The Relevance of Metabolic Rate in Behavioral Medicine Research

Objectives: Concerns about rigor and replicability have led to reforms to increase science transparency. We aimed to document the use of transparent reporting practices in behavioral medicine journals in 2018 in order to inform future efforts to improve reporting practices. We also aimed to compare 2018 reporting practices to 2008. Methods: We examined a randomly selected portion of articles published in 2018 and 2008 by the four behavioral medicine journals with the highest impact factor. We excluded manuscripts that were reviews, presented qualitative data, or were purely descriptive. We coded whether articles were clear in their presentation of analyses as being primary or secondary; whether studies were registered/pre-registered; whether they used “exploratory” or a related term to describe analyses/aims; and whether they reported power analyses. Results: We identified and coded 162 manuscripts published in 2018 (87% observational and 12% experimental). Among 2018 studies, 16% were explicit in describing outcomes as primary or secondary, 51% appeared to be reports of secondary outcomes but did not use the term “secondary,” and 33% were unclear. Registration/pre-registration occurred in 14% of studies; 77.3% of registered/pre-registered studies did not report registration timing in relation to data collection, and 91% did not report which analyses were pre-registered. “Exploratory” or a related term was used to describe an aim or analysis in 31% of studies. Power analyses were reported in 8% of studies. Compared to studies from 2008 (n=120), studies published in 2008 were less likely to clearly report whether outcomes presented were primary or secondary and less likely to have been registered/pre-registered. Conclusions: Behavioral medicine stakeholders should consider strategies to increase clarity of reporting of key analysis details.

Download Full-text

Seeking a pot of gold with integrated behavior therapy and research to improve health equity: insights from the RAINBOW trial for obesity and depression

Translational Behavioral Medicine ◽

10.1093/tbm/ibab069 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Elizabeth M Venditti ◽

Lesley E Steinman ◽

Megan A Lewis ◽

Bryan J Weiner ◽

Jun Ma

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Behavioral Medicine ◽

Behavior Therapy ◽

Chronic Conditions ◽

The United States ◽

Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽

Dissemination And Implementation ◽

Physical And Mental Health ◽

Medicine Research ◽

Increased Risk

Abstract More than one third of adults in the United States (U.S.) live with multiple chronic conditions that affect their physical and mental health, functional outcomes, independence, and mortality. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed not only an increased risk for infection, morbidity, and mortality among those with chronic conditions but long-standing health inequities by age, race, sex, and other social determinants. Obesity plus depression represent one such prevalent comorbidity for which few effective integrated interventions exist, prompting concern about the potential for secondary physical and mental health pandemics post COVID-19. Translational behavioral medicine research can play an important role in studying integrated collaborative healthcare approaches and advancing scientific understanding on how to engage and more effectively treat diverse populations with physical and mental health comorbidities. The RAINBOW (Research Aimed at Improving Both Mood and Weight) clinical trial experience offers a wealth of insights into the potential of collaborative care interventions to advance behavior therapy research and practice. Primary care patients with co-occurring obesity and depression were assigned to either Integrated Coaching for Mood and Weight (I-CARE), which blended Group Lifestyle Balance (GLB) for weight management and the Program to Encourage Active Rewarding Lives (PEARLS) for depression, or usual care, to examine clinical, cost-effectiveness, and implementation outcomes. This commentary highlights the empirical findings of eight RAINBOW research papers and discusses implications for future studies, including their relevance in the U.S. COVID-19 context. Organized by key principles of translational behavioral medicine research, the commentary aims to examine and embrace the heterogeneity of baseline and intervention response differences among those living with multiple chronic conditions. We conclude that to prevent health and healthcare disparities from widening further, tailored engagement, dissemination, and implementation strategies and flexible delivery formats are essential to improve treatment access and outcomes among underrepresented populations.

Download Full-text