Stronger together than apart: The role of social support in adopting a healthy plant-based eating pattern.

The influence of the social environment on health behaviors is well documented. In recent years, there is mounting evidence of the health benefits of a plant-based eating pattern, yet little is known about how the social environment impacts the adoption of a plant-based eating pattern, specifically. In this convergent parallel mixed-methods study, we analyzed quantitative survey data and qualitative focus group data to assess how social support impacted participants of a lifestyle medicine intervention focused on the adoption of a plant-predominant eating pattern. Regression analysis of survey data showed a positive association between positive social support and healthy plant-based eating, while no association was found between negative social support and healthy plant-based eating. Focus groups yielded further insights into how positive aspects of social relationships with family and friends facilitated the adoption of plant-predominant eating among participants. Qualitative findings also showed the ways in which negative social support hindered progress to adopt a plant-predominant eating pattern including not eating the same foods as participants, being judgmental about new dietary behaviors, and encouraging participants to eat non-plant-based foods. Taken together, social support appears to be an important factor for individuals adopting a plant-predominant eating pattern. Future research is needed to explore mechanisms to enhance positive social support while mitigating negative aspects of social relationships for individuals participating in similar lifestyle medicine interventions that emphasize on plant-predominant eating.

Patient-Reported Outcomes from a Pilot Plant-Based Lifestyle Medicine Program in a Safety-Net Setting.

Lifestyle medicine interventions that emphasize healthy behavior changes are growing in popularity in U.S. health systems. Safety-net healthcare settings that serve low-income and uninsured populations most at risk for lifestyle-related disease are ideal venues for lifestyle medicine interventions. Patient-reported outcomes are important indicators of the efficacy of lifestyle medicine interventions. Past research on patient-reported outcomes of lifestyle medicine interventions has occurred outside of traditional healthcare care settings. In this study, we aimed to assess patient-reported outcomes on nutrition knowledge, barriers to adopting a plant-based diet, food and beverage consumption, lifestyle behaviors, self-rated health, and quality-of-life of participants in a pilot plant-based lifestyle medicine program in an urban safety-net healthcare system. We surveyed participants at three time points (baseline, 3 months, 6 months) to measure change over time. After 6 months of participation in the program, nutrition knowledge increased by 7.2 percentage points, participants reported an average of 2.4 fewer barriers to adopting a plant-based diet, the score on a modified healthful plant-based diet index increased by 5.3 points, physical activity increased by 0.7 days per week while hours of media consumption declined by 0.7 h per day, and the percentage of participants who reported that their quality of sleep was "good" or "very good" increased by 12.2 percentage points. Our findings demonstrate that a lifestyle medicine intervention in a safety-net healthcare setting can achieve significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes. Key lessons for other lifestyle medicine interventions include using a multidisciplinary team; addressing all pillars of lifestyle medicine; and the ability for patients to improve knowledge, barriers, skills, and behaviors with adequate support.

Randomized pilot trial of bariatric surgery versus intensive medical weight management on diabetes remission in type 2 diabetic patients who do NOT meet NIH criteria for surgery and the role of soluble RAGE as a novel biomarker of success.

OBJECTIVE: To compare bariatric surgery versus intensive medical weight management (MWM) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who do not meet current National Institutes of Health criteria for bariatric surgery and to assess whether the soluble form of receptor for advanced glycation end products (sRAGE) is a biomarker to identify patients most likely to benefit from surgery. BACKGROUND: There are few studies comparing surgery to MWM for patients with T2DM and BMI less than 35. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with T2DM and BMI 30 to 35, who otherwise met the criteria for bariatric surgery were randomized to MWM versus surgery (bypass, sleeve or band, based on patient preference). The primary outcomes assessed at 6 months were change in homeostatic model of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and diabetes remission. Secondary outcomes included changes in HbA1c, weight, and sRAGE. RESULTS: The surgery group had improved HOMA-IR (-4.6 vs +1.6; P = 0.0004) and higher diabetes remission (65% vs 0%, P < 0.0001) than the MWM group at 6 months. Compared to MWM, the surgery group had lower HbA1c (6.2 vs 7.8, P = 0.002), lower fasting glucose (99.5 vs 157; P = 0.0068), and fewer T2DM medication requirements (20% vs 88%; P < 0.0001) at 6 months. The surgery group lost more weight (7. vs 1.0 BMI decrease, P < 0.0001). Higher baseline sRAGE was associated with better weight loss outcomes (r = -0.641; P = 0.046). There were no mortalities. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery was very effective short-term in patients with T2DM and BMI 30 to 35. Baseline sRAGE may predict patients most likely to benefit from surgery. These findings need to be confirmed with larger studies.ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01423877.

Does a preoperative medically supervised weight loss program improve bariatric surgery outcomes? A pilot randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Many insurance payors mandate that bariatric surgery candidates undergo a medically supervised weight management (MSWM) program as a prerequisite for surgery. However, there is little evidence to support this requirement. We evaluated in a randomized controlled trial the hypothesis that participation in a MSWM program does not predict outcomes after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in a publicly insured population. METHODS: This pilot randomized trial was conducted in a large academic urban public hospital. Patients who met NIH consensus criteria for bariatric surgery and whose insurance did not require a mandatory 6-month MSWM program were randomized to a MSWM program with monthly visits over 6 months (individual or group) or usual care for 6 months and then followed for bariatric surgery outcomes postoperatively. Demographics, weight, and patient behavior scores, including patient adherence, eating behavior, patient activation, and physical activity, were collected at baseline and at 6 months (immediately preoperatively and postoperatively). RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were enrolled in the study with complete follow-up on 23 patients. Participants randomized to a MSWM program attended an average of 2 sessions preoperatively. The majority of participants were female and non-Caucasian, mean age was 46 years, average income was less than $20,000/year, and most had Medicaid as their primary insurer, consistent with the demographics of the hospital's bariatric surgery program. Data analysis included both intention-to-treat and completers' analyses. No significant differences in weight loss and most patient behaviors were found between the two groups postoperatively, suggesting that participation in a MSWM program did not improve weight loss outcomes for LAGB. Participation in a MSWM program did appear to have a positive effect on physical activity postoperatively. CONCLUSION: MSWM does not appear to confer additional benefit as compared to the standard preoperative bariatric surgery protocol in terms of weight loss and most behavioral outcomes after LAGB in our patient population.