|
Barclay 2008 [21]
|
Location: UK Setting: PHC
|
Allocated: Immediate entry (Intervention group): 19 Delayed entry: 18 (of these, 11 formed the Control group)
|
6
|
Wt
|
85.5 (range 58.4–128.8)
|
NR
|
−2.73 (3.15)
|
85.8 (range 73.1–96.8)
|
NR
|
−0.30 (1.36)
|
p < 0.05
|
|
Risk factor: T2DM
|
% dropout: 6.7
|
BMI
|
29.8 (range 23.1–43.0)
|
NR
|
−0.91 (1.01)
|
29.5 (range 22.8–35.5)
|
NR
|
0.10 (0.47)
|
p < 0.05
|
|
Sex: (a) Immediate entry (Intervention group): women 13, men 6 (b) Delayed entry (Control group): women 4, men 7
|
Comparison: Diet-PA vs. Usual Care (D-PA vs. UC)
|
|
Age, mean (range): (a) 62.3 (50–83) (b) 67.5 (56–85)
|
|
Bo 2007 [23]
|
Location: Italy Setting: PHC
|
Allocated: (a) 169 (b) 166
|
12
|
Wt
|
81.7 (14.9)
|
81.0 (15.7)
|
−0.75 (95% CI −1.49, −0.003)
|
81.3 (13.5)
|
82.9 (14.0)
|
1.63 (95% CI 0.83, 2.42)
|
p < 0.001
|
|
Risk factor: Metabolic syndrome
|
% dropout: 0
|
|
Sex: (a) 99 women, 70 men (b) 96 women, 70 men
|
Comparison: D-PA vs. UC
|
|
Age, mean (SD): (a) 55.7 (5.7) (b) 55.7 (5.6)
|
BMI
|
29.7 (4.1)
|
29.4 (4.4)
|
−0.29 (95% CI −0.56, −0.02)
|
29.8 (4.6)
|
30.4 (4.8)
|
0.61 (95% CI 0.31, 0.91)
|
p < 0.001
|
|
Greaves 2008 [25]
|
Location: UK Setting: PHC
|
Allocated: (a) 72 (b) 69
|
6
|
Wt
|
91.6 (13.3)
|
91.3 (13.7)
|
NR
|
94.4 (14.2)
|
92.6 (15.0)
|
NR
|
p < 0.05
|
|
Risk factor: T2DM
|
% dropout: (a) 19.4 (b) 17.39
|
|
Sex: (a) 46 women, 26 men (b) 44 women, 25 men
|
Comparison: D-PA vs. UC
|
|
Age, mean (SD): (a) 53.3 (12.3) (b) 54.5 (11.5)
|
|
Kulzer 2009 [26]
|
Location: Germany Setting: PHC
|
Allocated: (a) 91 (b) 91
|
12
|
Wt
|
92.1 (16.5)
|
88.3 (15.9)
|
−3.8 (5.2)
|
93.6 (19.3)
|
92.2 (19.4)
|
−1.4 (4.0)
|
p = 0.001
|
|
Risk factor: T2DM
|
% dropout: 9.3
|
|
Sex: 78 women, 104 men
|
Comparison: D-PA vs. written information
|
|
Age, mean (SD): 56.3 (10.1)
|
BMI
|
31.0 (4.7)
|
29.7 (4.7)
|
−1.3 (1.7)
|
32.0 (5.7)
|
31.5 (5.8)
|
−0.5 (1.4)
|
p = 0.002
|
|
McConnon 2007 [28]
|
Location: UK Setting: Community
|
Allocated: (a) 111 (b) 110
|
12
|
Wt^
|
98.9 (17.7)
|
93.6 (13.3)
|
−1.29 (5.6)
|
97.9 (17.1)
|
95.6 (17.7)
|
−1.9 (5.8)
|
NS
|
|
Risk factor: Nil
|
% dropout: (a) 51 (b) 30
|
|
Sex: 170 women, 51 men
|
Comparison: Internet vs. UC
|
|
Age, mean: (a) 48.1 (b) 47.4
|
BMI^
|
36.1 (5.8)
|
34.9 (4.6)
|
−0.41 (2.0)
|
35.9 (5.1)
|
34.9 (5.0)
|
−0.7 (2.1)
|
NS
|
|
Tsai 2010 [30]
|
Location: USA Setting: PHC
|
Allocated: (a) 24 (b) 26
|
6
|
Wt
|
97.0 (SE 3.4)
|
NR
|
−4.4 (SE 0.6)
|
103.1 (SE 3.5)
|
NR
|
−0.9 (SE 0.6)
|
p < 0.0001
|
|
Risk factor: Nil
|
% dropout: (a) 8.4 (b) 3.9
|
|
Sex: 44 women, 6 men
|
Comparison: brief behavioural counselling vs. no counselling
|
12
|
Wt
|
97.0 (SE 3.4)
|
NR
|
−2.3 (SE 0.9)
|
103.1 (SE 3.5)
|
NR
|
−1.1 (SE 0.8)
|
NS
|
|
Age, mean (SE): (a) 51.3 (2.3) (b) 47.6 (2.5)
|
|
Whittemore 2009 [31]
|
Location: USA Setting: PHC
|
Allocated: (a) 31 (b) 27
|
6
|
Wt, % loss
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
NS
|
|
Risk factor: T2DM
|
% dropout: (a) 22.6 (b) 0
|
BMI
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
NS
|
|
Sex: (a) 28 women, 3 men, (b) 24 women, 3 men
|
Comparison: Enhanced standard care vs lifestyle intervention
|
|
Age, mean (SD): (a) 48.2 (12.4) (b) 43.2 (13.2)
|
