The Fit After Baby randomized controlled trial: An mHealth postpartum lifestyle intervention for women with elevated cardiometabolic risk

by Jacinda M. Nicklas, Laura Pyle, Andrey Soares, Jennifer A. Leiferman, Sheana S. Bull, Suhong Tong, Ann E. Caldwell, Nanette Santoro, Linda A. Barbour

Background

Postpartum women with overweight/obesity and a history of adverse pregnancy outcomes are at elevated risk for cardiometabolic disease. Postpartum weight loss and lifestyle changes can decrease these risks, yet traditional face-to-face interventions often fail. We adapted the Diabetes Prevention Program into a theory-based mobile health (mHealth) program called Fit After Baby (FAB) and tested FAB in a randomized controlled trial.

Methods

The FAB program provided 12 weeks of daily evidence-based content, facilitated tracking of weight, diet, and activity, and included weekly coaching and gamification with points and rewards. We randomized women at 6 weeks postpartum 2:1 to FAB or to the publicly available Text4baby (T4B) app (active control). We measured weight and administered behavioral questionnaires at 6 weeks, and 6 and 12 months postpartum, and collected app user data.

Results

81 eligible women participated (77% White, 2% Asian, 15% Black, with 23% Hispanic), mean baseline BMI 32±5 kg/m² and age 31±5 years. FAB participants logged into the app a median of 51/84 (IQR 25,71) days, wore activity trackers 66/84 (IQR 43,84) days, logged weight 17 times (IQR 11,24), and did coach check-ins 5.5/12 (IQR 4,9) weeks. The COVID-19 pandemic interrupted data collection for the primary 12-month endpoint, and impacted diet, physical activity, and body weight for many participants. At 12 months postpartum women in the FAB group lost 2.8 kg [95% CI -4.2,-1.4] from baseline compared to a loss of 1.8 kg [95% CI -3.8,+0.3] in the T4B group (p = 0.42 for the difference between groups). In 60 women who reached 12 months postpartum before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, women randomized to FAB lost 4.3 kg [95% CI -6.0,-2.6] compared to loss in the control group of 1.3 kg [95% CI -3.7,+1.1] (p = 0.0451 for the difference between groups).

Conclusions

There were no significant differences between groups for postpartum weight loss for the entire study population. Among those unaffected by the COVID pandemic, women randomized to the FAB program lost significantly more weight than those randomized to the T4B program. The mHealth FAB program demonstrated a substantial level of engagement. Given the scalability and potential public health impact of the FAB program, the efficacy for decreasing cardiometabolic risk by increasing postpartum weight loss should be tested in a larger trial.

Reliability and validity assessment of a survey: Measuring satisfaction with cochlear implant rehabilitation services for children in Jordan

by Rana Alkhamra, Hala M. Al-Omari, Hanady A. Bani Hani

Background

Assessing parental satisfaction with healthcare services is crucial, particularly for parents and their children, who are the primary recipients of these services. In the context of Arabic-speaking parents, there is a notable absence of survey instruments tailored to measure their satisfaction. This study seeks to address this gap by validating a survey designed to evaluate parental satisfaction with rehabilitation services (RSs) provided to Jordanian children who have received cochlear implants (CIs).

Methods

The study included 92 participants and followed a four-step methodology: 1) a literature review and expert input; 2) cognitive interviews, pilot testing, and test-retest reliability testing; 3) data collection; 4) validity and reliability assessments.

Results

The survey’s validity was confirmed. Expert input and cognitive interviews improved content validity, and factor analysis established construct validity by revealing six factors explaining 82.33% of the variance in the survey scale. Convergent and discriminant validity were confirmed (composite reliability >0.7 and average variance extracted value >0.5). Cronbach’s α exceeded 0.8 for each factor and reached 0.855 for the total scale. Survey results showed reliance on speech therapy and audiology, varied rehabilitation durations, and progress. Parents expressed overall satisfaction, particularly influenced by technical quality and efficacy/outcome dimensions. Parents’ recommendations to enhance satisfaction with RSs included financial support, improved service accessibility, enhanced service delivery, specialized education, and increased public awareness.

Conclusion

This study validates an Arabic satisfaction survey, emphasizing the significance of multidisciplinary, extended rehabilitation programs, skilled professionals, and positive outcomes. It emphasizes the necessity for improved access to specialized care and collaboration among healthcare, government, and media to shape parental perceptions of RSs. While the findings indicate overall satisfaction, they also reveal challenges faced by parents, highlighting the need for comprehensive support systems. These insights assist healthcare providers and policymakers in enhancing care quality and meeting the needs of CI children’s families, thereby improving the RSs experience in Jordan.

Comparing estimates of psychological distress using 7-day and 30-day recall periods: Does it make a difference?

by Miranda R. Chilver, Richard A. Burns, Ferdi Botha, Peter Butterworth

Self-report measures are widely used in mental health research and may use different recall periods depending on the purpose of the assessment. A range of studies aiming to monitor changes in mental health over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic opted to shorten recall periods to increase sensitivity to change over time compared to standard, longer recall periods. However, many of these studies lack pre-pandemic data using the same recall period and may rely on pre-existing data using standard recall periods as a reference point for assessing the impact of the pandemic on mental health. The aim of this study was to assess whether comparing scores on the same questionnaire with a different recall period is valid. A nationally representative sample of 327 participants in Australia completed a 7-day and 30-day version of the six-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and a single-item measure of psychological distress (TTPN item) developed for the Taking the Pulse of the Nation survey. Linear mixed models and mixed logistic regression models were used to assess whether altering the recall period systematically changed response patterns within subjects. No substantive recall period effects were found for the K6 or the TTPN, although there was a trend towards higher K6 scores when asked about the past 30 days compared to the past 7 days (b = 1.00, 95% CI: -0.18, 2.17). This may have been driven by the “feeling nervous” item which was rated higher using the 30-day compared to the 7-day recall period. Neither the K6 nor the TTPN item were significantly affected by the recall period when reduced to a binary variable of likely severe mental illness. The results indicate that altering the recall period of psychological distress measures does not substantively alter the score distribution in the general population of Australian adults.

Women Veterans’ perspectives, experiences, and preferences for firearm lethal means counseling discussions

by Evan R. Polzer, Ryan Holliday, Carly M. Rohs, Suzanne M. Thomas, Christin N. Miller, Joseph A. Simonetti, Lisa A. Brenner, Lindsey L. Monteith

Aims

Firearms have become an increasingly common method of suicide among women Veterans, yet this population has rarely been a focus in firearm suicide prevention research. Limited knowledge is available regarding the preferences, experiences, or needs of women Veterans with respect to firearm lethal means counseling (LMC), an evidence-based suicide prevention strategy. Understanding is necessary to optimize delivery for this population.

Method

Our sample included forty women Veterans with lifetime suicidal ideation or suicide attempt(s) and firearm access following military separation, all enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration. Participants were interviewed regarding their perspectives, experiences, and preferences for firearm LMC. Data were analyzed using a mixed inductive-deductive thematic analysis.

Results

Women Veterans’ firearm and firearm LMC perspectives were shaped by their military service histories and identity, military sexual trauma, spouses/partners, children, rurality, and experiences with suicidal ideation and attempts. Half reported they had not engaged in firearm LMC previously. For those who had, positive aspects included a trusting, caring relationship, direct communication of rationale for questions, and discussion of exceptions to confidentiality. Negative aspects included conversations that felt impersonal, not sufficiently comprehensive, and Veterans’ fears regarding implications of disclosure, which impeded conversations. Women Veterans’ preferences for future firearm LMC encompassed providers communicating why such conversations are important, how they should be framed (e.g., around safety and genuine concern), what they should entail (e.g., discussing concerns regarding disclosure), whom should initiate (e.g., trusted caring provider) and where they should occur (e.g., safe spaces, women-specific groups comprised of peers).

Discussion

This study is the first to examine women Veterans’ experiences with, and preferences for, firearm LMC. Detailed inquiry of the nuances of how, where, why, and by whom firearms are stored and used may help to facilitate firearm LMC with women Veterans.