Skip to main content

Table 2 The effects of ACT-based Face-to-face and Mobile interventions on eating behavior

From: The effects of acceptance and commitment therapy on eating behavior and diet delivered through face-to-face contact and a mobile app: a randomized controlled trial

  Face-to-face Mobile Control pa db
0 wk 10 wk 36 wk dc 0 wk 10 wk 36 wk dc 0 wk 10 wk 36 wk dc   
IES total score 2.9 ± 0.4 3.0 ± 0.5 3.1 ± 0.4 0.45 2.9 ± 0.5 3.0 ± 0.4 3.1 ± 0.5 0.29 3.0 ± 0.5 3.0 ± 0.5 3.0 ± 0.5 0.16 .090 0.27
0.13
 Unconditional Permission to Eat 3.0 ± 0.5 3.0 ± 0.5 3.1 ± 0.5 0.10 3.1 ± 0.6 3.1 ± 0.6 3.1 ± 0.7 − 0.05 3.1 ± 0.6 3.0 ± 0.7 3.1 ± 0.6 − 0.01 .277 0.11
− 0.05
 Eating for Physical Rather Than Emotional Reasons 2.4 ± 0.8 2.6 ± 0.7 2.8 ± 0.8 0.50 2.4 ± 0.8 2.6 ± 0.8 2.7 ± 0.8 0.44 2.6 ± 0.9 2.6 ± 0.8 2.7 ± 0.8 0.10 .019 0.40
0.33
 Reliance on Internal Hunger/Satiety Cues 3.2 ± 0.6 3.3 ± 0.7 3.4 ± 0.6 0.36 3.2 ± 0.7 3.3 ± 0.6 3.4 ± 0.6 0.29 3.2 ± 0.7 3.2 ± 0.6 3.4 ± 0.6 0.27 .967 0.04
− 0.01
TFEQ-R18
 Cognitive Restraint 43.1 ± 16.6 49.4 ± 14.4 51.5 ± 17.0 0.47 45.2 ± 16.2 47.6 ± 17.6 48.7 ± 15.3 0.26 45.8 ± 15.3 48.4 ± 15.3 47.7 ± 16.2 0.11 .252 0.37
0.15
 Uncontrolled Eating 49.3 ± 18.3 44.7 ± 20.1 39.5 ± 20.5 − 0.46 49.4 ± 20.1 44.6 ± 19.2 43.9 ± 20.3 − 0.30 50.2 ± 20.9 48.4 ± 21.0 47.7 ± 19.0 − 0.11 .020 − 0.34
− 0.20
 Emotional Eating 64.9 ± 25.3 57.3 ± 24.6 54.6 ± 25.6 − 0.40 62.4 ± 27.5 56.3 ± 26.0 52.8 ± 25.8 − 0.36 55.9 ± 27.9 54.4 ± 28.9 53.8 ± 25.1 − 0.08 .083d − 0.31
− 0.27
HTAS
 Pleasure 4.7 ± 0.9 4.8 ± 0.8 4.8 ± 0.9 0.16 4.9 ± 1.0 4.8 ± 0.9 4.7 ± 1.0 − 0.16 4.7 ± 1.0 4.7 ± 1.1 4.8 ± 1.0 0.15 .066 − 0.01
− 0.30
 Using Food as a Reward 4.3 ± 1.2 4.2 ± 1.2 4.0 ± 1.2 − 0.21 4.6 ± 1.1 4.2 ± 1.2 4.1 ± 1.2 − 0.39 4.3 ± 1.2 4.2 ± 1.1 4.2 ± 1.2 − 0.10 .048 −0.11
− 0.29
ecSI 2.0 total score 26.2 ± 6.0 26.6 ± 6.3 28.1 ± 6.6 0.22 26.3 ± 5.7 26.8 ± 6.2 26.2 ± 6.2 − 0.04 25.8 ± 6.4 25.8 ± 5.9 26.5 ± 6.4 0.07 .164 0.14
−0.11
 Eating Attitudes 10.0 ± 2.1 9.7 ± 2.1 10.0 ± 2.5 −0.03 9.7 ± 2.2 9.8 ± 1.9 9.4 ± 2.4 −0.12 9.7 ± 2.6 9.5 ± 2.6 9.7 ± 2.2 −0.03 .144 0.00
−0.09
 Food Acceptance 4.9 ± 2.0 4.9 ± 1.9 5.5 ± 1.6 0.25 5.2 ± 1.9 5.1 ± 2.0 5.0 ± 2.0 −0.09 4.9 ± 1.8 4.9 ± 1.9 4.8 ± 1.9 −0.04 .048 0.31
−0.06
 Internal Regulation 4.7 ± 1.9 4.8 ± 1.8 5.1 ± 1.7 0.22 5.0 ± 1.6 5.1 ± 1.6 4.7 ± 1.8 −0.17 4.8 ± 1.8 5.0 ± 1.5 4.9 ± 1.8 0.02 .077 0.20
− 0.18
 Contextual Skills 6.7 ± 3.1 7.3 ± 3.1 7.6 ± 3.1 0.24 6.5 ± 3.0 6.8 ± 3.0 7.1 ± 3.2 0.18 6.4 ± 3.1 6.4 ± 2.6 7.1 ± 2.9 0.20 .720 0.05
− 0.02
REBS
 Intrinsic motivation 5.1 ± 1.2 5.3 ± 1.2 5.4 ± 1.2 0.19 5.1 ± 1.3 5.2 ± 1.2 5.2 ± 1.4 0.05 4.9 ± 1.4 4.9 ± 1.3 5.0 ± 1.4 0.09 .831 0.09
−0.04
 Integrated regulation 3.9 ± 1.3 4.5 ± 1.3 4.7 ± 1.4 0.55 4.3 ± 1.3 4.4 ± 1.1 4.3 ± 1.4 0.09 4.1 ± 1.3 4.0 ± 1.3 4.2 ± 1.4 0.12 .003 0.41
− 0.04
 Identified regulation 5.8 ± 0.9 6.0 ± 0.8 6.0 ± 0.8 0.17 5.9 ± 0.9 5.7 ± 1.0 5.7 ± 0.9 − 0.20 5.7 ± 0.9 5.6 ± 1.1 5.7 ± 0.9 0.02 .023 0.15
−0.21
 Introjected regulation 4.2 ± 1.1 4.0 ± 1.2 4.0 ± 1.2 −0.13 4.2 ± 1.2 4.0 ± 1.2 4.1 ± 1.3 −0.09 4.3 ± 1.2 4.1 ± 1.2 4.1 ± 1.3 −0.19 .955 0.08
0.10
 External regulation 3.0 ± 1.6 3.0 ± 1.6 2.9 ± 1.8 0.04 3.5 ± 1.6 3.5 ± 1.5 3.3 ± 1.6 −0.11 3.7 ± 1.7 3.5 ± 1.8 3.6 ± 1.7 −0.04 .489e 0.10
−0.07
 Amotivation 2.1 ± 1.0 1.8 ± 0.9 1.7 ± 0.8 −0.39 2.1 ± 1.0 2.1 ± 1.0 2.1 ± 1.0 −0.00 2.1 ± 1.0 2.2 ± 1.0 2.1 ± 1.1 −0.00 .059 −0.36
0.00
  1. The values are unestimated means ± SD. IES Intuitive Eating Scale, TFEQ-R18 The Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire-R18, HTAS Health and Taste Attitude Scales, ecSI 2.0 preliminary Finnish translation of Satter Eating Competence Inventory 2.0, REBS Regulation of Eating Behavior Scale. Higher scores represent higher amount of the feature in all of the scales. There were missing values of one (n = 1) participant in the Mobile group at week 36 and of three participants (n = 3) in the Control group at weeks 10 and 36
  2. ap-value for differences in changes between the three study groups using all measured time points (study weeks 00, 10, and 36) adjusted for study center and starting time using estimated parameters (hierarchical linear model, Wald test). Bold text indicates significant p-value < 0.05
  3. bCohen’s d from baseline to follow-up between the Face-to-face and Control groups (above) and between the Mobile and Control groups (below) using estimated parameters
  4. cCohen’s d from baseline to follow-up within the group using estimated parameters
  5. dAfter adding the baseline value to the adjustments, p = 0.088
  6. eAfter adding the baseline value to the adjustments, p = 0.569