm Hg, P < .01). There was no clear difference between the outcomes achieved in 4 weeks by the 8- and 16-session versions of the CHIP lifestyle medicine intervention. This study suggests that the short-term outcomes achieved by a 16-session CHIP intervention can be achieved in half the number of sessions, which has implications from a resourcing and cost-effectiveness perspective.
Morton, D., Kent, L., Rankin, P., Mitchell, B.G., Parker, K., Gobble, J., & Diehl, H. (2015). Optimizing the intensity of lifestyle medicine interventions: Similar outcomes for half the sessions. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 11(3), 274-279. doi:10.1177/1559827615612420