Health At Every Size intervention® under real-world conditions: the rights and wrongs of program implementation

Figures & data

Figure 1. Decisional algorithm about the acceptability of adaptations made to CdM?.

Figure 2. Flowchart of providers recruitment.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of CdM? participants at baseline.

Demographic variables	n	min	Max	M	SD
Age	162	21.00	77.00	51.38	10.56
BMI	123	23.95	64.55	36.55	6.91
Race (%)
Caucasian	156			96.90
Black	1			.60
Latino	4			2.50
Family Income (CA$) (%)
<39,000	71			48.00
40,000–79,000	40			27.00
80,000 and above	37			25.00
Employment (%)
Student	1			.60
Employed	93			57.70
Unemployed/retired	60			37.30
Other	7			4.30
Education (%)
Elementary School	3			1.90
High School	56			35.00
College	49			30.60
University	52			32.50
Living area (%)
Rural	36			22.20
Urban	93			57.40
Suburban	33			20.40
Program Outcomes
Intuitive Eating (IES)	162	1.71	4.24	2.78	.51
Body Esteem (BESAP)	162	0.00	3.60	1.18	.73

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of CdM? providers’ characteristics by their occupation.

Variables	Dietitian					Psychosocial professional
	N	min	max	M	SD	n	Min	max	M	SD	t/U	p
Experience	22	3.00	27.00	14.05	7.82	23	3.00	35.00	16.98	8.26	−1.22	.23
CdM? Experience	22	1.00	22.00	4.09	4.63	23	1.00	9.00	3.57	2.33	−.09	.93
Self-efficacy
Empowerment approach^a	14	3.00	5.00	4.43	.65	16	3.00	5.00	4.75	0.58	79.00	.10
Self-acceptance approach^a	11	4.00	5.00	4.55	.52	15	4.00	5.00	4.87	0.35	56.00	.07
Non-diet approach^a	16	2.00	5.00	4.69	.79	17	3.00	5.00	4.53	0.72	114.50	.32
Group Facilitation^a	22	3.00	5.00	4.68	.65	22	3.00	5.00	4.43	0.76	198.00	.21
Handling emotional participants^a	22	2.00	5.00	3.68	1.01	22	3.00	5.00	4.64	0.58	111.50*	.001
Handling quiet participants	22	2.00	5.00	4.11	.90	22	3.00	5.00	4.39	0.75	−1.09	.28
Handling overwhelming participants	20	2.00	5.00	3.55	.95	18	3.00	5.00	4.28	0.9	107.00	.02
Managing auto-facilitated sessions	22	2.00	5.00	4.27	.88	20	3.00	5.00	4.25	0.79	.09	.93
Managing dyadic facilitation^a	22	4.00	5.00	4.80	.40	19	2.00	5.00	4.68	0.75	208.50	.99
Adopting a non-directive style of facilitation	22	3.00	5.00	4.09	.68	22	3.00	5.00	4.36	0.73	−1.28	.21

^a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test performed.

*Indicates significance of the test, where α = .004 was used with Bonferonni correction (.05 /12).

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations between participant responsiveness, providers’ characteristics, other implementation dimensions.

Variables	n	min	max	M	SD	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.
Participant responsiveness
Goal achievement (%)
Yes	108			67.90
More or less	39			24.50
No	12			7.50
1. Attendance	150	10.00	14.00	13.17	1.02	–
2. SIK	161	1.33	3.00	2.60	.37	−.05	-
3. HPC	160	2.00	4.90	3.61	.44	−.08	.09	-
4. Satisfaction	158	1.88	3.00	2.74	.26	−.04	.37**	.26**	-
Provider characteristics
5. Experience (years)	23	4.50	25.00	15.75	6.02	-.06	.08	.17	–
6. CdM? experience	23	1.00	15.00	3.76	3.09	.07	.01	−.06	.19	–
7. Self-efficacy	23	3.95	4.97	4.39	.27	−.05	.15	.03	.26	.42*	–
Implementation dimensions
8. Dosage (%)	23	70.07	102.81	90.28	8.80	.00	−.11	.10	.15	−.07	−.22	.06	–
9. Adherence (%)	23	46.77	95.97	75.77	13.17	−.15	.25*	−.07	.10	−.04	−.27	−.08	−.08	–
10. Acceptable adaptation	23	3.00	27.00	10.00	5.49	−.01	−.15	.15	.04	−.10	.06	.23	.16	−.43	–
11. Unacceptable adaptation	23	2.00	18.00	7.34	3.52	−.09	−.09	.11	−.08	−.12	.47*	.59**	−.17	−.32	.30	–

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 4. Multilevel analysis of intuitive eating score by time and participants’ responsiveness.

Fixed effects	Coefficient	SE	df	t
Intercept	2.71***	.08	225.78	34.12
Attendance (X1)	.05	.04	225.78	1.15
SIK (X2)	−.07	.13	225.78	−.57
HPC (X3)	.13	.10	225.78	1.23
Satisfaction (X4)	.04	.19	225.78	0.21
Objective Achievement (X5)
Yes	.09	.10	225.78	.93
No	.00
Level 1: intraindividual effects on intuitive eating
Time	.08**	.02	126.83	3.51
Level 2: between participants effects on intuitive eating
Attendance (X1)*time	−.001	.01	129.65	−.10
SIK (X2)*time	−.02	.04	126.19	−.63
HPC (X3)*time	.07*	.03	133.52	2.13
Satisfaction (X4)*time	−.003	.06	131.67	−.05
Objective Achievement (X5)*time
Yes	.04	.03	127.83	1.32
No	.00
Random effects	Variance	SE		Wald-Z
Residual deviation	.16***	.02		7.74
Intercept deviation	.10***	.02		3.88

*p < .05; **p < .01.; ***p < .001.

Table 5. Multilevel analysis of body esteem (appearance subscale) score by time and participants’ responsiveness.

Fixed effects	Coefficient	SE	df	T
Intercept	1.02***	.11	177.51	9.05
Attendance (X1)	.02	.06	177.51	.41
SIK (X2)	−.46*	.18	177.51	−2.54
HPC (X3)	.18	.15	177.51	1.23
Satisfaction (X4)	.19	.27	177.51	.72
Objective Achievement (X5)
Yes	.19	.14	177.51	1.41
No	.00
Level 1: intraindividual effects on body esteem
Time	.08***	.02	122.34	3.61
Level 2: between participants effects on body esteem
Attendance (X1)*time	−.02	.01	123.83	−1.84
SIK (X2)*time	.01	.04	122.00	.20
HPC (X3)*time	.04	.03	125.82	1.20
Satisfaction (X4)*time	−.04	.06	124.88	−.70
Objective Achievement (X5)*time
Yes	.03	.03	122.87	1.19
No	.00
Random effects	Variance	SE		Wald-Z
Residual deviation	.15***	.02		7.69
Intercept deviation	.36***	.06		6.59

*p < .05; **p < .01.; ***p < .001.