Skip to main content

Advertisement

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