Key process features of personalized diet counselling in metabolic syndrome: secondary analysis of feasibility study in primary care

Table 1 Analysis of Variance for univariate and adjusted associations of each behaviour change technique (BCT) with 3-month HEI-C, adjusted for baseline HEI-C

BCT	Categories (all 0,1 except as indicated)	Univariate F P value^a	Adjusted F P value^b	Estimated Marginal Mean HEI-C at 3 Months – adjusted analysis
Decreased HEI-C
Goal setting	0, 1–3, >3^c	0.007	0.007	More than 3 mentions associated with lowest HEI score (66 points), none and 1–3 mentions had higher HEI (71 points).
Increased HEI-C
Self-monitoring	0, 1–4, >4^d	0.000	< 0.001	More than 4 mentions associated with highest HEI score (73 points), no mentions was intermediate (68 points) and 1–4 mentions had the lowest score (65 points)
Focus on past success		0.009	0.018	Mention associated with higher HEI score (71 points) compared to no mentions (67 points)
Feedback on performance	0, 1–3, >3^e	0.037	0.026	More than 3 mentions and no mentions associated with lowest HEI score (67 points), 1–3 mentions had higher HEI (71 points).
No difference
Review of goals	0, 1–4, >4^f	0.061	0.064
Consequences		0.078	0.046
Environment re-structuring		0.096	0.054
Social support		0.162	0.264
Graded tasks		0.182^a	0.164
Action planning	0, 1–3, >3^g	0.260	0.230
Rewards		0.294	0.344
Motivational Interviewing	0, 1–3, >3^h	0.598	0.584
Cues/prompts		0.639^a	0.634
Relapse prevention/coping		0.713^a	0.762
Behaviour contract		0.764	0.748
Problem solving		0.798	0.919

^a Levene’s test of equality of error variance of the dependent variable was p < 0.05 for the BCTs with superscript and otherwise p > 0.05
^bAdjusted for sex, age, BMI, Baseline percentile VO₂ max, baseline PROCAM score, spouse yn
^c Goal setting recoded as: 0 = not mentioned (n = 29); 1 = mentioned 1–3 times in 3 months (n = 111); 2 = mentioned more than three times (n = 115)
^d Self-monitoring recoded as: 0 = not mentioned (n = 83); 1 = mentioned 1–4 times in 3 months (n = 77); 2 = mentioned more than four times (n = 95)
^eFeedback on performance recoded as: 0 = not mentioned (n = 50); 1 = mentioned 1–3 times in 3 months (n = 100); 2 = mentioned more than three times (n = 105)
^f Review of Goals recoded as: 0 = not mentioned (n = 48); 1 = mentioned 1–4 times in 3 months (n = 102); 2 = mentioned more than four times (n = 105)
^g Action Planning recoded as: 0 = not mentioned (n = 76); 1 = mentioned 1–2 times in 3 months (n = 71); 2 = mentioned more than two times (n = 108)
^h Motivational interviewing recoded as: 0 = not mentioned (n = 96); 1 = mentioned 1–2 times in 3 months (n = 65); 2 = mentioned more than two times (n = 94)

ISSN: 2055-0928