http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/Diehl, Hans A.Gobble, JohnRankin, PaulMorton, DarrenKent, Lillian2023-11-012023-11-012015-01-012014-10-21<p>Kent, L., Morton, D., Rankin, P., Gobble, J., & Diehl, H. (2015). Gender differences in effectiveness of of the Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP). <em>Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 47</em>(1), 44-52. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2014.08.016</p>1499-4046https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.08.016https://research.avondale.edu.au/handle/123456789/06265314<p>Objective: To determine the differential effect of gender on outcomes of the Complete Health Improvement Program, a chronic disease lifestyle intervention program.</p> <p>Design: Thirty-day cohort study.</p> <p>Setting: One hundred thirty-six venues around North America, 2006 to 2009.</p> <p>Participants: A total of 5,046 participants (33.5% men, aged 57.9 ± 13.0 years; 66.5% women, aged 57.0 ± 12.9 years).</p> <p>Intervention: Diet, exercise, and stress management.</p> <p>Main Outcome Measures: Body mass index, diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure, lipids, and fasting plasma glucose (FPG).</p> <p>Analysis: The researchers used t test and McNemar chi-square test of proportions, at P < .05.</p> <p>Results: Reductions were significantly greater for women for high-density lipoprotein (9.1% vs 7.6%) but greater for men for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (16.3% vs 11.5%), total cholesterol (TC) (13.2% vs 10.1%), triglycerides (11.4% vs 5.6%), FPG (8.2% vs 5.3%), body mass index (3.5% vs 3%), diastolic blood pressure (5.5% vs 5.1%), and TC/high-density lipoprotein (6.3% vs 1.4%) but not different for systolic blood pressure (6% vs 5%). The greatest reductions were in participants with the highest baseline TC, low-density lipoprotein, triglycerides, and FPG classifications.</p> <p>Conclusions and Implications: The Complete Health Improvement Program effectively reduced chronic disease risk factors among both genders, but particularly men, with the largest reductions occurring in individuals at greatest risk. Physiological or behavioral factor explanations, including differences in adiposity and hormones, dietary intake, commitment and social support, are explored. Researchers should consider addressing gender differences in food preferences and eliciting commitment and differential support modes in the development of lifestyle interventions such as the Complete Health Improvement Program.</p>en-us<p>Used by permission: the author(s).</p> <p>© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.</p>chronic diseasehealth behaviorrisk factorsmenwomenJournal Article