Promoting healthy lifestyle habits among participants in cancer screening programs: Results of the randomized controlled Sti.Vi study.
Nutritional epidemiology
anthropometric measurements
eating habits
lifestyle interventions
physical activity
Journal
Journal of public health research
ISSN: 2279-9028
Titre abrégé: J Public Health Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101580775
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2022
Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
19
05
2022
accepted:
19
05
2022
entrez:
5
8
2022
pubmed:
6
8
2022
medline:
6
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, alcohol and tobacco consumption are among the leading risk factors for non-communicable diseases. It is estimated that around 40% of cancers could be prevented by adopting healthy lifestyles. The Stili di Vita (Sti.Vi) study was a randomized study for assessing the impact of healthy lifestyle interventions on anthropometric measures, metabolic parameters, and health outcomes among participants of cancer screening programs in Turin (Italy). Eligible women aged 50-54 years, invited to biennial mammography screening, and 58-years-old men and women, invited to a once-only sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were randomly allocated to Diet group (DG), Physical Activity group (PAG), Physical Activity plus Diet group (PADG), or control group (CG). Physical and eating habits, metabolic and anthropometric measurements, repeatedly collected, were the study outcomes. The active intervention, offered to participants assigned to the DG, PAG, and PADG arms, consisted of a basic module and an advanced module. The effect of the interventions was estimated through logistic regression or a difference in differences approach. A multiple imputation procedure was implemented to deal with missing values and Out of the 8442 screened attendees, 1270 signed informed consent, while 1125 participants accomplished the baseline visit. Participants were equally distributed across the four treatments as following: 273 (24.3%) in DG, 288 (25.6%) in the PAG, 283 (25.1%) in PADG, and 281 (25%) in the CG. Participants assigned to DG or PADG increased their consumption of whole grains (OR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.20-2.60 and OR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.06-2.27, respectively) and legumes (OR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.12-2.79 and OR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.41-3.57, respectively), with respect to CG. The participants randomized to DG reduced processed meat and increased fruit consumption (OR = 2.57, 95% CI: 1.76-3.76 and OR = 2.38, 95% CI: 1.12-5.06, respectively). The effects were more evident in the CRC screening subgroup. No relevant difference was observed between PAG and CG. No impact was observed on physical activity habits. Our findings suggest that active interventions can increase awareness and induce diet changes. However, participation rate and compliance to the courses was quite low, innovative strategies to enhance participants' retention are needed, with the ultimate goal of increasing awareness and inducing positive lifestyle changes.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, alcohol and tobacco consumption are among the leading risk factors for non-communicable diseases. It is estimated that around 40% of cancers could be prevented by adopting healthy lifestyles.
Design and methods
UNASSIGNED
The Stili di Vita (Sti.Vi) study was a randomized study for assessing the impact of healthy lifestyle interventions on anthropometric measures, metabolic parameters, and health outcomes among participants of cancer screening programs in Turin (Italy). Eligible women aged 50-54 years, invited to biennial mammography screening, and 58-years-old men and women, invited to a once-only sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were randomly allocated to Diet group (DG), Physical Activity group (PAG), Physical Activity plus Diet group (PADG), or control group (CG). Physical and eating habits, metabolic and anthropometric measurements, repeatedly collected, were the study outcomes. The active intervention, offered to participants assigned to the DG, PAG, and PADG arms, consisted of a basic module and an advanced module. The effect of the interventions was estimated through logistic regression or a difference in differences approach. A multiple imputation procedure was implemented to deal with missing values and
Results
UNASSIGNED
Out of the 8442 screened attendees, 1270 signed informed consent, while 1125 participants accomplished the baseline visit. Participants were equally distributed across the four treatments as following: 273 (24.3%) in DG, 288 (25.6%) in the PAG, 283 (25.1%) in PADG, and 281 (25%) in the CG. Participants assigned to DG or PADG increased their consumption of whole grains (OR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.20-2.60 and OR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.06-2.27, respectively) and legumes (OR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.12-2.79 and OR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.41-3.57, respectively), with respect to CG. The participants randomized to DG reduced processed meat and increased fruit consumption (OR = 2.57, 95% CI: 1.76-3.76 and OR = 2.38, 95% CI: 1.12-5.06, respectively). The effects were more evident in the CRC screening subgroup. No relevant difference was observed between PAG and CG. No impact was observed on physical activity habits.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Our findings suggest that active interventions can increase awareness and induce diet changes. However, participation rate and compliance to the courses was quite low, innovative strategies to enhance participants' retention are needed, with the ultimate goal of increasing awareness and inducing positive lifestyle changes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35928498
doi: 10.1177/22799036221106542
pii: 10.1177_22799036221106542
pmc: PMC9343860
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
22799036221106542Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
Diabetes Care. 2006 Nov;29(11):2518-27
pubmed: 17065697
Nutr Metab (Lond). 2011 Nov 23;8:83
pubmed: 22112436
Front Oncol. 2012 May 08;2:45
pubmed: 22649789
J Res Health Sci. 2019 Jan 09;19(1):e00434
pubmed: 31133624
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2013 Jan;67(1):91-5
pubmed: 23169473
Patient Educ Couns. 2009 Jul;76(1):25-30
pubmed: 19110395
Br J Cancer. 2011 Dec 6;105 Suppl 2:S77-81
pubmed: 22158327
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000 Mar;9(3):307-17
pubmed: 10750670
Epidemiol Prev. 2015 Sep-Dec;39(5-6):333-8
pubmed: 26554683
Lung Cancer. 2007 Apr;56(1):125-34
pubmed: 17196298
Prev Med. 2019 Mar;120:19-25
pubmed: 30578909
BMC Med. 2013 Mar 07;11:63
pubmed: 23497300
Lancet. 2014 Feb 8;383(9916):549-57
pubmed: 24351322
J Am Heart Assoc. 2015 Jun 26;4(7):
pubmed: 26116691
BMC Public Health. 2018 Jun 7;18(1):706
pubmed: 29879948
Cancer Epidemiol. 2015 Dec;39 Suppl 1:S1-10
pubmed: 26164654
Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2014 Oct;16(10):444
pubmed: 25092580
Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2010 Aug;24(4):465-78
pubmed: 20833350
Circulation. 2014 Jun 24;129(25 Suppl 2):S102-38
pubmed: 24222017
Int J Obes (Lond). 2011 Mar;35(3):427-35
pubmed: 20820172
Am J Prev Med. 2005 Dec;29(5 Suppl 1):164-8
pubmed: 16389144
Prev Med. 2010 Dec;51(6):505-8
pubmed: 20950640
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014 Dec 17;11:156
pubmed: 25516158
Obes Facts. 2015;8(6):402-24
pubmed: 26641646
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Jun;14(6):1453-9
pubmed: 15941955
JAMA. 2018 Sep 18;320(11):1163-1171
pubmed: 30326502
Br J Nutr. 2009 Dec;102(11):1541-6
pubmed: 19640325
Am J Prev Med. 2004 Aug;27(2 Suppl):61-79
pubmed: 15275675
Prev Sci. 2007 Sep;8(3):206-13
pubmed: 17549635
Support Care Cancer. 2017 Jun;25(6):1953-1962
pubmed: 28161788
JAMA. 2016 Sep 20;316(11):1161-1171
pubmed: 27654602
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2013 Mar;6(3):165-72
pubmed: 23324132
BMJ. 2014 Mar 07;348:g1823
pubmed: 24609919
Clin Interv Aging. 2019 Sep 04;14:1589-1599
pubmed: 31564841
Sports Med. 2014 Feb;44(2):211-21
pubmed: 24174305
Food Funct. 2019 Oct 16;10(10):6690-6698
pubmed: 31559410