Skip to main content

Table 1 Baseline sample characteristics as a function of condition

From: A smartphone based attentive eating intervention for energy intake and weight loss: results from a randomised controlled trial

 

Intervention group mean (SD/%) n = 53

Control group mean (SD/%) n = 54

Age (y)

42.8 (10.5)

44.5 (10.7)

Gender (% female)

77.4

70.4

Ethnicity

 White

49 (92.5%)

51 (94.4%)

 Mixed/Multiple

1 (1.9%)

1 (1.9%)

 Asian/Asian British

3 (5.7%)

2 (3.7%)

 Black/Black British

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

 Other

0 (0.0%)

(0 (0.0%)

Education levelc

 Entry level or equivalent

0 (0.0%)

4 (7.4%)

 GCSE’s or equivalent

9 (17.0%)

8 (14.8%)

 A/AS level or equivalent

12 (22.6%)

8 (14.8%)

 Undergraduate degree or equivalent

20 (37.7%)

18 (33.3%)

 Higher degree or equivalent

9 (17.0%)

15 (27.8%)

 Other

3 (5.7%)

1 (1.9%)

BMI (kg/m2)

35.9 (6.8)

35.2 (6.2)

Weight at baseline (kg)

100.5 (20.4)

100.0 (17.6)

Body fat at baseline (%)

42.6 (8.0)

40.9 (8.2)

Self-reported energy intake at baseline (kcal)

2047.9 (696.6)

1944.0 (942.3)

Taste-test energy intake at baseline (kcal)

120.8 (105.0)

107.4 (101.8)

Ideal portion size (kcal)

455.7 (115.8)

459.1 (153.0)

Cognitive restrainta

2.3 (0.5)

2.3 (0.4)

Uncontrolled eatinga

2.6 (0.5)

2.4 (0.5)

Emotional eating a

2.6 (0.8)

2.5 (0.7)

Binge eatinga

16.6 (7.6)

16.5 (7.5)

Reliance on hunger and satiety (intuitive eating)a

2.6 (0.7)

2.8 (0.8)

Food cravingsa

72.9 (23.0)

71.3 (23.4)

MET minutes per weekb

2473.2 (1793.0)

3431.9 (2683.8)

  1. aCognitive restraint, uncontrolled eating and emotional eating possible score range = 1–4; binge eating possible score range = 0–46; reliance on hunger and satiety (intuitive eating) possible score range = 1–5; food cravings possible score range = 21–126. Higher scores on all scales indicates greater endorsement
  2. bMET minutes = metabolic equivalent minutes
  3. cPercentages may not add up due to rounding