Psychology & health · 2024
Understanding the selection of support partners in a behavioral weight loss program.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Crane Nicole T, Miller Nicole A, Arigo Danielle, Butryn Meghan L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Engaging a support partner during behavioral weight loss (BWL) programs can improve outcomes. However, little information is available about those selected as support partners. The study aimed to (1) characterize support partners and qualities of the relationship, (2) assess differences in relationship dynamics across relationship types, and (3) assess differences in supportive relationships by participant gender.
METHODS AND MEASURES: Upon entering a 24-month BWL program, participants (N = 323) nominated a support person from their existing social networks. Participants completed self-report measures at baseline, including the Working Alliance Inventory and study-specific measures assessing characteristics of the support person and comfort in communicating with them.
RESULTS: Spouse/partners were chosen by 43.3% of all participants. Among married participants, 80.9% of men and 53.8% of women chose their spouse/partner. Working alliance was lower when the support partner was a spouse/partner versus a friend (p < 0.05, r = -0.19). Comfort talking about exercise with a support partner was higher than talking about eating or weight (p < 0.001, η2p= 0.05).
CONCLUSION: A variety of friends and family can be selected as support partners during BWL. Programs should attend to the unique needs of men versus women when identifying sources of support.
METHODS AND MEASURES: Upon entering a 24-month BWL program, participants (N = 323) nominated a support person from their existing social networks. Participants completed self-report measures at baseline, including the Working Alliance Inventory and study-specific measures assessing characteristics of the support person and comfort in communicating with them.
RESULTS: Spouse/partners were chosen by 43.3% of all participants. Among married participants, 80.9% of men and 53.8% of women chose their spouse/partner. Working alliance was lower when the support partner was a spouse/partner versus a friend (p < 0.05, r = -0.19). Comfort talking about exercise with a support partner was higher than talking about eating or weight (p < 0.001, η2p= 0.05).
CONCLUSION: A variety of friends and family can be selected as support partners during BWL. Programs should attend to the unique needs of men versus women when identifying sources of support.