• Wilson D Pace, Angela M Lanigan, Elizabeth W Staton, Deborah G Graham, Brian K Manning, L Miriam Dickinson, Caroline B Emsermann, and Elizabeth E Stewart.
• Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Mail Stop F496, 12631 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USA. Wilson.pace@ucdenver.edu
• Ann Fam Med. 2013 Jul 1; 11 (4): 371380371-80.

PurposeAn increasing number of Americans are putting their health at risk from being overweight. We undertook a study to compare patient-level outcomes of 2 methods of implementing the Americans In Motion-Healthy Interventions (AIM-HI) approach to promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and emotional well-being.MethodsWe conducted a randomized trial in which 24 family medicine practices were randomized to (1) an enhanced practice approach in which clinicians and office staff used AIM-HI tools to make personal changes and created a healthy environment, or (2) a traditional practice approach in which physicians and staff were trained and asked to use the tools with patients. Of the 610 patients enrolled, 331 were in healthy practices, and 279 were in traditional practices. At 0, 4, and 10 months we assessed blood pressure, body mass index, fasting blood glucose and insulin levels, nuclear magnetic resonance lipoprotein profiles, fitness, dietary intake, physical activity, and emotional well-being. Outcome data were analyzed using linear, mixed-effects multivariate models, adjusting for practices as a random effect.ResultsRegardless of patient group, 16.2% of patients who completed a 10-month visit (n = 378 patients, 62% of enrollees) and 10% of all patients enrolled lost 5% or more of their body weight; 16.7% of patients who completed a 10-month visit (10.3% of all enrollees) had a 2-point or greater increase in their fitness level; and 29.2% of 10-month completers (18.0% of all enrollees) lost 5% or more of their body weight and/or increased their fitness level by 2 or more points. There were no significant differences in these outcomes between groups.ConclusionsThere was no difference between the 2 groups in the primary and most secondary outcomes. Both patient groups were able to show significant before-after improvements in selected patient-level outcomes.

27 keywords...

hide…