university of groningen women’s lifestyle and sexual ... · previously.16,26 infertility was...

University of Groningen

Women’s lifestyle and sexual functionKarsten, Matty

DOI:10.33612/diss.125792427

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:2020

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Karsten, M. (2020). Women’s lifestyle and sexual function: the effects of a preconception intervention inwomen with obesity. University of Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.125792427

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 15-01-2021

https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.125792427

https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/en/publications/womens-lifestyle-and-sexual-function(47f742cb-7495-486e-a193-64aa2de22207).html

https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/en/persons/matty-karsten(c21c7302-9060-4039-882d-425eb2c22d4d).html



https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.125792427

CHAPTER 3Determinants of successful lifestyle change during

a 6-month preconception lifestyle intervention in women with obesity and infertility

Matty D.A. Karsten*Anne M. van Oers*

Henk GroenMeike A.Q. Mutsaerts

Mireille N.M. van PoppelAnouk Geelen

Cornelieke van de BeekRebecca C. PainterBen Willem J. MolTessa J. Roseboom

Annemieke Hoek

* Authors contributed equally to this work

Adapted from: European Journal of Nutrition 2018 Sep; 58(6):2463-2475

58 | Chapter 3

A B S T R A C T

Purpose: To identify demographic, (bio)physical, behavioural, and psychological determinants of successful lifestyle change and program completion by performing a secondary analysis of the intervention arm of a randomized-controlled trial, investigating a preconception lifestyle intervention.

Methods: The 6-month lifestyle intervention consisted of dietary counselling, physical activity and behavioural modification and was aimed at 5-10% weight loss. We operationalized successful lifestyle change as successful weight loss (≥5%weight/BMI≤29kg/m2), weight loss in kilograms, a reduction in energy intake and an increase in physical activity during the intervention program. We performed logistic and mixed-effect regression analyses to identify baseline factors that were associated with successful change or program completion.

Results: Women with higher external eating behaviour scores had higher odds of successful weight loss (OR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.05–1.16). Women with the previous dietetic support lost 0.94 kg less during the intervention period (95% CI 0.01–1.87 kg). Women with higher self-efficacy reduced energy intake more than women with lower self-efficacy (p < 0.01). Women with an older partner had an increased energy intake (6 kcal/year older, 95%CI 3–13). A high stage of change towards physical activity was associated with a higher number of daily steps (p = 0.03). A high stage of change towards weight loss was associated with completion of the intervention (p = 0.04).

Conclusions: Determinants of lifestyle change and program completion were: higher external eating behaviour, not having received previous dietetic support, high stage of change. This knowledge can be used to identify women likely to benefit from lifestyle interventions and develop new interventions for women requiring alternative support.

Determinants of successful lifestyle change | 59

3

B A C K G R O U N D

In 2000, the World Health Organization declared obesity a pandemic and one of the most important current public health problems.1,2 Overweight and obesity are major risk factors for a number of chronic diseases, including diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer.3,4 In the Netherlands in 2012, 6% of women aged 20 to 29 years and 10% of those aged 30 to 39 years were obese.5 In the United States, 37% of women of reproductive age were obese in 2013–2014.6 In women, obesity is associated with lower pregnancy rates, higher rates of obstetric complications7–9 and it negatively affects maternal future health as well as health of the offspring.10

To decrease the risks of obesity-related diseases, treatment consisting of lifestyle optimization, through a comprehensive program of lifestyle modification, is recommended.10–13 However, lifestyle change has proven to be difficult and most lifestyle interventions have been shown to induce only modest changes in targeted behaviours.13–15 Furthermore, non-completion rates (24%) of lifestyle intervention programs reduce treatment success.16,17

Nevertheless, the preconception period seems to be a time in which women are particularly receptive to advice about diet and lifestyle.18 For example, studies have shown that interventions aimed at smoking cessation are more successful among women who intended to become pregnant.19,20 Potential beneficial effects on the health of a future child have been reported to be an important motivator for women to change their lifestyle.21

Psychosocial and behavioural variables, such as higher motivation, higher self-efficacy, a more positive body-image, self-regulation skill use22 fewer previous weight loss attempts23,24, and a higher socioeconomic status25, have been linked to lifestyle change success. Further knowledge on determinants of success or failure to achieve lifestyle change through lifestyle intervention programs is important. Knowing what type of persons are successful in achieving their intended goals during an intervention program and being able to screen participants on certain characteristics before the start of an intervention program can assist in future intervention design and delivery of more individualized, and hopefully more effective interventions.13

We conducted the LIFEstyle study, a randomized-controlled trial (RCT) including 577 women with obesity and infertility, which compared the effects of a 6-month preconception lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment to prompt infertility treatment.16 The intervention was efficacious in the sense that it resulted in modest weight loss of 5.3 kg in women who completed the intervention. However, 22% of women did not complete the intervention.16 The

60 | Chapter 3

purpose of the current study was to investigate the determinants of successful lifestyle change and completion of the intervention program in women with obesity and infertility using data from women in the intervention arm of the RCT.

M A T E R I A L S A N D M E T H O D S

This study used data of the LIFEstyle study, which was a multicentre RCT in 577 women with obesity and infertility [body mass index (BMI) ≥ 29 kg/m2] aged between 18 and 39 years. In total, 290 women were allocated to the intervention group; one woman withdrew her informed consent. For the current study, we only used the data of women randomized to receive the intervention (N = 289). The design and main results of the LIFEstyle study have been reported previously.16,26 Infertility was defined as chronic anovulation or unsuccessful conception for at least 12 months.27 Women with endocrinopathies, severe endometriosis, premature ovarian insufficiency, untreated pre-existing hypertension, and women with a history of hypertension-related pregnancy complications were excluded.26

Lifestyle interventionDuring the LIFEstyle study, women in the intervention group participated in a 6-month structured lifestyle intervention program, which was aimed at a weight loss of at least 5% of the original body weight. When the target weight reduction was met, or when BMI had decreased to below 29 kg/m2, or after finalization of the 6-month program, couples were eligible for infertility treatment. Infertility treatment was offered according to the Dutch guidelines for reproductive medicine and could consist of expectative management, ovulation induction, intrauterine inseminations, in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection depending on the diagnosis which the couple received after the infertility workup.28

The lifestyle program consisted of a combination of dietary counselling, an increase in physical activity and an individualized behavioural modification plan.11,26,29,30 Four individual consultations at the local hospital were planned in the first 3 months of the intervention and two additional sessions in the last 3 months. In between, four consultations by telephone or e-mail were scheduled. Trained intervention coaches, who had a degree in nursing or dietetics, guided participants throughout these consultations. Weight and height were measured by the intervention coach at baseline, and weight measurements were continued during the six individual consultations at the local hospital. During the four telephone / e-mail consultations in between, weight measures were provided by the women themselves. Coaches used a standardised software module to minimize practice variation. Information, including body measurements, energy intake, and physical activity, was captured in this system at all ten time points. Women were advised to consume a healthy diet with a caloric reduction of


3

approximately 600 kilocalories (kcal) per day compared to their habitual energy intake, but a total energy intake of at least 1200 kcal/day. Besides the consultations, participants received feedback on food and energy intake on a daily basis using a web-based food diary ‘Eetmeter’ of the Netherlands Nutrition Center31, which is linked to the Dutch food composition database.32 This web-based food diary was used for counselling purposes and has not been validated for research purposes. Data on energy intake were collected by the web-based food diary during each consultation with the intervention coach and used to estimate mean energy intake per day in the period prior to each consultation. In addition, women were advised to be physically active with moderate intensity (60-85% of maximum heart rate frequency) for at least 30 minutes two-to-three times a week and to increase physical activity in daily life by taking 10,000 steps per day monitored by a pedometer (Yamax Digi-Walker SW 200, Develing International®, Bunschoten, The Netherlands). A diary was kept on these physical activities to establish self-monitoring. The pedometer was used to calculate mean daily steps during the intervention period prior to each consultation with the intervention coach. Changing behaviour through motivational counselling, was directed at: 1) Awareness of actual lifestyle leading to overweight or obesity, 2) Counselling healthy lifestyle measures: the benefit of a healthy lifestyle in relation to infertility and spontaneous and treatment-dependent pregnancy chances, pregnancy complications and perinatal outcome and 3) formulating individualized goals embedded in a ‘patient contract’. During the intervention, individual goals were evaluated, participants received feedback from the intervention coaches, and goals were adapted if necessary.

Outcome measures and determinants of outcomes

Lifestyle change outcomes In this exploratory analysis, we aimed to identify determinants of lifestyle change and completion of the intervention program. We operationalized lifestyle change using the following dichotomous and continuous outcomes: successful weight loss (dichotomous), continuous weight loss in kilograms, change in daily energy intake (continuous) and change in daily number of steps (continuous) during the intervention program. Successful weight loss was defined as weight loss of at least 5% of original body weight or reaching a BMI ≤ 29.0 kg/m2 at any given moment during the 6-month intervention period, as this is in line with the aim of the intervention program. When a woman achieved the successful weight loss goal, she was allowed to stop the intervention program and was considered a completer of the intervention. Since the goal on an individual level was 5–10% weight loss and women formulated individual goals with the intervention coach prior to the intervention, she could also choose to continue losing weight (N = 28, 10%) within the 6-month intervention program.

62 | Chapter 3

Since weight loss is the result of the balance between energy intake and energy expenditure, we also analysed the continuous variables ‘change in mean energy intake in kilocalories per day’, as measured by the web-based ‘Eetmeter’31 and ‘change in the mean number of steps per day’, as measured by the pedometer. All changes in steps and energy intake were calculated using the difference between baseline consultation and the last consultation during the intervention. When a woman became pregnant during the intervention period, subsequent continuous outcome measurements were censored from the longitudinal analysis.

Outcome completion of the intervention programIn addition, we investigated determinants of completion of the lifestyle intervention (dichotomous). Women were considered to have completed the intervention when they did not miss more than two consecutive coaching sessions and finalized the intervention at 6 months independent of the amount of weight loss. When a woman became pregnant or achieved successful weight loss before or within 6 months, and, therefore, did not reach the full 6-month length of the intervention period, the intervention was also considered completed.

Determinants of lifestyle changePossible determinants of lifestyle change and data of questionnaires were all assessed at baseline and categorized into several domains, namely:

Demographic characteristics: age, ethnicity, education level, socioeconomic status, and smoking of the woman were obtained from medical records. The socioeconomic status was based on the postal code using the status score from 2010, developed by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research.33 This score reflects the social status of a neighbourhood, compared to other neighbourhoods in the Netherlands. A positive score represents a higher socioeconomic status, relative to the Dutch overall average of 0 (range –5.27 to 2.15).

Infertility characteristics: duration of infertility in months, nulliparity, presence of anovulation, male factor infertility, or unexplained infertility were retrieved from medical records.

Anthropometric and weight characteristics: BMI in kg/m2, waist circumference in centimetre and waist-hip ratio were measured by the intervention coach. Highest and lowest body weight over a period of the last 10 years, highest weight ever, weight variability in kg (calculated using the highest and lowest body weight during the past 10 years), and the number of the previous weight loss attempts during the last five years were all retrospectively questioned.

Metabolic characteristics. Degree of insulin resistance was quantified using the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). This model was defined as fasting insulin


3

concentration in μU/mL multiplied by fasting glucose concentration in mmol/L divided by 22.5.34 The presence of metabolic syndrome was identified using the 2001 revised National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (rNCEP ATP III) criteria.35

Psychosocial characteristics. Quality of Life (QoL) was assessed with the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire36,37, which measures overall physical and mental QoL.

The stage of change was based on the transtheoretical model of Prochaska.38 This model describes the classification of participants into five stages of change; 1) precontemplation, 2) contemplation, 3) preparation, 4) action, and 5) maintenance. In our study, the stage of change for weight loss and physical activity behaviour change were classified using two single-item questions. A higher score indicated a higher stage of change. The stage of change for weight loss39 was derived from the following question: ‘Have you been trying to lose weight?’, with possible answer categories: 1) ‘No, and I am not planning to do so in the coming 6 months’, 2)‘No, but I am planning to do so in the coming 6months‘, 3)‘No, but I am planning to do so in the coming month‘, 4)‘Yes, I have been trying to lose weight for less than 6 months‘ and 5) ’Yes, I have already been trying to lose weight for more than 6 months. The stage of change for physical activity40,41 was derived from the answer categories ranging from: 1) ‘At the moment I am not physically active on a regular basis and I do not intend to start in the near future’ 2) ‘At the moment I am not physically active on a regular basis, but I intend on becoming so in the near future‘, 3) ‘During the past few months I occasionally engaged in exercise or sports‘, 4) ‘During the last 6 months I engaged in exercise or sports at least five days a week for at least 30 minutes‘ and 5) ‘During the past year I engaged in an intense workout at least three times a week’. The previous support in losing weight (either by dietician or partner) or receiving no support was derived asking whether the following single-item statements were applicable: ‘I received help from a dietician’, ‘I received help from my partner’ or ‘I did not receive any support’. Self-efficacy was assessed, using the non-validated single-item statement ‘I think I’ll manage to reach my weight goal, when I’m trying to lose weight’ and body satisfaction, using the non-validated single-item statement ‘I am satisfied with my own body weight’, both were scored on a five-point Likert scale. We assessed three subscales of the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ)42: emotional eating, external eating, and restrained eating. Emotional eating is described as the eating in response to emotional arousal states such as fear, anger, or anxiety. External eating: eating in response to external food cues such as sight and smell of food. Restraint eating: overeating after a period of slimming when the cognitive resolve to diet is abandoned.42

Diet and physical activity characteristics: Mean energy intake in kcal per day was estimated using a web-based food diary of the Netherlands Nutrition Center and mean steps per day were monitored using a pedometer. Meeting the recommendations for fruit and vegetable

64 | Chapter 3

intake was based on the Dutch Guidelines for a healthy diet 200643, which advises a minimal recommended fruit and vegetable intake of 200 grams per day of which a maximum of 100 grams of fruit could be substituted by 1 glass of fruit juice. Dietary intake was assessed using a self-administered Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ). The first part of the FFQ was obtained from the standardised questions on food consumption used for the Public Health Monitor in the Netherlands.44 This standardised questionnaire consisted of questions about type of cooking fats, type of bread, frequency of breakfast use, frequency of consumption, and portion size of vegetables, fruits, and fruit juice. This first part has been supplemented with a second part, consisting of additional frequency and portion size questions about snack intake, the usage of sugar containing and alcoholic beverages, and the use of creamer and/or sugar in coffee and tea. Frequency of consumption was asked per week (breakfast, vegetable, and fruit) or per month (sugar containing and alcoholic beverages, and snacks). We were not able to estimate energy intake from the FFQ since it only determined food groups. Therefore, it was used to determine the intake of specific food groups and dietary behaviours as potential determinants of successful lifestyle change. The FFQ was collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months after randomization. For this analysis the FFQ at baseline was used.

To assess the total amount of moderate to vigorous physical activity and if participants met the Dutch guidelines for physical activity, the validated Short Questionnaire to Assess Health-enhancing physical activity questionnaire (SQUASH) was used.45 Based on the Ainsworth’s compendium of physical activities46, activities were subdivided into 2 to <4 Metabolic Equivalent of Task (MET, light), 4 to <6.5 MET (moderate), and ≥ 6.5 MET (vigorous). These cut-off points were chosen based on the Dutch physical activity guideline.47

Partner characteristics: age, BMI, ethnicity and smoking behaviour of the partner were based on medical records.

Statistical analysesDescriptive statistics are given as n, %, median and interquartile range (IQR) where appropriate. We examined the data regarding determinants and outcomes for plausibility, excluding outliers from further analyses. We omitted outliers in mean energy intake (web-based food-diary ‘Eetmeter’ < 500 and > 5000 kcal per day, N = 26) and steps (pedometer > 40,000 steps per day, N = 6). In addition, all continuous variables used as determinants were screened for outliers and improbable values were omitted.

Univariable logistic regression analyses were performed in order to identify determinants of lifestyle change of the dichotomous outcomes. The results of the logistic regression analyses are reported as the odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Mixed-effect regression analysis was performed to identify determinants of lifestyle change


3

on the repeated measurements of the continuous outcomes (weight, energy intake and number of steps). Mixed-effect regression analysis handles non-independent data, such as repeated measurements, and in contrast to ANOVA analysis, it is not limited to complete-case analysis. We performed baseline correction by introducing the baseline measurement of the dependent variable as a covariate in the mixed-effect regression models and we included a random intercept. Since pregnancy is known to affect body weight and energy intake, we censored measurements on weight, energy intake and number of steps of women with an ongoing pregnancy from the conception date onwards. The results of the mixed-effect regression models are reported as regression coefficients (β) and the corresponding 95% CI and indicate mean change throughout the intervention period.

To identify independent determinants of lifestyle change or completion of the intervention program, all determinants with a p-value < 0.05 were entered in the multivariable binary logistic regression model or multivariable mixed-effect regression model. When the overall p-value for a categorical variable was not significant, but one of the subcategories was, the entire categorical variable was considered as not being statistically significant. Since our analyses are exploratory, we did not adjust for multiple testing.48 All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 22.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL).

R E S U L T S

Baseline characteristics of women in the intervention group are shown in Table 3.1.

Determinants of successful weight lossLoss of ≥ 5% of the original body weight or reaching a BMI ≤ 29 kg/m2 was achieved by 119/289 women (41%) within 6 months after randomization, of which 116 women reached ≥5% weight loss and 18 women reached a BMI ≤29 kg/m2 (not mutually exclusive). A lower BMI, a lower waist circumference, a lower highest weight in the past 10 years, not receiving the previous support in losing weight by a dietician, and a higher score on external eating behaviour were significantly associated with successful weight loss in the univariable logistic regression analyses (Supplementary Table S3.1) and were, therefore, included in the multivariable model (Table 3.2).

The multivariable logistic regression model showed that women with higher scores on external eating behaviour had higher odds of successful weight loss (OR 1.10, 95%CI 1.05 to 1.16).

66 | Chapter 3

Table 3.1. Baseline characteristics of 289 women randomized to the intervention group of the LIFEstyle RCT

N LIFEstyle Intervention Program

Age of women (years; mean ± SD) 289 29.7 ± 4.5

Non-Caucasian (yes; N; %) 289 33 (11.4)

Education level (N; %) 276

no education / primary school 17 (6.2)

secondary education 66 (23.9)

intermediate vocational education 135 (48.9)

higher vocational education and university 58 (21.0)

Socioeconomic status score* (median, IQR) 230 -0.53 (-1.24 – 0.38)

Current smoker (yes; N; %) 285 76 (26.3)

Baseline BMI (kg/m2; median; IQR) 288 36.1 (33.4 – 38.6)

Baseline weight (kg; mean ± SD) 288 103.5 ± 13.9

Baseline energy intake (kcal/day; median; IQR) 213 1890 (1600 – 2200)

Baseline steps (steps/day; median; IQR) 230 6000 (4000 – 8000)

Age of partner (years; mean ± SD) 289 33.5 ± 6.1

Smoking partner (yes; N; %) 286 117 (40.9)

Baseline BMI of partner (kg/m2; median, IQR) 247 27.7 (24.4 – 31.0)

* Socioeconomic status score [Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP)] in 2010 relative to Dutch average of 0; a higher score represents a higher socioeconomic status. RCT: randomized-controlled trial. BMI: body mass index. IQR: interquartile range.

Table 3.2. Determinants of successful weight loss in 289 women randomized to the intervention group

DeterminantsOR (95% CI) Univariable p

OR (95% CI) Multivariable: p

BMI (kg/m2) 0.87 (0.81 – 0.94) 0.001 0.93 (0.81 – 1.07) 0.29

Waist circumference (cm) 0.97 (0.95 – 1.00) 0.02 1.00 (0.96 – 1.04) 0.87

Highest weight past 10 years (kg) 0.98 (0.96 – 0.99) < 0.01 0.98 (0.96 – 1.01) 0.28

Previous support by a dietician 0.56 (0.34 – 0.98) 0.04 0.53 (0.29 – 1.00) 0.05

External eating (units in DEBQ) 1.07 (1.02 – 1.12) < 0.01 1.10 (1.05 – 1.16) < 0.01

Results of uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses on determinants of successful weight loss. To identify independent determinants of lifestyle change or completion of the intervention program, all determinants with a p-value < 0.05 were entered in the multivariable binary logistic regression model. ORs indicate the odds of successful weight loss given that the determinant is present. Successful weight loss is defined as loss of ≥5% of original body weight or reaching a BMI ≤ 29kg/m2. Full univariable logistic regression results are provided in Supplementary Table S3.1. OR: odds ratio BMI: body mass index. DEBQ: Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire. Bold value indicates a statistically significant difference with a p-value less than 0.05.


3

Determinants of weight loss (as continuous variable)Mean weight loss was 5.20 kg (95%CI -5.72 to -4.68) at 6 months after randomization compared to the baseline visit (p<0.001). A higher BMI, a longer duration of infertility, a higher number of past weight loss attempts, a higher stage of change towards weight loss, and receiving the previous support by a dietician were significantly associated with the magnitude of weight loss in the univariable mixed-effect regression model (Supplementary Table S3.2) and were therefore included in the multivariable mixed-effect regression model (Table 3.3).

Table 3.3. Determinants of weight loss in kilograms in 289 women randomized to the intervention group

Determinantsβ kg (95% CI) Univariable p

β kg (95% CI) Multivariable p

BMI (kg/m2) 0.25 (0.08 – 0.42) < 0.01 0.07 (-0.14 – 0.28) 0.51

Duration of infertility (months) 0.02 (0.00 – 0.03) 0.03 0.02 (-0.00 – 0.04) 0.08

Number of weight loss attempts in past 5 years

n/a < 0.01 n/a 0.08

none [ref] [ref] n/a

1 attempt 0.80 (-1.09 – 2.69) 0.40 [ref] [ref]

2 – 3 attempts 0.47 (-1.28 – 2.22) 0.60 -0.83 (-2.25 – 0.59) 0.25

4 – 5 attempts 0.76 (-1.10 – 2.62) 0.42 -0.87 (-2.45 – 0.71) 0.28

> 5 attempts 2.26 (0.57 – 3.95) < 0.01 0.42 (-0.98 – 1.82) 0.56

Stage of change: weight loss n/a 0.001 n/a 0.15

precontemplation n/a n/a n/a n/a

contemplation -2.21 (-6.73 – 2.302) 0.34 -1.84 (-6.41 – 2.73) 0.43

preparation -1.11 (-2.35 – 0.13) 0.08 -0.16 (-1.55 – 1.24) 0.83

action -1.90 (-2.80 – -0.99) <0.001 -1.12 (-2.15 – -0.09) 0.03

maintenance [ref] [ref] [ref] [ref]

Previous support by a dietician 1.37 (0.48 – 2.27) < 0.01 0.94 (0.01 – 1.87) 0.047

Results of uni- and multivariable mixed-effect regressions models on determinants of weight loss. With correction for baseline BMI and including a random intercept. Mixed-effect regression analysis was performed to identify determinants of lifestyle change on the repeated measurements of the continuous weight loss outcome. All determinants with a p-value < 0.05 were entered in the multivariable model. We censored weight measurements of women with an ongoing pregnancy from the conception date onwards. The results of the mixed-effect regression models are reported as regression coefficients (β) and the corresponding 95% CI and indicate mean change throughout the intervention period. A negative number indicates additional weight loss, a positive number indicates less weight loss. Full univariable mixed-effect regression results are provided in Supplementary Table S3.2. The stage of change for weight loss was derived from the following question: ‘Have you been trying to lose weight?’, with possible answer categories: 1) Precontemplation: ‘No, and I am not planning to do so in the coming 6 months’, 2) Contemplation: ‘No, but I am planning to do so in the coming 6 months‘, 3) Preparation: ‘No, but I am planning to do so in the coming month‘, 4) Action: ‘Yes, I have been trying to lose weight for less than 6 months‘ and 5) Maintenance: ’Yes, I have already been trying to lose weight for more than 6 months. β: regression coefficient. CI: confidence interval. BMI: body mass index. n/a: not applicable. Bold value indicates a statistically significant difference with a p-value less than 0.05.

68 | Chapter 3

In the multivariable mixed-effects regression model, receiving the previous support by a dietician to lose weight was the only independent determinant of continuous weight loss. Women who had the previous support by a dietician lost 0.94 kg less weight during the intervention period (95% CI 0.01 to 1.87 kg) than women who did not receive support (Table 3.3).

Determinants of energy intakeDuring the intervention, women reduced their mean energy intake per day by 472 kilocalories (95% CI -536 to -409) at 6 months after randomization compared to the baseline visit (p < 0.001). Self-efficacy and a higher age of the partner were significantly associated with changes in energy intake in the univariable mixed-effect regression model (Supplementary Table S3.2), and were therefore included in the multivariable mixed-effect regression model (Table 3.4).

In the multivariable mixed-effect regression model, both a higher age of the partner and self-efficacy remained independently associated with energy intake. For each year increase in the age of the partner, the daily energy intake increased by 6 kcal (95%CI 3 to 13). Furthermore, self-efficacy was significantly associated with energy intake (p<0.01), i.e. women with the highest self-efficacy on the Likert-scale had decreased mean energy intake relative to women with the lowest self-efficacy level (p<0.01).

Determinants of number of stepsWomen increased their mean number of steps per day by 3231 steps (95% CI 2540 to 3921) at 6 months after randomization compared to the baseline visit (p < 0.001). A higher degree of insulin resistance, presence of metabolic syndrome, and a higher stage of change towards physical activity were significantly associated with the daily number of steps in the univariable mixed-effect regression model (Supplementary Table S3.2) and were therefore included in the multivariable mixed-effect regression model (Table 3.4).

In the multivariable model, the stage of change towards physical activity was significantly associated with the daily number of steps (p = 0.03), with a trend towards more steps in women who were increasingly ready to change, compared to women in the maintenance stage of change.


3

Table 3.4. Determinants of energy intake and number of steps in 289 women randomized to the intervention group

Determinants of energy intakeβ (95% CI) per 100 kcal Univariable p

β (95% CI) per 100 kcal Multivariable p

Self-efficacy n/a < 0.01 n/a < 0.01

extremely unlikely [ref] [ref] [ref] [ref]

unlikely -3.31 (-7.48 – 0.87) 0.12 -3.14 (-7.20 – 0.92) 0.13

do not know / neutral -2.75 (-6.65 – 1.15) 0.17 -1.87 (-5.71 – 1.96) 0.34

likely -2.41 (-6.31 – 1.50) 0.23 -1.58 (-5.42 – 2.26) 0.42

extremely likely -3.75 (-7.69 – 0.19) 0.06 -2.89 (-6.76 – 0.98) 0.14

Age of partner (years) 0.06 (0.01 – 0.11) 0.01 0.08 (0.03 – 0.13) < 0.01

Determinants of number of steps

β (95% CI) per 1000 stepsUnivariable p

β (95% CI) per 1000 stepsMultivariable p

Stage of change: physical activity n/a 0.04 n/a 0.03

precontemplation -0.18 (-2.37 – 2.00) 0.87 -0.97 (-3.13 – 1.20) 0.38

contemplation -0.35 (-1.45– 0.76) 0.53 -0.62 (-1.68 – 0.44) 0.25

preparation 0.03 (-1.04 – 1.11) 0.95 0.03 (-1.02 – 1.08) 0.95

action 1.23 (0.09 – 2.37) 0.04 0.99 (-0.11 – 2.09) 0.08


Insulin resistance 0.19 (0.02 – 0.37) 0.03 0.12 (-0.04 – 0.28) 0.15

Metabolic syndrome 1.05 (0.32 – 1.78) < 0.01 0.56 (-0.16 – 1.28) 0.13

Results of uni- and multivariable mixed-effect regressions models on determinants of energy intake and the number of steps. With correction for baseline energy intake or steps and including random intercept. Mixed-effect regression analysis was performed to identify determinants of lifestyle change on the repeated measurements of the continuous outcomes on energy intake and number of steps. All determinants with a p-value < 0.05 were entered in the multivariable model. Energy intake estimates and steps measurements of women with an ongoing pregnancy were censored from the conception date onwards. The results of the mixed-effect regression models are reported as regression coefficients (β) and the corresponding 95% CI and indicate mean change throughout the intervention period. A negative number indicates a decrease in the intake of kcal/steps, a positive number indicates an increase the intake of kcal/steps. Full univariable mixed-effect regression results are provided in Supplementary Table S3.2. Self-efficacy: using the single self-administered question ‘I think I’ll manage to reach my weight goal, when I’m trying to lose weight’ was scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘extremely unlikely’ to ‘extremely likely’. The stage of change for physical activity was derived from the answer categories ranging from: 1) Precontemplation: ‘At the moment I am not physically active on a regular basis and I do not intend to start in the near future’ 2) Contemplation: ‘At the moment I am not physically active on a regular basis, but I intend on becoming so in the near future‘, 3) Preparation: ‘During the past few months I occasionally engaged in exercise or sports‘, 4) Action: ‘During the last 6 months I engaged in exercise or sports at least five days a week for at least 30 minutes‘ and 5) Maintenance: ‘During the past year I engaged in an intense workout at least three times a week’. n/a: not applicable. β: regression coefficient. CI: confidence interval. Bold value indicates a statistically significant difference with a p-value less than 0.05.

70 | Chapter 3

Determinants of completion of the lifestyle interventionIn total, 226 (78%) women completed the lifestyle intervention. Reasons for discontinuing the intervention program were: a lack of motivation (N = 40), relationship problems with their partner (N = 12), and other reasons (N = 11). In total, 44 women (15%) had an ongoing pregnancy (> 10 weeks) during the intervention period. Current smoking, nulliparity, stage of change towards weight loss, a higher restrained eating behaviour score, and a higher BMI of the partner were significantly associated with completion of the intervention program in the univariable logistic regression analyses (Supplementary Table S3.3) and were, therefore, included in the multivariable model (Table 3.5).

The multivariable logistic regression model showed that only the stage of change towards weight loss was independently associated with the odds on completing the lifestyle intervention (p = 0.04), with women in the preparation phase having a higher odds of completing the intervention program, compared to women in the maintenance phase.

Table 3.5. Determinants of completion of the lifestyle intervention program in 289 women randomized to the intervention group

DeterminantsOR (95% CI) Univariable p

OR (95% CI) Multivariable: p

Current smoker 0.55 (0.30 – 0.99) 0.047 1.70 (0.76 – 3.76) 0.19

Nulliparous 2.02 (1.03 – 3.93) 0.04 1.07 (0.99 – 1.16) 0.08

Stage of change: weight loss n/a 0.01 n/a 0.04

precontemplation n/a n/a n/a n/a

contemplation n/a n/a n/a n/a

preparation 0.43 (0.19 – 1.00) 0.049 0.40 (0.15 – 1.09) 0.07

action 1.93 (0.90 – 4.15) 0.09 1.78 (0.74 – 4.26) 0.20


Restrained eating (DEBQ) 1.07 (1.02 – 1.12) 0.01 1.05 (0.98 – 1.12) 0.14

BMI of partner 1.07 (1.00 – 1.14) 0.04 1.07 (0.99 – 1.16) 0.08

Results of uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses on determinants of completion. To identify independent determinants of lifestyle change or completion of the intervention program, all determinants with a p-value < 0.05 were entered in the multivariable binary logistic regression model. Full univariable logistic regression results are provided in Supplementary Table S3.3. ORs indicate odds for completion of the lifestyle intervention program as defined by not missing ≥2 consecutive sessions given that the determinant is present. DEBQ: Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire. BMI: body-mass index, n/a: not applicable. CI: confidence interval. Bold value indicates a statistically significant difference with a p-value less than 0.05.


3

D I S C U S S I O N

In women with obesity and infertility who participated in a 6-month lifestyle intervention program, a higher score on external eating behaviour, was independently associated with successful weight loss of ≥ 5% of original body weight or achieving a BMI ≤ 29 kg/m2. In addition, women without a history of the previous support by a dietician lost more weight than women who did have such a history.

External eating is associated with impulsiveness and lower self-discipline.49,50 Since our intervention included specific advice about what to do in situations that would trigger women to eat, this may have helped external eaters more in changing their lifestyle than women with other types of eating behaviours. Furthermore, since the intervention specifically focused on behaviour change, also in situations that would usually be associated with unhealthy eating (such as smelling or seeing food at display) this may have been most helpful to external eaters (as it prepared them for difficult situations) and less so for other types of women such as emotional eaters. In our study, we did not find an association between emotional eating and weight loss success.

Women who had the previous support from a dietician lost less weight during the intervention, compared to women without prior support. It is possible that some women in our study represent a selection of women failed to lose weight after having been counselled previously about healthy lifestyle options. They could therefore be less susceptible to a repetition of the support offered during our lifestyle intervention program. Possibly, these women may have other underlying causes for their obesity, such as low self-esteem, lack of motivation or previous trauma and, therefore, need different types of support.51,52 The finding that the previous counselling by a dietician has negative effects on weight loss is in line with existing literature, showing that fewer previous weight loss attempts and less previous dieting are predictors of successful weight loss.24

Many trials and observational cohorts have reported that a higher baseline BMI is associated with greater (initial) weight loss or weight loss maintenance over time.53–55 However, reviews of BMI trajectories of weight loss56 and BMI classes57 reported no associations between those with an initial loss trajectory or higher BMI classes and weight loss outcomes. This is in line with our findings that baseline BMI was not an independent predictor of weight loss success.

Women with older partners increased their energy intake more than women with younger partners, however the effect size was small, 8 kcal increase in energy intake for every year increase in age of the partner. It is difficult to place this finding into context, although it is known that obesity, dietary, and general health behaviours tend to cluster between spouses

72 | Chapter 3

and within families.58,59 The magnitude of spousal concordance may differ per age group, since couples are usually close in age. In the literature, the proportion of both spouses reporting physical inactivity was highest in the oldest age group.60 We, however, found no literature on the correlation of (dietary) habits in couples of whom one of the spouses was older.

Women with a higher level of self-efficacy had decreased energy intake relative to women with the lowest self-efficacy level. This finding is in agreement with literature, suggesting that high self-regulation skills and high self-efficacy are associated with a reduction in energy intake and increased physical activity.22

Increased stage of change towards physical activity was significantly associated with increased daily number of steps. Women in the action phase of stage of change towards physical activity were more likely to increase their number of steps compared to women in the maintenance phase. Furthermore, stage of change towards weight loss also increased the odds of completing the lifestyle intervention. These results are in line with a review in which motivational readiness was found to be positively associated with physical activity.22 Thus, it is important to assess the stage of change and incorporate motivational counselling in consultations with health care providers and lifestyle interventions.61 Surprisingly, women in the action phase of stage of change for physical activity were more likely to increase their number of steps compared to women in the maintenance phase. The formulations for action and maintenance phase of the stage of change towards physical activity used in our study differed in the mentioned frequency and intensity, which might explain this unexpected finding.

A major strength of our study is that it is the first study evaluating the determinants of lifestyle change among women with obesity and infertility. The participants were of reproductive age and were, except for their obesity, generally in good health. The previous studies mainly focused on older obese patients with obesity-related comorbidities, such as hypertension or diabetes62–64 and therefore our study fills a gap in literature. Another strength is the prospective design. All determinants were collected at baseline, at the start of the trial. Furthermore, by using data of the intervention arm of an RCT the possibility of allocation bias, often found in observational studies of lifestyle interventions, was eliminated. We used a robust statistical method, mixed-effect regression models, to analyse the continuous longitudinal outcomes. This method takes the within person dependence of the data into account and does not rely on complete-case data, so we were able to use all available data points.

Limitations of our study should be noted. Although we used several validated questionnaires, some of the determinants which we investigated originated from single-item questions. Therefore some constructs that were investigated in our study, such as self-efficacy, may have limited validity. Furthermore, our RCT was not set up for analyses of determinants of lifestyle


3

change within the intervention group and, therefore, type II errors might have occurred. We measured energy intake with a web-based food diary (‘Eetmeter). This food-diary was used for feasibility reasons because it is online available throughout the Netherlands, but has not been not validated for research purposes. Furthermore, it is known that self-reported energy intake is subject to bias in general and even more in obese women who are known to under-report their intake of unhealthy foods.65,66 Due to these shortcomings the ‘Eetmeter’ may therefore not have been able to completely identify determinants of energy intake. We did not find any consistent determinants across the domains assessed. This could be a reflection of the exploratory nature of the study. Our results are however in line with a comprehensive review of Teixeira et al.22, where no consistent mediators for dietary intake in the long term (> 12 months) were found.

In our study, the determinants self-efficacy and body satisfaction were derived from non-validated single-item statements. In spite of this, self-efficacy predicted successful lifestyle change: higher self-efficacy was associated with a lower energy intake. However, a single-item question could be as predictive as a validated 20-item scale.67 Thus, the use of a single-item statement may therefore be sufficient to show an association with lifestyle success.

A large body of evidence exists on the association between lower socioeconomic status, lower education level and an increased risk of becoming overweight and obese.68–71 In our study population, neither low educational level nor low socioeconomic status was identified as a determinant of lifestyle change. This suggests that the lifestyle intervention program is equally effective for women of lower and higher socioeconomic status.

C O N C L U S I O N S

The determinants of lifestyle change and completion of the intervention in women with obesity and infertility were: higher external eating behaviour, not having received the previous dietetic support, a higher self-efficacy level, higher age of the partner, and a high stage of change.

Knowledge of the determinants of success within lifestyle interventions is important, since this knowledge can help to identify people at risk of suboptimal results and can help to develop new interventions for women who require alternative support. Intervention programs should be tailored towards women with different types of eating behaviours, self-efficacy levels, stages of change, and whether a women received the previous help from a dietician. Our type of intervention was suitable for women with external eating behaviour. Women who experienced emotional eating may benefit from in-depth psychological help during the intervention program. Stages of change can be used as a proxy to whether women are ready for behaviour change. Interventions should therefore be targeted towards women with higher stages of change or enhance the stage of change prior to the intervention.

74 | Chapter 3

SU

PP

LE

ME

NT

AR

Y M

AT

ER

IAL

S

Supp

lem

enta

ry T

able

S3.

1. D

eter

min

ants

of su

cces

sful

wei

ght l

oss

Cate

gory

Det

erm

inan

tN

Succ

essf

ul w

eigh

t los

s(m

edia

n, IQ

R or

N, %

)U

nsuc

cess

ful w

eigh

t los

s(m

edia

n, IQ

R or

N, %

)O

dds

ratio

(95%

CI)

p

Dem

ogra

phic

ch

arac

teris

tics

Age

of w

omen

(yea

rs)

261

29.9

(26.

7 –

33.5

)29

.7 (2

6.1

– 32

.8)

1.02

(0.9

6 –

1.07

)0.

58

Non

-Cau

casia

n 26

114

/ 1

05 (1

1.8)

15 /

127

(10.

6)1.

13 (0

.52

– 2.

45)

0.76

Educ

atio

n le

vel

250

1.29

(0.9

3 –

1.77

)0.

12

no e

duca

tion

/ p

rimar

y sc

hool

5

/ 11

6 (4

.3)

6 /

134

(4.5

)[re

f][re

f]

seco

ndar

y ed

ucat

ion

24 /

116

(20.

7)39

/ 1

34 (2

9.1)

0.74

(0.2

0 –

2.69

)0.

65

inte

rmed

iate

voc

atio

nal e

duca

tion

57 /

116

(49.

1)64

/ 1

34 (4

7.8)

1.07

(0.3

1 –

3.69

)0.

92

high

er v

ocat

iona

l edu

catio

n an

d un

iver

sity

30 /

116

(25.

9)24

/ 1

34 (1

8.7)

1.44

(0.3

9 –

5.28

)0.

58

Soci

oeco

nom

ic st

atus

scor

e 1

208

-0.3

4 (-

1.04

– 0

.54)

-0.7

0 (-

1.39

– 0

.17)

1.25

(0.9

9 –

1.59

)0.

07

Cur

rent

smok

er25

830

/ 11

8 (2

5.4)

36 /

140

(25.

7)0.

99 (0

.56

– 1.

73)

0.99

Infe

rtilit

y ch

arac

teris

tics

Dur

atio

n of

infe

rtilit

y (m

onth

s)26

123

.0 (1

5.0

– 35

.0)

21.5

(14.

0 –

41.3

)1.

00 (0

.99

– 1.

01)

0.67

Nul

lipar

ous

249

90 /

111

(81.

1)11

4 /

138

(82.

6)0.

90 (0

.47

– 1.

72)

0.76

Ano

vula

tory

260

49 /

118

(41.

5)66

/ 1

42 (4

6.5)

0.81

(0.5

0 –

1.34

)0.

42

Mal

e fa

ctor

infe

rtilit

y26

031

/ 11

8 (2

6.3)

30 /

142

(21.

1)1.

33 (0

.75

– 2.

36)

0.33

Une

xpla

ined

infe

rtilit

y 26

036

/ 11

8 (3

0.5)

43 /

142

(30.

3)1.

01 (0

.60

– 1.

72)

0.97

Ant

hrop

omet

ric a

nd

wei

ght c

hara

cter

istic

sBM

I (kg

/m

2 )26

135

.3 (3

2.8

– 37

.3)

37.0

(34.

7 –

39.0

)0.

87 (0

.81

– 0.

94)

0.00

1

Wai

st ci

rcum

fere

nce

(cm

)25

710

6.0

(100

.0 –

112.

0)10

9.0

(102

.0 –

115.

0)0.

97 (0

.95

– 1.

00)

0.02

Wai

st/hi

p ra

tio25

50.

86 (0

.82

– 0.

90)

0.86

(0.8

2 –

0.91

)0.

97 (0

.66

– 1.

41) a

0.86

Hig

hest

wei

ght i

n pa

st 10

yea

rs (k

g)22

910

6.0

(98.

0 –

115.

0)11

2.0

(100

.0 –

120

.0)

0.98

(0.9

6 –

0.99

) <0

.01

Hig

hest

wei

ght e

ver

219

0.13

sam

e as

cur

rent

wei

ght

28 /

104

(26.

9)26

/ 11

5 (2

2.6)

[ref]

[ref]

1 –

5 kg

abo

ve c

urre

nt w

eigh

t42

/ 1

04 (4

0.4)

36 /

115

(31.

3)1.

08 (0

.54

– 2.

17)

0.82


3

Supp

lem

enta

ry T

able

S3.

1. C

ontin

ued

Cate

gory

Det

erm

inan

tN

Succ

essf

ul w

eigh

t los

s(m

edia

n, IQ

R or

N, %

)U

nsuc

cess

ful w

eigh

t los

s(m

edia

n, IQ

R or

N, %

)O

dds

ratio

(95%

CI)

p

6 –

10kg

abo

ve c

urre

nt w

eigh

t19

/ 1

04 (1

8.3)

22 /

115

(19.

1)0.

80 (0

.36

– 1.

18)

0.60

> 10

kg

abov

e cu

rrent

wei

ght

15 /

104

(14.

4)31

/ 11

5 (2

7.0)

0.45

(0.2

0– 1

.02)

0.05

Wei

ght v

aria

bilit

y in

pas

t 10

year

s 3 (kg)

223

29.0

(20.

5 –

38.5

)31

.0 (2

2.0

– 40

.0)

0.99

(0.9

7 –

1.01

)0.

43

Num

ber o

f wei

ght l

oss a

ttem

pts i

n pa

st 5

year

s 23

20.

77

Non

e9

/ 11

1 (8

.1)

7 /

121

(5.8

)[re

f][re

f]

1 at

tem

pt17

/ 11

1 (1

5.3)

17 /

121

(14.

0)0.

78 (0

.24

– 2.

57)

0.68

2 –

3 at

tem

pts

32 /

111

(28.

8)29

/ 1

21 (2

4.0)

0.86

(0.2

8 –

2.60

)0.

79

4 –

5 at

tem

pts

16 /

111

(14

.4)

20 /

121

(16.

5)0.

62 (0

.19

– 2.

04)

0.43

> 5

atte

mpt

s37

/ 11

1 (3

3.3)

48 /

121

(39.

7)0.

60 (0

.20

– 1.

76)

0.35

Met

abol

ic

char

acte

ristic

sIn

sulin

resis

tanc

e (H

OM

A-IR

)22

82.

9 (1

.9 –

3.9

)3.

0 (2

.2 –

4.3

)0.

93 (0

.81

– 1.

06)

0.27

Met

abol

ic sy

ndro

me

220

51 /

103

(49.

5)64

/ 11

7 (5

4.7)

0.81

(0.4

8 –

1.38

)0.

44

Psyc

hoso

cial

ch

arac

teris

tics

Qua

lity

of L

ife4

phys

ical

com

pone

nt (s

core

)21

853

.0 (4

7.9

– 55

.3)

51.6

(45.

2– 5

5.8)

(0.9

8 –

1.04

)0.

42

men

tal c

ompo

nent

(sco

re)

218

53.0

(46.

8 –

56.0

)52

.5 (4

5.4

– 55

.4)

1.01

(0.9

8 –

1.04

)0.

47

Read

ines

s to

chan

ge: w

eigh

t los

s22

80.

51

prec

onte

mpl

atio

n0

/ 1

09 (0

.0)

0 /

119

(0.0

)n/

a

cont

empl

atio

n1

/ 1

09 (0

.9)

1 /

119

(0.8

)1.

42 (0

.09

– 23

.40)

0.62

prep

arat

ion

19 /

109

(17.

4)17

/ 11

9 (1

4.3)

1.58

(0.7

3 –

3.46

)0.

25

actio

n53

/ 1

09 (4

8.6)

50 /

119

(42.

0)1.

50 (0

.84

– 2.

67)

0.17

mai

nten

ance

36 /

109

(33.

0)51

/ 11

9 (4

2.9)

[ref]

[ref]

Read

ines

s to

chan

ge: p

hysic

al a

ctiv

ity22

90.

65

prec

onte

mpl

atio

n3

/ 1

09 (2

.8)

4 /

120

(3.3

)0.

60 (0

.12

– 3.

08)

0.54

76 | Chapter 3

Supp

lem

enta

ry T

able

S3.

1. C

ontin

ued

Cate

gory

Det

erm

inan

tN

Succ

essf

ul w

eigh

t los

s(m

edia

n, IQ

R or

N, %

)U

nsuc

cess

ful w

eigh

t los

s(m

edia

n, IQ

R or

N, %

)O

dds

ratio

(95%

CI)

p

cont

empl

atio

n27

/ 1

09 (2

4.8)

34 /

120

(28.

3)0.

64 (0

.128

– 1

.46)

0.28

prep

arat

ion

38 /

109

(34.

9)36

/ 1

20 (3

0.0)

0.84

(0.3

8 –

1.88

)0.

68

Act

ion

21 /

109

(19.

3)30

/ 1

20 (2

5.0)

0.56

(0.2

4 –

1.33

)0.

19

mai

nten

ance

20 /

109

(18.

3)16

/ 1

20 (1

3.3)

[ref]

[ref]

Prev

ious

supp

ort i

n w

eigh

t los

s

by d

ietic

ian

207

40 /

98

(40.

8)60

/ 1

09 (5

5.0)

0.56

(0.3

4 –

0.98

)0.

04

by p

artn

er20

756

/ 9

8 (5

7.1)

63 /

109

(5.8

)0.

97 (0

.56

– 1.

69)

0.92

no so

cial

supp

ort

207

38 /

98

(38.

8)34

/ 1

09 (3

1.2)

1.40

(0.7

9 –

2.48

)0.

25

Self-

effic

acy

227

0.14

extre

mel

y un

likel

y1

/ 1

08 (0

.9)

0 /

119

(0.0

)n/

an/

a

Unl

ikel

y2

/ 1

08 (1

.9)

4 /

119

(3.4

)0.

41 (0

.07

– 2.

51)

0.34

do n

ot k

now

/ n

eutra

l35

/ 1

08 (3

2.4)

58 /

119

(48.

7)0.

50 (0

.24

– 1.

04)

0.07

Likel

y47

/ 1

08 (4

3.5)

38 /

119

(31.

9)1.

02 (0

.49

– 2.

15)

0.96

extre

mel

y lik

ely

23 /

108

(21.

3)19

/ 11

9 (1

6.0)

[ref]

[ref]

Body

satis

fact

ion

232

0.91

no, n

ever

48

/ 11

1 (4

3.2)

59 /

121

(48.

8)[re

f][re

f]

no, m

ostly

not

44 /

111

(39.

6)42

/ 1

21 (3

4.7)

1.29

(0.7

2 –

2.28

)0.

38

som

etim

es, s

omet

imes

not

15 /

111

(13.

5)16

/ 1

21 (1

3.2)

1.15

(0.5

2 –

2.57

)0.

73

yes,

mos

tly

4 /

111

(3.6

)3

/ 1

21 (2

.5)

1.64

(0.3

5 –

7.68

)0.

53

yes,

alw

ays

0 /

111

(0.0

)1

/ 1

21 (0

.8)

n/a

n/a

Dut

ch E

atin

g Be

havi

or Q

uesti

onna

ire

emot

iona

l eat

ing

(13-

65 p

oint

s)25

036

.0 (2

8.3

– 44

.0)

36.0

(25.

8 –

44.0

)1.

00 (0

.98–

1.0

2)0.

86


3

Supp

lem

enta

ry T

able

S3.

1. C

ontin

ued

Cate

gory

Det

erm

inan

tN

Succ

essf

ul w

eigh

t los

s(m

edia

n, IQ

R or

N, %

)U

nsuc

cess

ful w

eigh

t los

s(m

edia

n, IQ

R or

N, %

)O

dds

ratio

(95%

CI)

p

exte

rnal

eat

ing

(10-

50 p

oint

s)25

030

.0 (2

5.0

– 33

.0)

27.0

(22.

0 –

32.0

)1.

07 (1

.02

– 1.

12)

<0.0

1

restr

aine

d ea

ting

(10-

50 p

oint

s)25

231

.0 (2

8.0

– 36

5.0)

31.0

(28.

0 –

35.0

)1.

00 (0

.96

– 1.

05)

0.89

Die

t and

phy

sical

ac

tivity

cha

ract

erist

ics

Mea

n en

ergy

inta

ke (k

cal/

day)

210

1920

(159

0 –

2200

)18

83 (1

600

– 21

00)

0.99

(0.9

4 –

1.06

5) b

0.81

Mea

n ste

ps (d

ay)

226

6000

(400

0 –

8000

)60

00 (4

000

– 80

00)

1.00

(0.8

93 –

1.0

9) c

085

Freq

uenc

y of

bre

akfa

st us

e (d

ays /

wee

k)23

77

(4 –

7)

7 (5

– 7

)0.

94 (0

.84

– 1.

05)

0.28

Vege

tabl

e in

take

(gra

ms/

day)

237

114

(79–

164

)11

4 (8

6 –

157)

1.00

(0.9

6 –

1.04

) d0.

96

Frui

t int

ake

(gra

ms/

day)

237

100

(43

– 17

1)85

(57

– 17

1)0.

99 (0

.97

– 1.

02) d

0.66

Mee

ting

reco

mm

enda

tions

veg

etab

le in

take

523

720

/ 11

3 (1

7.7)

22 /

124

(17.

7)1.

00 (0

.51

– 1.

94)

0.99

Mee

ting

reco

mm

enda

tions

frui

t int

ake

523

723

/ 11

3 (2

0.4)

27 /

124

(21.

8)0.

92 (0

.49

– 1.

72)

0.79

Mee

ting

reco

mm

enda

tions

frui

t and

juic

e in

take

623

333

/ 11

1 (2

9.7)

34 /

122

(27.

9)1.

10 (0

.62

– 1.

93)

0.75

Mee

ting

reco

mm

enda

tions

frui

t- an

d ve

geta

ble

inta

ke 5

231

8 /

110

(7.3

)11

/ 1

21 (9

.1)

0.78

(0.3

0 –

2.03

) e0.

61

Alc

ohol

ic b

ever

ages

(uni

ts /

day

)21

80.

00 (0

.00

– 0.

18)

0.00

(0.0

0 –

0.18

)1.

40 (0

.72

– 2.

69)

0.32

Tota

l mod

erat

e to

vig

orou

s phy

sical

act

ivity

(min

/w

eek)

234

300

(120

– 7

84)

382

(150

– 8

55)

1.00

(0.9

9 –

1.01

)0.

47

Mee

ting

reco

mm

enda

tions

gui

delin

e ph

ysic

al a

ctiv

ity23

275

/ 11

0 (6

8.2)

95 /

122

(77.

9)0.

61 (0

.34

– 1.

10)

0.10

Partn

er c

hara

cter

istic

sA

ge (y

ears

)26

133

.6 (2

9.6

– 36

.7)

33.4

(29.

9 –

37.0

)1.

01 (0

.97

– 1.

05)

0.67

BMI (

kg/

m2 )

226

27.8

(24.

5 –

31.3

)27

.8 (2

4.7

– 31

.1)

1.00

(0.9

6 –

1.05

)0.

97

Non

-Cau

casia

n26

111

/ 11

9 (9

.2)

12 /

142

(8.5

)1.

10 (0

.427

– 2

.60)

0.82

Smok

ing

260

40 /

119

(33.

6)61

/ 1

41 (4

3.3)

0.66

(0.4

0 –

1.10

)0.

11

All

dete

rmin

ants

wer

e as

sess

ed a

t bas

elin

e. R

esul

ts of

uni

varia

ble

logi

stic

regr

essio

n an

alys

es o

n de

term

inan

ts of

suc

cess

ful w

eigh

t los

s. Su

cces

sful

wei

ght l

oss

is de

fined

as

loss

of ≥

5% o

f orig

inal

bo

dy w

eigh

t or r

each

ing

a BM

I <29

kg/

m2 . O

Rs in

dica

te th

e od

ds o

f suc

cess

ful w

eigh

t los

s gi

ven

the

dete

rmin

ant i

s pr

esen

t. a W

aist-

hip

ratio

: per

0.1

0 in

crea

se. b B

asel

ine

calo

rie in

take

: per

100

kca

l in

crea

se. c B

asel

ine

step

coun

ts: p

er 1

000

steps

incr

ease

. d B

asel

ine

vege

tabl

e an

d fru

it in

take

: per

10

gram

s / d

ay in

crea

se. e

Tota

l mod

erat

e to

vig

orou

s phy

sical

act

ivity

: per

30

min

/ w

eek

incr

ease

. 1 S

ocio

econ

omic

sta

tus

scor

e (N

ethe

rland

s In

stitu

te fo

r Soc

ial R

esea

rch

(SC

P)) i

n ye

ar 2

010

rela

tive

to D

utch

ave

rage

of 0

, a h

ighe

r sco

re re

pres

ents

a hi

gher

soc

ioec

onom

ic s

tatu

s. 2

Wei

ght c

hang

e du

ring

the

first

1,5

mon

ths

of th

e in

terv

entio

n pr

ogra

m. 3 C

alcu

late

d up

on th

e hi

ghes

t and

low

est w

eigh

t in

the

past

10 y

ears

. 4 Mea

sure

d by

the

Shor

t-For

m-3

6 Q

uesti

onna

ire. 5

Dut

ch G

uide

lines

for a

he

alth

y di

et 2

006:

min

imal

reco

mm

ende

d fru

it an

d ve

geta

ble

inta

ke 2

00 g

ram

s per

day

. 6 Dut

ch G

uide

lines

for a

hea

lthy

diet

200

6: o

f min

imal

reco

mm

ende

d fru

it in

take

of 2

00 g

ram

s/da

y a

max

imum

of

100

gra

ms o

f fru

it ca

n be

subs

titut

ed b

y 1

glas

s of f

ruit

juic

e da

ily. N

/a:

not

app

licab

le.

78 | Chapter 3

Supp

lem

enta

ry T

able

S3.

2. D

eter

min

ants

of c

ontin

uous

wei

ght c

hang

e, c

alor

ie in

take

and

step

cou

nts

Cate

gory

Det

erm

inan

t

Wei

ght l

oss

Ener

gy in

take

Num

ber o

f ste

ps

β kg

(95%

CI)

pβ

(95%

CI)

x 10

0 kc

al

pΒ

(95%

CI)

x 10

00 s

teps

p

Dem

ogra

phic

ch

arac

teris

tics

Age

of w

omen

(yea

rs)

0.04

(-0.

04 –

0.1

2)0.

350.

06 (-

0.00

– 0

.12)

0.06

0.01

(-0.

09 –

0.0

7)0.

81

Non

-Cau

casia

n 0.

63 (-

0.61

– 1

.87)

0.32

0.34

(-0.

64 –

1.3

3)0.

49-0

.79

(-1.

94 –

0.3

6)0.

18

Educ

atio

n le

vel

0.11

0.91

0.22

no e

duca

tion

/ p

rimar

y sc

hool

[re

f][re

f][re

f][re

f][re

f][re

f]

seco

ndar

y ed

ucat

ion

-0.5

2 (-

2.37

– 1

.33)

0.58

-0.5

9 (-

2.31

– 1

.12)

0.50

1.05

(-0.

98 –

3.0

8)0.

31

inte

rmed

iate

voc

atio

nal e

duca

tion

-1.1

9 (-

2.95

– 0

.57)

0.19

-0.4

2 (-

2.08

– 1

.24)

0.62

0.94

(-1.

04 –

2.9

1)0.

35

high

er v

ocat

iona

l edu

catio

n an

d un

iver

sity

-1.6

9 (-

3.56

– 0

.18)

0.08

-0.4

8 (-

2.19

– 1

.23)

0.58

1.76

(-0.

30 –

3.8

2)0.

09

Soci

oeco

nom

ic st

atus

scor

e 1

-0.3

2 (-

0.70

– 0

.06)

0.10

0.10

(-0.

15 –

0.3

4)0.

45-0

.18

(-0.

52 –

0.1

6)0.

29

Cur

rent

smok

er-0

.12

(1.0

0 –

0.76

)0.

79-0

.34

(-0.

97 –

0.3

0)0.

30-0

.25

(-1.

07 –

0.5

8)0.

56

Infe

rtilit

y ch

arac

teris

tics

Dur

atio

n of

infe

rtilit

y (m

onth

s)0.

02 (0

.00

– 0.

03)

0.03

0.01

(-0.

00 –

0.0

3)0.

06-0

.01

(-0.

03 –

0.0

1)0.

24

Nul

lipar

ous

-0.1

7 (-

1.21

– 0

.87)

0.75

-0.1

0 (-

0.82

– 0

.61)

0.78

0.01

(-0.

98 –

1.0

0)0.

99

Ano

vula

tory

0.43

(-0.

34 –

1.1

9)0.

27-0

.24

(-0.

79 –

0.3

0)0.

380.

07 (-

0.65

– 0

.80)

0.84

Mal

e fa

ctor

infe

rtilit

y0.

18 (-

0.72

– 1

.07)

0.70

0.02

(-0.

58 –

0.6

2)0.

950.

06 (-

0.77

– 0

.89)

0.89

Une

xpla

ined

infe

rtilit

y -0

.33

(-1.

16 –

0.4

9)0.

430.

09 (-

0.50

– 0

.67)

0.77

-0.2

2 (-

0.99

– 0

.56)

0.59

Ant

hrop

omet

ric a

nd

wei

ght c

hara

cter

istic

sBM

I (kg

/m

2 )0.

25 (0

.08

– 0.

42)

<0.0

10.

04 (-

0.04

– 0

.12)

0.29

-0.0

5 (-

0.15

– 0

.06)

0.38

Wai

st ci

rcum

fere

nce

(cm

)0.

04 (-

0.01

– 0

.09)

0.10

-0.0

0 (-

0.03

– 0

.03)

0.95

-0.0

1 (-

0.05

– 0

.03)

0.55

Wai

st /

hip

ratio

-0.1

0 (-

0.69

– 0

.49)

a0.

74-0

.28

(-0.

70 –

0.1

3) a

0.18

0.06

(-0.

51 –

0.6

3) a

0.84

Hig

hest

wei

ght i

n pa

st 10

yea

rs (k

g)0.

04 (-

0.02

– 0

.11)

0.21

0.01

(-0.

01 –

0.0

3)0.

41-0

.01

(-0.

03 –

0.0

1)0.

47

Hig

hest

wei

ght e

ver

0.13

0.98

0.24

sam

e as

cur

rent

wei

ght

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

1 –

5 kg

abo

ve c

urre

nt w

eigh

t-0

.60

(-1.

74 –

0.5

3)0.

30-0

.01

(-0.

74 –

0.7

70.

98-0

.93

(-1.

90 –

0.0

5)0.

06

6 –

10kg

abo

ve c

urre

nt w

eigh

t-0

.16

(-1.

50 –

1.1

8)0.

81-0

.01

(-0.

88 –

0.8

6)0.

98-0

.21

(-1.

33 –

0.9

2)0.

72

> 10

kg

abov

e cu

rrent

wei

ght

0.87

(-0.

43 –

2.1

8)0.

19-0

.16

(-1.

02 –

0.7

0)0.

72-0

.69

(-1.

78 –

0.3

9)0.

21


3

Supp

lem

enta

ry T

able

S3.

2. C

ontin

ued

Cate

gory

Det

erm

inan

t

Wei

ght l

oss

Ener

gy in

take

Num

ber o

f ste

ps

β kg

(95%

CI)

pβ

(95%

CI)

x 10

0 kc

al

pΒ

(95%

CI)

x 10

00 s

teps

p

Wei

ght v

aria

bilit

y in

pas

t 10

year

s 3 (kg)

-0.0

0 (-

0.04

– 0

.03)

0.80

-0.0

2 (-

0.04

– 0

.00)

0.09

0.02

(-0.

00 –

0.0

5)0.

07

Num

ber o

f wei

ght l

oss a

ttem

pts i

n pa

st 5

year

s <0

.01

0.81

0.62

none

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

1 at

tem

pt0.

80 (-

1.09

– 2

.69)

0.4

00.

17 (-

1.08

– 1

.43)

0.79

0.74

(-0.

87 –

2.3

6)0.

37

2 –

3 at

tem

pts

0.47

(-1.

28 –

2.2

2)0.

600.

35 (-

0.81

– 1

.50)

0.56

-0.1

3 (-

1.63

– 1

.37)

0.86

4 –

5 at

tem

pts

0.76

(-1.

10 –

2.6

2)0.

420.

51 (-

0.71

– 1

.74)

0.41

0.07

(-1.

52 –

1.6

5)0.

93

> 5

atte

mpt

s2.

26 (0

.57

– 3.

95)

<0.0

10.

56 (-

0.55

– 1

.68)

0.32

-0.1

0 (-

1.56

– 1

.37)

0.89

Met

abol

ic c

hara

cter

istic

sIn

sulin

resis

tanc

e (H

OM

A-IR

)0.

15 (-

0.06

– 0

.36)

0.15

-0.0

5 (-

0.19

– 0

.08)

0.44

0.19

(0.0

2 –

0.37

)0.

03

Met

abol

ic sy

ndro

me

-0.2

1 (-

1.07

– 0

.65)

0.63

-0.1

7 (-

0.74

– 0

.39)

0.54

1.05

(0.3

2 –

1.78

)<0

.01

Psyc

hoso

cial

ch

arac

teris

tics

Qua

lity

of L

ife 4

phys

ical

com

pone

nt (s

core

)-0

.04

(-0.

09 –

0.0

0)0.

080.

00 (-

0.03

– 0

.03)

0.80

0.02

(-0.

01 –

0.0

6)0.

21

men

tal c

ompo

nent

(sco

re)

-0.0

4 (-

0.09

– 0

.01)

0.08

-0.0

1 (-

0.05

– 0

.02)

0.41

-0.0

2 (-

0.06

– 0

.03)

0.44

Read

ines

s to

chan

ge: w

eigh

t los

s 0.

001

0.81

0.51

prec

onte

mpl

atio

nn/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a

cont

empl

atio

n-2

.21

(-6.

73 –

2.3

2)0.

34-0

.25

(-4.

12 –

3.6

2)0.

900.

59 (-

2.97

– 4

.14)

0.75

prep

arat

ion

-1.11

(-2.

35 –

0.1

3)0.

08-0

.42

(-1.

28 –

0.4

3)0.

330.

79 (-

0.28

– 1

.86)

0.15

actio

n-1

.90

(-2.

81 –

-0.9

9)<0

.001

-0.1

4 (-

0.77

– 0

.49)

0.66

0.41

(-0.

40 –

1.2

1)0.

32

mai

nten

ance

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

Read

ines

s to

chan

ge: p

hysic

al a

ctiv

ity0.

400.

870.

04

prec

onte

mpl

atio

n1.

31 (-

0.96

– 3

.58)

0.26

-0.7

3 (-

2.54

– 1

.07)

0.42

-0.1

8 (-

2.37

– 2

.00)

0.87

cont

empl

atio

n1.

29 (-

0.01

– 2

.60)

0.05

3-0

.43

(-1.

33 –

0.4

6)0.

34-0

.35

(-1.

45–

0.76

)0.

53

prep

arat

ion

0.85

(-0.

40 –

2.1

0)0.

18-0

.33

(-1.

18 –

0.5

2)0.

440.

03 (-

1.04

– 1

.11)

0.95

actio

n0.

74 (-

0.61

– 2

.08)

0.28

-0.2

8 (-

1.19

– 0

.63)

0.54

1.23

(0.0

9 –

2.37

)0.

04

80 | Chapter 3

Supp

lem

enta

ry T

able

S3.

2. C

ontin

ued

Cate

gory

Det

erm

inan

t

Wei

ght l

oss

Ener

gy in

take

Num

ber o

f ste

ps

β kg

(95%

CI)

pβ

(95%

CI)

x 10

0 kc

al

pΒ

(95%

CI)

x 10

00 s

teps

p

mai

nten

ance

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

[ref]

Prev

ious

supp

ort i

n w

eigh

t los

s

by d

ietic

ian

1.37

(0.4

8 –

2.27

)<0

.01

0.47

(-0.

13 –

1.0

7)0.

120.

18 (-

0.58

– 0

.94)

0.64

by p

artn

er0.

08 (-

0.83

– 1

.00)

0.86

0.30

(-0.

31 –

0.9

1)0.

330.

34 (-

1.11

– 0

.42)

0.37

no so

cial

supp

ort

0.09

(-0.

87 –

1.0

5)0.

85-0

.54

(-1.

16 –

0.0

8)0.

090.

13 (-

0.67

– 0.

91)

0.75

Self-

effic

acy

0.06

<0.0

10.

52

extre

mel

y un

likel

y[re

f][re

f][re

f][re

f][re

f][re

f]

unlik

ely

2.64

(-4.

31 –

9.5

9)0.

46-3

.31

(-7.

48 –

0.8

7)0.

120.

53 (-

4.97

– 6

.03)

0.85

do n

ot k

now

/ n

eutra

l1.

99 (-

4.49

– 8

.48)

0.55

-2.7

5 (-

6.65

– 1

.15)

0.17

1.24

(-3.

81 –

6.2

9)0.

63

likel

y0.

92 (-

5.57

– 7

.41)

0.78

-2.4

1 (-

6.31

– 1

.50)

0.23

1.65

(-3.

40 –

6.7

0)0.

52

extre

mel

y lik

ely

0.49

(-6.

04 –

7.0

2)0.

88-3

.75

(-7.

69 –

0.1

9)0.

060.

88 (-

4.21

– 5

.96)

0.73

Body

satis

fact

ion

0.39

0.47

0.65

no, n

ever

[re

f][re

f][re

f][re

f][re

f][re

f]

no, m

ostly

not

-0.2

3 (-

1.17

– 0

.71)

0.63

0.41

(-0.

21 –

1.0

3)0.

19-0

.43

(-1.

22 –

0.3

7)0.

29

som

etim

es, s

omet

imes

not

-0.2

1 (-

1.52

– 1

.10)

0.75

0.29

(-0.

61 –

1.2

0)0.

520.

12 (-

0.97

– 1

.21)

0.83

yes,

mos

tly

-0.5

8 (-

3.17

– 2

.00)

0.66

1.14

(-0.

45 –

2.7

2)0.

160.

77 (-

1.46

– 2

.98)

0.50

yes,

alw

ays

6.19

(-0.

24 –

12.

62)

0.06

1.41

(-2.

24 –

5.0

5)0.

45-1

.42

(-6.

21 –

3.3

8)0.

56

Dut

ch E

atin

g Be

havi

or Q

uesti

onna

ire

emot

iona

l eat

ing

(13-

65 p

oint

s)-0

.01

(-0.

04 –

0.0

3)0.

710.

02 (0

.00

– 0.

04)

0.11

-0.0

3 (-

0.06

– 0

.01)

0.11

exte

rnal

eat

ing

(10-

50 p

oint

s)-0

.01

(-0.

08 –

0.0

5)0.

670.

02 (-

0.03

– 0

.06)

0.53

-0.0

4 (-

0.10

– 0

.02)

0.24

restr

aine

d ea

ting

(10-

50 p

oint

s)0.

03 (-

0.04

– 0

.09)

0.43

-0.0

0 (-

0.05

– 0

.05)

0.99

0.05

(-0.

01 –

0.1

2)0.

09

Die

t and

phy

sical

ac

tivity

cha

ract

erist

ics

Mea

n en

ergy

inta

ke (k

cal/

day)

0.05

(-0.

05 –

0.1

4) b

0.32

n/a

n/a

0.06

(-0.

02 –

0.1

4) b

0.13

Mea

n ste

ps (d

ay)

-0.0

6 (-

0.18

– 0

.05)

c0.

27-0

.06

(-0.

15 –

0.0

2) c

0.16

n/a

n/a


3

Supp

lem

enta

ry T

able

S3.

2. C

ontin

ued

Cate

gory

Det

erm

inan

t

Wei

ght l

oss

Ener

gy in

take

Num

ber o

f ste

ps

β kg

(95%

CI)

pβ

(95%

CI)

x 10

0 kc

al

pΒ

(95%

CI)

x 10

00 s

teps

p

Freq

uenc

y of

bre

akfa

st us

e (d

ays /

wee

k)

-0.0

9 (-

0.27

– 0

.09)

0.34

0.07

(-0.

06 –

0.2

0)0.

290.

06 (-

0.10

– 0

.21)

0.47

Vege

tabl

e in

take

(gra

ms/

day)

-0.0

1 (-

0.08

– 0

.05)

d0.

640.

00 (-

0.04

– 0

.04)

d0.

890.

03 (-

0.02

– 0

.08)

d0.

27

Frui

t int

ake

(gra

ms/

day)

-0.0

1 (-

0.05

– 0

.04)

d0.

790.

02 (-

0.02

– 0

.05)

d0.

380.

03 (0

.01

– 0.

07) d

0.10

Mee

ting

reco

mm

enda

tions

veg

etab

le in

take

5 0.

28 (-

0.79

– 1

.35)

0.61

-0.0

7 (-

0.80

– 0

.67)

0.86

0.78

(-0.

11 –

1.6

7)0.

09

Mee

ting

reco

mm

enda

tions

frui

t int

ake

5-0

.20

(-1.

20 –

0.8

0)0.

690.

45 (-

0.24

– 1

.15)

0.20

0.16

(-0.

70 –

1.0

2)0.

72

Mee

ting

reco

mm

enda

tions

frui

t and

juic

e in

take

6 -0

.32

(-1.

23 –

0.5

9)0.

490.

49 (-

0.14

– 1

.12)

0.12

0.24

(-0.

53 –

1.0

1)0.

54

Mee

ting

reco

mm

enda

tions

frui

t- an

d ve

geta

ble

inta

ke 5

0.98

(-0.

52 –

2.4

7)0.

200.

87 (-

0.15

– 1

.89)

0.10

0.93

(-0.

36 –

2.2

2)0.

16

Alc

ohol

ic b

ever

ages

(uni

ts /

day

)0.

42 (-

0.61

– 1

.45)

0.42

-0.5

7 (-

1.22

– 0

.09)

0.09

0.13

(-0.

69 –

0.9

5)0.

75

Tota

l mod

erat

e to

vig

orou

s phy

sical

ac

tivity

(min

/w

eek)

-0.0

0 (-

0.02

–

0.02

) e

0.80

-0.0

1 (-

0.02

– 0

.00)

e0.

100.

01 (-

0.01

– 0

.03)

e0.

18

Mee

ting

reco

mm

enda

tions

gu

idel

ine

phys

ical

act

ivity

-0.2

6 (-

1.17

– 0

.64)

0.57

-0.4

9 (-

1.09

– 0

.11)

0.11

0.25

(-0.

53 –

1.0

4)0.

52

Partn

er c

hara

cter

istic

sA

ge (y

ears

)-0

.00

(-0.

06 –

0.0

6)0.

990.

06 (0

.01

– 0.

11)

0.01

0.01

(-0.

06 –

0.0

5)0.

86

Base

line

BMI (

kg/

m2 )

-0.0

3 (-

0.11

– 0

.04)

0.38

0.01

(-0.

03 –

0.0

6)0.

60-0

.04

(-0.

12 –

0.0

3)0.

25

Non

-Cau

casia

n-0

.38

(-1.

74 –

0.9

9)0.

590.

83 (-

0.34

– 1

.99)

0.16

-0.5

0 (-

1.85

– 0

.86)

0.47

Smok

ing

0.40

(-0.

38 –

1.1

8)0.

31-0

.16

(-0.

72 –

0.4

1)0.

59-0

.12

(-0.

85 –

0.6

0)0.

74

All

dete

rmin

ants

wer

e as

sess

ed a

t bas

elin

e. R

esul

ts of

uni

varia

ble

mix

ed e

ffect

s re

gres

sions

mod

els

on d

eter

min

ants

of w

eigh

t los

s, e

nerg

y in

take

and

the

num

ber o

f ste

ps. W

ith c

orre

ctio

n fo

r bas

elin

e BM

I or f

or b

asel

ine

ener

gy in

take

or s

teps

and

incl

udin

g a

rand

om in

terc

ept.

A n

egat

ive

num

ber i

ndic

ates

add

ition

al w

eigh

t los

s or

a d

ecre

ase

in th

e in

take

of k

cal/

steps

. A p

ositi

ve n

umbe

r ind

icat

es

less

wei

ght l

oss

or a

n in

crea

se th

e in

take

of k

cal/

steps

. β: r

egre

ssio

n co

effic

ient

. a W

aist-

hip

ratio

: per

0.1

0 in

crea

se. b B

asel

ine

calo

rie in

take

: per

100

kca

l inc

reas

e. c B

asel

ine

step

coun

ts: p

er 1

000

steps

incr

ease

. d B

asel

ine

vege

tabl

e an

d fru

it in

take

: per

10

gram

s / d

ay in

crea

se. e

Tota

l mod

erat

e to

vig

orou

s phy

sical

act

ivity

: per

30

min

/ w

eek

incr

ease

. 1 Soc

ioec

onom

ic st

atus

scor

e (N

ethe

rland

s In

stitu

te fo

r Soc

ial R

esea

rch

(SC

P)) i

n ye

ar 2

010

rela

tive

to D

utch

ave

rage

of 0

, a h

ighe

r sco

re re

pres

ents

a hi

gher

soc

ioec

onom

ic s

tatu

s. 2

Wei

ght c

hang

e du

ring

the

first

1,5

mon

ths

of th

e in

terv

entio

n pr

ogra

m. 3 C

alcu

late

d up

on th

e hi

ghes

t and

low

est w

eigh

t in

the

past

10 y

ears

. 4 Mea

sure

d by

the

Shor

t-For

m-3

6 Q

uesti

onna

ire. 5

Dut

ch G

uide

lines

for a

hea

lthy

diet

200

6: m

inim

al re

com

men

ded

fruit

and

vege

tabl

e in

take

200

gra

ms p

er d

ay. 6 D

utch

Gui

delin

es fo

r a h

ealth

y di

et 2

006:

of m

inim

al re

com

men

ded

fruit

inta

ke o

f 200

gra

ms/

day

a m

axim

um o

f 100

gra

ms o

f fru

it ca

n be

subs

titut

ed b

y 1

glas

s of f

ruit

juic

e da

ily. N

/a:

not

app

licab

le.

82 | Chapter 3

Supp

lem

enta

ry T

able

S3.

3. D

eter

min

ants

of c

ompl

etio

n of

the

lifes

tyle

inte

rven

tion

Cate

gory

Det

erm

inan

tN

Com

plet

er(m

edia

n, IQ

R or

N, %

)N

on-c

ompl

eter

(med

ian,

IQR

or N

, %)

Odd

s ra

tio (9

5% C

I)p

Dem

ogra

phic

ch

arac

teris

tics

Age

of w

omen

(yea

rs)

289

29.7

(26.

6 –

33.5

)29

.4 (2

4.9

– 32

.0)

1.05

(0.9

8 –

1.12

)0.

15

Non

-Cau

casia

n 28

923

/ 2

26 (1

0.2)

10 /

63

(15.

9)0.

60 (0

.27

– 1.

34)

0.21

Educ

atio

n le

vel

276

0.08

no e

duca

tion

/ p

rimar

y sc

hool

13

/ 2

14 (6

.1)

4 /

62

(6.5

)[re

f][re

f]

seco

ndar

y ed

ucat

ion

46 /

214

(21.

5)20

/ 6

2 (3

2.3)

0.71

(0.2

1 –

2.44

)0.

58

inte

rmed

iate

voc

atio

nal e

duca

tion

103

/ 2

14 (4

8.1)

32 /

62

(51.

6)0.

99 (0

.30

– 3.

25)

0.99

high

er v

ocat

iona

l edu

catio

n an

d un

iver

sity

52 /

214

(24.

3)6

/ 6

2 (9

.7)

2.67

(0.6

6 –

10.9

)0.

17

Soci

oeco

nom

ic st

atus

scor

e 1

230

-0.5

3 (-

1.20

– 0

.39)

-0.4

3 (-

1.48

– 0

.36)

1.01

(0.7

7 –

1.34

)0.

93

Cur

rent

smok

er28

553

/ 2

22 (2

3.9)

23 /

63

(36.

5)0.

55 (0

.30

– 0.

99)

0.04

7

Infe

rtilit

y ch

arac

teris

tics

Dur

atio

n of

infe

rtilit

y (m

onth

s)28

923

.0 (1

5.0

– 36

.3)

18.0

(14.

0 –

36.0

)1.

01 (0

.99

– 1.

02)

0.40

Nul

lipar

ous

276

180

/ 2

13 (8

4.5)

46 /

63

(73.

0)2.

02 (1

.03

– 3.

93)

0.04

Ano

vula

tory

288

100

/ 2

25 (4

4.4)

28 /

63

(44.

4)1.

00 (0

.57

– 1.

76)

1.00

Mal

e fa

ctor

infe

rtilit

y28

856

/ 2

25 (2

4.9)

11 /

63

(17.

5)1.

57 (0

.77

– 3.

21)

0.22

Une

xpla

ined

infe

rtilit

y 28

868

/ 2

25 (3

0.3)

18 /

63

(28.

6)1.

08 (0

.59

– 2.

01)

0.80

Ant

hrop

omet

ric a

nd

wei

ght c

hara

cter

istic

sBM

I (kg

/m

2 )28

836

.3 (3

3.5

– 38

.3)

35.5

(33.

3 –

38.8

)1.

04 (0

.95

– 1.

13)

0.41

Wai

st ci

rcum

fere

nce

(cm

)26

210

7.0

(102

.0 –

113.

0)10

7.0

(99.

0 –

115.

0)1.

01 (0

.98

– 1.

05)

0.42

Wai

st/hi

p ra

tio28

00.

86 (0

.82

– 0.

91)

0.88

(0.8

2 –

0.93

)0.

71 (0

.47

– 1.

09)

0.12

Hig

hest

wei

ght i

n pa

st 10

yea

rs (k

g)24

610

8.0

(98.

0 –

119.

0)10

5.0

(95.

0 –

119.

0)1.

00 (0

.99

– 1.

03)

0.64

Hig

hest

wei

ght e

ver

235

0.36

sam

e as

cur

rent

wei

ght

45 /

191

(23.

6)14

/ 4

4 (3

1.8)

[ref]

[ref]

1 –

5 kg

abo

ve c

urre

nt w

eigh

t67

/ 1

91 (3

5.1)

18 /

44

(40.

9)1.

16 (0

.52

– 2.

56)

0.72

6 –

10kg

abo

ve c

urre

nt w

eigh

t39

/ 1

91 (2

0.4)

5 /

44

(11.

4)2.

43 (0

.80

– 7.

35)

0.12


3

Supp

lem

enta

ry T

able

S3.

3. C

ontin

ued

Cate

gory

Det

erm

inan

tN

Com

plet

er(m

edia

n, IQ

R or

N, %

)N

on-c

ompl

eter

(med

ian,

IQR

or N

, %)

Odd

s ra

tio (9

5% C

I)p

> 10

kg

abov

e cu

rrent

wei

ght

40 /

191

(20.

9)7

/ 4

4 (1

5.9)

1.78

(0.6

5 –

4.84

)0.

26

Wei

ght v

aria

bilit

y in

pas

t 10

year

s 3 (kg)

241

30.0

(21.

0 –

39.0

)30

.0 (2

1.0

– 41

.5)

1.00

(0.9

7 –

1.02

)0.

80

Num

ber o

f wei

ght l

oss a

ttem

pts i

n pa

st 5

year

s 25

00.

58

none

13 /

201

(6.5

)4

/ 4

9 (8

.2)

[ref]

[ref]

1 at

tem

pt29

/ 2

01 (1

4.4)

6 /

49

(12.

2)1.

49 (0

.36

– 6.

18)

0.59

2 –

3 at

tem

pts

57 /

201

(28.

4)9

/ 4

9 (1

8.4)

1.95

(0.5

2 –

7.32

)0.

32

4 –

5 at

tem

pts

29 /

201

(14.

4)10

/ 4

9 (2

0.4)

0.89

(0.2

4 –

3.38

)0.

87

> 5

atte

mpt

s73

/ 2

01 (3

6.3)

20 /

49

(40.

8)1.

12 (0

.33

– 3.

82)

0.85

Met

abol

ic

char

acte

ristic

sIn

sulin

resis

tanc

e (H

OM

A-IR

)24

72.

90 (1

.9 –

3.9

)2.

8 (2

.4 –

3.3

)0.

91 (0

.79

– 1.

05)

0.19

Met

abol

ic sy

ndro

me

237

94 /

187

(50.

3)29

/ 5

0 (5

8.0)

0.73

(0.3

9 –

1.38

)0.

33

Psyc

hoso

cial

ch

arac

teris

tics

Qua

lity

of L

ife 4

phys

ical

com

pone

nt (s

core

)23

6(4

6.3

– 55

.5)

52.2

(46.

9 –

54.7

)0.

99 (0

.96

– 1.

03)

0.70

men

tal c

ompo

nent

(sco

re)

236

52.7

(46.

7 –

56.0

)52

.8 (4

2.4

– 56

.3)

1.02

(0.9

8 –

1.05

)0.

34

Read

ines

s to

chan

ge: w

eigh

t los

s24

60.

01

prec

onte

mpl

atio

n0

/ 1

98 (0

.0)

0 /

48

(0.0

)n/

an/

a

cont

empl

atio

n0

/ 1

98 (0

.0)

2 /

48

(4.2

)n/

an/

a

prep

arat

ion

24 /

198

(12.

1)14

/ 4

8 (2

9.2)

0.43

(0.1

9 –

1.00

)0.

049

actio

n99

/ 1

98 (5

0.0)

13 /

48

(27.

1)1.

93 (0

.90

– 4.

15)

0.09

mai

nten

ance

75 /

198

(37.

9)19

/ 4

8 (3

9.6)

[ref]

[ref]

Read

ines

s to

chan

ge: p

hysic

al a

ctiv

ity24

90.

08

prec

onte

mpl

atio

n5

/ 1

98 (2

.5)

6 /

51

(11.

8)0.

12 (0

.03

– 0.

56)

<0.0

1

cont

empl

atio

n52

/ 1

98 (2

6.3)

14 /

51

(27.

5)0.

55 (0

.18

– 1.

66)

0.29

84 | Chapter 3

Supp

lem

enta

ry T

able

S3.

3. C

ontin

ued

Cate

gory

Det

erm

inan

tN

Com

plet

er(m

edia

n, IQ

R or

N, %

)N

on-c

ompl

eter

(med

ian,

IQR

or N

, %)

Odd

s ra

tio (9

5% C

I)p

prep

arat

ion

65 /

198

(32.

8)14

/ 5

1 (2

7.5)

0.68

(0.2

3 –

2.06

)0.

50

actio

n42

/ 1

98 (2

1.2)

12 /

51

(23.

5)0.

52 (0

.17

– 1.

61)

0.25

mai

nten

ance

34 /

198

(17.

2)5

/ 5

1 (9

.8)

[ref]

[ref]

Prev

ious

supp

ort i

n w

eigh

t los

s

by d

ietic

ian

224

87 /

182

(47.

8)20

/ 4

2 (4

7.6)

1.01

(0.5

2 –

1.97

)0.

98

by p

artn

er22

410

5 /

182

(57.

7)26

/ 4

2 (6

1.9)

0.84

(0.4

2 –

1.67

)0.

62

no so

cial

supp

ort

224

65 /

182

(35.

7)11

/ 4

2 (2

6.2)

1.57

(0.7

4 –

3.32

)0.

24

Self-

effic

acy

245

0.97

extre

mel

y un

likel

y0

/ 1

97 (0

.0)

1 /

48

(2.1

)n/

an/

a

unlik

ely

6 /

197

(3.0

)0

/ 4

8 (0

.0)

n/a

n/a

do n

ot k

now

/ n

eutra

l83

/ 1

97 (4

2.1)

22 /

48

(45.

8)0.

71 (0

.28

– 1.

82)

0.48

likel

y71

/ 1

97 (3

6.0)

18 /

48

(37.

5)0.

75 (0

.29

– 1.

95)

0.55

extre

mel

y lik

ely

37 /

197

(18.

8)7

/ 4

8 (1

4.6)

[ref]

[ref]

Body

satis

fact

ion

250

0.88

no, n

ever

91

/ 2

01 (4

5.3)

25 /

49

(51.

0)[re

f][re

f]

no, m

ostly

not

76 /

201

(37.

8)15

/ 4

9 (3

0.6)

n/a

n/a

som

etim

es, s

omet

imes

not

28 /

201

(13.

9)7

/ 4

9 (1

4.3)

0.69

(0.1

3 –

3.75

)0.

67

yes,

mos

tly

5 /

201

(2.5

)2

/ 4

9 (4

.1)

1.10

(0.3

43 –

2.8

1)0.

84

yes,

alw

ays

1 /

201

(0.4

)0

/ 4

9 (0

.0)

1.39

(0.6

9 –

2.83

)0.

36

Dut

ch E

atin

g Be

havi

or Q

uesti

onna

ire

emot

iona

l eat

ing

(13-

65 p

oint

s)27

636

.0 (2

7.0

– 44

.0)

37.0

(25.

8 –

45.0

)1.

00 (0

.98

– 1.

03)

0.96

exte

rnal

eat

ing

(10-

50 p

oint

s)27

728

.0 (2

4.0

– 32

.0)

29.0

(25.

0 –

33.0

)0.

98 (0

.93

– 1.

03)

0.48


3

Supp

lem

enta

ry T

able

S3.

3. C

ontin

ued

Cate

gory

Det

erm

inan

tN

Com

plet

er(m

edia

n, IQ

R or

N, %

)N

on-c

ompl

eter

(med

ian,

IQR

or N

, %)

Odd

s ra

tio (9

5% C

I)p

restr

aine

d ea

ting

(10-

50 p

oint

s)27

832

.0 (2

8.0

– 36

.0)

31.0

(26.

0 –

33.0

)1.

07 (1

.02

– 1.

12)

0.01

Die

t and

phy

sical

ac

tivity

cha

ract

erist

ics

Mea

n en

ergy

inta

ke (k

cal/

day)

213

1868

(156

8 –

2200

)20

00 (1

687

– 23

00)

0.96

(0.8

9 –

1.03

)0.

28

Mea

n ste

ps (d

ay)

230

6000

(400

0 –

8000

)52

50 (3

500

– 74

06)

1.04

(0.9

3 –

1.16

)0.

46

Freq

uenc

y of

bre

akfa

st us

e (d

ays /

wee

k)19

87.

0 (5

.0 –

7.0

)7.

0 (3

.0 –

7.0

)1.

05 (0

.92

– 1.

19)

0.50

Vege

tabl

e in

take

(gra

ms/

day)

259

114

(86

– 15

7)10

0 (7

1 –

150)

1.02

(0.9

7 –

1.07

)0.

50

Frui

t int

ake

(gra

ms/

day)

259

100

(57

– 17

1)71

(29

– 17

1)0.

99 (0

.96

– 1.

03)

0.67

Mee

ting

reco

mm

enda

tions

veg

etab

le in

take

525

936

/ 2

08 (1

7.3)

10 /

51

(19.

6)0.

86 (0

.39

– 1.

87)

0.70

Mee

ting

reco

mm

enda

tions

frui

t int

ake

525

943

/ 2

08 (2

0.7)

10 /

51

(19.

6)1.

07 (0

.50

– 2.

30)

0.87

Mee

ting

reco

mm

enda

tions

frui

t and

juic

e in

take

625

962

/ 2

04 (3

0.4)

11 /

51

(21.

6)1.

59 (0

.76

– 3.

30)

0.22

Mee

ting

reco

mm

enda

tions

frui

t- an

d ve

geta

ble

inta

ke 5

255

16 /

203

(7.9

)4

/ 5

0 (8

.0)

0.98

(0.3

2 –

3.08

)0.

98

Alc

ohol

ic b

ever

ages

(uni

ts /

day

)25

30

(0 –

0.2

)0

(0 –

0.2

)0.

93 (0

.48

– 1.

83)

0.84

Tota

l mod

erat

e to

vig

orou

s phy

sical

act

ivity

238

330

(126

– 9

00)

390

(120

– 9

50)

1.00

(0.9

9 –

1.02

)0.

59

Mee

ting

reco

mm

enda

tions

gui

delin

e ph

ysic

al a

ctiv

ity25

414

7 /

202

(72.

8)38

/ 5

2 (7

3.1)

0.99

(0.5

0 –

1.96

)0.

97

Partn

er c

hara

cter

istic

sA

ge (y

ears

)28

932

.9 (2

9.7

– 36

.6)

33.6

(29.

6 –

38.2

)0.

99 (0

.94

– 1.

03)

0.58

BMI (

kg/

m2 )

247

27.9

(24.

5 –

31.7

)26

.5 (2

4.1

– 29

.1)

1.07

(1.0

0 –

1.14

)0.

04

Non

-Cau

casia

n 28

818

/ 2

25 (8

.0)

9 /

63

(14.

3)0.

52 (0

.22

– 1.

23)

0.14

Smok

ing

286

86 /

224

(38.

4)31

/ 6

2 (5

0.0)

0.62

(0.3

5 –

1.10

)0.

10

All

dete

rmin

ants

wer

e as

sess

ed a

t bas

elin

e. R

esul

ts of

uni

varia

ble

logi

stic

regr

essio

n an

alys

es o

n de

term

inan

ts of

com

plet

ion.

ORs

indi

cate

odd

s fo

r com

plet

ion

of th

e lif

esty

le in

terv

entio

n pr

ogra

m a

s de

fined

by

not m

issin

g ≥2

con

secu

tive

sess

ions

giv

en th

e de

term

inan

t is

pres

ent.

a W

aist-

hip

ratio

: per

0.1

0 in

crea

se. b B

asel

ine

calo

rie in

take

: per

100

kca

l inc

reas

e. c B

asel

ine

step

coun

ts: p

er 1

000

steps

incr

ease

. d B

asel

ine

vege

tabl

e an

d fru

it in

take

: per

10

gram

s / d

ay in

crea

se. e

Tota

l mod

erat

e to

vig

orou

s phy

sical

act

ivity

: per

30

min

/ w

eek

incr

ease

. 1 Soc

ioec

onom

ic st

atus

scor

e (N

ethe

rland

s In

stitu

te fo

r Soc

ial R

esea

rch

(SC

P)) i

n ye

ar 2

010

rela

tive

to D

utch

ave

rage

of 0

, a h

ighe

r sco

re re

pres

ents

a hi

gher

soc

ioec

onom

ic s

tatu

s. 2

Wei

ght c

hang

e du

ring

the

first

1,5

mon

ths

of th

e in

terv

entio

n pr

ogra

m. 3 C

alcu

late

d up

on th

e hi

ghes

t and

low

est w

eigh

t in

the

past

10 y

ears

. 4 Mea

sure

d by

the

Shor

t-For

m-3

6 Q

uesti

onna

ire. 5

Dut

ch G

uide

lines

for a

hea

lthy

diet

200

6: m

inim

al re

com

men

ded

fruit

and

vege

tabl

e in

take

200

gra

ms p

er d

ay. 6 D

utch

Gui

delin

es fo

r a h

ealth

y di

et 2

006:

of m

inim

al re

com

men

ded

fruit

inta

ke o

f 200

gra

ms/

day

a m

axim

um o

f 100

gra

ms o

f fru

it ca

n be

subs

titut

ed b

y 1

glas

s of f

ruit

juic

e da

ily. N

/a:

not

app

licab

le.

86 | Chapter 3

R E F E R E N C E S

1. Ackermann, R. T. et al. A randomized comparative effectiveness trial of using cable television to deliver diabetes prevention programming. Obesity (Silver Spring). 22, 1601–7 (2014).

2. James, W. P. T. The epidemiology of obesity: the size of the problem. J. Intern. Med. 263, 336–352 (2008).

3. Aune, D. et al. Anthropometric factors and endometrial cancer risk: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Ann. Oncol. 26, 1635–1648 (2015).

4. Huxley, R., Mendis, S., Zheleznyakov, E., Reddy, S. & Chan, J. Body mass index, waist circumference and waist:hip ratio as predictors of cardiovascular riska review of the literature. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 64, 16–22 (2010).

5. Ahluwalia, I. B., Morrow, B., D’Angelo, D. & Li, R. Maternity care practices and breastfeeding experiences of women in different racial and ethnic groups: Pregnancy Risk Assessment and Monitoring System (PRAMS). Matern. Child Health J. 16, 1672–8 (2012).

6. Flegal, K. M., Kruszon-Moran, D., Carroll, M. D., Fryar, C. D. & Ogden, C. L. Trends in Obesity Among Adults in the United States, 2005 to 2014. JAMA 315, 2284 (2016).

7. van der Steeg, J. W. et al. Obesity affects spontaneous pregnancy chances in subfertile, ovulatory women. Hum. Reprod. 23, 324–8 (2008).

8. Ovesen, P., Rasmussen, S. & Kesmodel, U. Effect of prepregnancy maternal overweight and obesity on pregnancy outcome. Obstet. Gynecol. 118, (2011).

9. Usha Kiran, T. S., Hemmadi, S., Bethel, J. & Evans, J. Outcome of pregnancy in a woman with an increased body mass index. BJOG 112, 768–72 (2005).

10. Catalano, P. M. & Shankar, K. Obesity and pregnancy: Mechanisms of short term and long term adverse consequences for mother and child. BMJ 356, j1 (2017).

11. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: executive summary. Expert Panel on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight in Adults. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 68, 899–917 (1998).

12. Stegenga, H., Haines, A., Jones, K., Wilding, J. & Guideline Development Group. Identification, assessment, and management of overweight and obesity: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ 349, g6608 (2014).

13. Rössner, S., Hammarstrand, M., Hemmingsson, E., Neovius, M. & Johansson, K. Long-term weight loss and weight-loss maintenance strategies. Obes. Rev. 9, 624–630 (2008).

14. Van Sluijs, E. M. F., Van Poppel, M. N. M. & Van Mechelen, W. Stage-based lifestyle interventions in primary care: Are they effective? American Journal of Preventive Medicine 26, 330–343 (2004).

15. Wing, R. R. & Hill, J. O. Successful weight loss maintenance. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 21, 323–341 (2001).

16. Mutsaerts, M. A. Q. Q. et al. Randomized trial of a lifestyle program in obese infertile women. N. Engl. J. Med. 374, 1942–1953 (2016).


3

17. Mutsaerts, M. A. Q., Kuchenbecker, W. K. H., Mol, B. W., Land, J. A. & Hoek, A. Dropout is a problem in lifestyle intervention programs for overweight and obese infertile women: a systematic review. Hum. Reprod. 28, 979–86 (2013).

18. Altfeld, S., Handler, A., Burton, D. & Berman, L. Wantedness of pregnancy and prenatal health behaviors. Women Health 26, 29–43 (1997).

19. Hotham, E., Ali, R., White, J. & Robinson, J. Pregnancy-related changes in tobacco, alcohol and cannabis use reported by antenatal patients at two public hospitals in South Australia. Aust. New Zeal. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 48, 248–254 (2008).

20. Pirie, P. L., Lando, H., Curry, S. J., McBride, C. M. & Grothaus, L. C. Tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine use and cessation in early pregnancy. Am. J. Prev. Med. 18, 54–61 (2000).

21. Jelsma, J. G. M. et al. Beliefs, Barriers, and Preferences of European Overweight Women to Adopt a Healthier Lifestyle in Pregnancy to Minimize Risk of Developing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: An Explorative Study. J. Pregnancy 2016, (2016).

22. Teixeira, P. J. et al. Successful behavior change in obesity interventions in adults: a systematic review of self-regulation mediators. BMC Med. 13, 84 (2015).

23. Faruqi, N. et al. Primary health care-level interventions targeting health literacy and their effect on weight loss: a systematic review. BMC Obes. 2, 6 (2015).

24. Teixeira, P. J., Going, S. B., Sardinha, L. B. & Lohman, T. G. A review of psychosocial pre-treatment predictors of weight control. Obes. Rev. 6, 43–65 (2005).

25. Govil, S. R., Weidner, G., Merritt-Worden, T. & Ornish, D. Socioeconomic status and improvements in lifestyle, coronary risk factors, and quality of life: the Multisite Cardiac Lifestyle Intervention Program. Am. J. Public Health 99, 1263–1270 (2009).

26. Mutsaerts, M. A. et al. The LIFESTYLE study: costs and effects of a structured lifestyle program in overweight and obese subfertile women to reduce the need for fertility treatment and improve reproductive outcome. A randomised controlled trial. BMC Womens. Health 10, 22 (2010).

27. Dhont, M. WHO-classification of anovulation: background, evidence and problems. Int. Congr. Ser. 1279, 3–9 (2005).

28. Abbasi, B. et al. The effect of magnesium supplementation on primary insomnia in elderly: A double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. J. Res. Med. Sci. 17, 1161–9 (2012).

29. Seidell, J. C., de Beer, J. & Kuijpers, T. Guideline ‘Diagnosis and treatment of obesity in adults and children’. Ned. Tijdschr. Geneeskd. 152, 2071–2076 (2008).

30. Zelissen, P. M. J. & Mathus-Vliegen, E. M. H. Treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: proposal for a guideline. Ned. Tijdschr. Geneeskd. 148, 2060–6 (2004).

31. Voedingscentrum (Netherlands Nutrition Center). Eetmeter. Available at: https://mijn.voedingscentrum.nl/nl/eetmeter/. (Accessed: 7th January 2017)

32. RIVM National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. Dutch Food Composition Database. (2016). Available at: https://www.rivm.nl/en/Topics/D/Dutch_Food_Composition_Database. (Accessed: 4th June 2018)

88 | Chapter 3

33. Knol, F. status development in the N. 1998-2010. Neighbourhood status development in the Netherlands 1998-2010. (2012).

34. Matthews, D. R. et al. Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and beta-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man. Diabetologia 28, 412–9 (1985).

35. American Heart Association et al. Diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome. An American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Scientific Statement. Executive summary. Cardiol. Rev. 13, 322–7 (2005).

36. Aaronson, N. K. et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 51, 1055–68 (1998).

37. McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E. & Raczek, A. E. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med. Care 31, 247–63 (1993).

38. Prochaska, J. O. & Velicer, W. F. The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change. Am. J. Heal. Promot. 12, 38–48 (1997).

39. Laforge, R. G., Velicer, W. F., Richmond, R. L. & Owen, N. Stage distributions for five health behaviors in the United States and Australia. Prev. Med. (Baltim). 28, 61–74 (1999).

40. Hausenblas, H. A., Dannecker, E. A. & Downs, D. S. Examination of the Validity of a Stages of Exercise Change Algorithm. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33, 1179–1189 (2003).

41. Reed, G. R., Velicer, W. F., Prochaska, J. O., Rossi, J. S. & Marcus, B. H. What Makes a

Good Staging Algorithm: Examples from Regular Exercise. Am. J. Heal. Promot. 12, 57–66 (1997).

42. van Strien, T. Causes of Emotional Eating and Matched Treatment of Obesity. Curr. Diab. Rep. 18, 35 (2018).

43. Health Council of the Netherlands. Dutch Guidelines for a Healthy Diet 2006. (2006). Available at: https://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/documenten/adviezen/2006/12/18/richtlijnen-goede-voeding-2006. (Accessed: 7th January 2017)

44. van den Brink, C., Houben, A., van Nierop, P., Droomers, M. & RIVM National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. Validation of a Community Health Services food consumption questionnaire in the Netherlands - RIVM. RIVM Report 260854008 (2005). Available at: https://www.rivm.nl/en/Documents_and_publications/Scientific/Reports/2005/augustus/Validation_of_a_Community_Health_Services_food_consumption_questionnaire_in_the_Netherlands. (Accessed: 4th June 2018)

45. Wendel-Vos, G. C. W., Schuit, A. J., Saris, W. H. M. & Kromhout, D. Reproducibility and relative validity of the short questionnaire to assess health-enhancing physical activity. J. Clin. Epidemiol. (2003). doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00220-8

46. Ainsworth, B. E. et al. Compendium of physical activities: classification of energy costs of human physical activities. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 25, 71–80 (1993).

47. Kemper, H. C. G., Ooijendijk, W. T. M. & Stiggelbout, M. Consensus over de Nederlandse norm voor gezond bewegen. Tijdschr. voor gezondheidswetenschappen 78, 180–183 (2000).


3

48. Rothman, K. J. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology 1, 43–6 (1990).

49. Elfhag, K. & Morey, L. C. Personality traits and eating behavior in the obese: poor self-control in emotional and external eating but personality assets in restrained eating. Eat. Behav. 9, 285–293 (2008).

50. Burton, P., Smit, H. J. & Lightowler, H. J. The influence of restrained and external eating patterns on overeating. Appetite 49, 191–7 (2007).

51. Sikorski, C., Luppa, M., Luck, T. & Riedel-Heller, S. G. Weight stigma "gets under the skin"-evidence for an adapted psychological mediation framework: a systematic review. Obesity (Silver Spring). 23, 266–76 (2015).

52. Wang, Y., Wu, B., Yang, H. & Song, X. The effect of childhood abuse on the risk of adult obesity. Ann. Clin. Psychiatry 27, 175–84 (2015).

53. Bachar, A., Livshits, G. & Birk, R. Predictors of weight reduction and maintenance in a large cohort of overweight and obese adults in a community setting. Nutr. Diet. J. Dietitians Assoc. Aust. (2018). doi:10.1111/1747-0080.12419

54. Unick, J. L. et al. Weight change in the first 2 months of a lifestyle intervention predicts weight changes 8 years later. Obesity (Silver Spring). 23, 1353–1356 (2015).

55. Greenberg, I., Stampfer, M. J., Schwarzfuchs, D., Shai, I. & DIRECT Group. Adherence and success in long-term weight loss diets: the dietary intervention randomized controlled trial (DIRECT). J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 28, 159–68 (2009).

56. Batterham, M., Tapsell, L. C. & Charlton, K. E. Baseline characteristics associated with different BMI trajectories in weight loss trials:

a case for better targeting of interventions. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 70, 207–211 (2016).

57. Barte, J. C. M., Veldwijk, J., Teixeira, P. J., Sacks, F. M. & Bemelmans, W. J. E. Differences in weight loss across different BMI classes: A meta-analysis of the effects of interventions with diet and exercise. Int. J. Behav. Med. 21, 784–793 (2014).

58. Di Castelnuovo, A., Quacquaruccio, G., Donati, M. B., de Gaetano, G. & Iacoviello, L. Spousal concordance for major coronary risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Epidemiol. 169, 1–8 (2009).

59. Jackson, S. E., Steptoe, A. & Wardle, J. The Influence of Partner’s Behavior on Health Behavior Change. JAMA Intern. Med. 175, 385 (2015).

60. Jeong, S. & Cho, S.-I. Concordance in the Health Behaviors of Couples by Age: A Cross-sectional Study. J. Prev. Med. Public Heal. 51, 6–14 (2018).

61. Stonerock, G. L. & Blumenthal, J. A. Role of Counseling to Promote Adherence in Healthy Lifestyle Medicine: Strategies to Improve Exercise Adherence and Enhance Physical Activity. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 59, 455–462 (2017).

62. Delahanty, L. M. et al. Pretreatment, psychological, and behavioral predictors of weight outcomes among lifestyle intervention participants in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP). Diabetes Care 36, 34–40 (2013).

63. Delahanty, L. M., Conroy, M. B., Nathan, D. M. & Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Psychological Predictors of Physical Activity in the Diabetes Prevention Program. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 106, 698–705 (2006).

90 | Chapter 3

64. Fitzpatrick, S. L. et al. Examining behavioral processes through which lifestyle interventions promote weight loss: results from PREMIER. Obesity (Silver Spring). 22, 1002–7 (2014).

65. Heitmann, B. L. & Lissner, L. Dietary underreporting by obese individuals- is it specific or non-specific? BMJ 311, 986–989 (1995).

66. Scagliusi, F. B. et al. Characteristics of women who frequently under report their energy intake: a doubly labelled water study. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 63, 1192–1199 (2009).

67. Hoeppner, B. B., Kelly, J. F., Urbanoski, K. A. & Slaymaker, V. Comparative utility of a single-item versus multiple-item measure

of self-efficacy in predicting relapse among young adults. J. Subst. Abuse Treat. 41, 305–12 (2011).

68. Sobal, J. & Stunkard, A. J. Socioeconomic status and obesity: A review of the literature. Psychol. Bull. 105, 260–275 (1989).

69. McLaren, L. Socioeconomic Status and Obesity. Epidemiol. Rev. 29, 29–48 (2007).

70. Ball, K. & Crawford, D. Socioeconomic status and weight change in adults: a review. Soc. Sci. Med. 60, 1987–2010 (2005).

71. Cohen, A. K., Rai, M., Rehkopf, D. H. & Abrams, B. Educational attainment and obesity: a systematic review. Obes. Rev. 14, 989–1005 (2013).