Lifestyle modification programs have been shown to effectively treat chronic disease. The Coronary Health Improvement Program has been delivered by both paid professional and unpaid volunteer facilitators. This study compared participant outcomes of each mode in the United States.
Design
Pre-/post-analysis of CHIP interventions delivered between 1999 and 2012.
Setting
Professional-delivered programs in Rockford Illinois 1999-2004 and volunteer-delivered programs across North America 2005-2012.
Subjects
Adults ≥21 years (professional programs N = 3158 34.3% men, mean age = 54.0 ± 11.4 years; volunteer programs N = 7115 33.4% men, mean age = 57.4 ± 13.0 years).
Measures
Body mass index, blood pressure (systolic and diastolic), blood lipid profile (total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein), and fasting plasma glucose.
Analysis
Analysis of Covariance, with adjustment for age, gender, BMI change and baseline biometric and effect sizes.
Results
The professional-delivered programs achieved significantly greater reductions in BMI (.4%, P < .001) and HDL (1.9%, P < .001) and the volunteer-delivered programs achieved greater reductions in SBP (1.4%, P < .001), DBP (1.1%, P < .001), TC (1.4%, P = .004), LDL (2.3%, P < .001), TG (4.0%, P = .006), and FPG (2.7%, P < .001). However, the effect size differences between the groups were minimal (Cohen’s d .1-.2).
Conclusions
Lifestyle modification programs have been shown to effectively treat chronic disease. The Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP) lifestyle intervention has been delivered by both paid professional and unpaid volunteer facilitators. This study compared selected chronic disease biometric outcomes of participants in each mode in the United States. It found volunteer-delivered programs do not appear to be any less effective than programs delivered by paid professionals, which is noteworthy as volunteers may provide important social capital in the combat of chronic disease.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chronic Diseases and Health Promotion: United States, 2012. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control; 2012. http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview/index.htm. Accessed October 1, 2013.
HeidenreichPATrogdonJGKhavjouOA, et al.Forecasting the future of cardiovascular disease in the United States: A policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123:933-944.
4.
OrnishDScherwitzLWBillingsJH, et al.Intensive lifestyle changes for reversal of coronary heart disease. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;280:2001-2007.
5.
AldanaSGGreenlawRLDiehlHAMerrillRMSalbergAEnglertH. A video-based lifestyle intervention and changes in coronary risk. Health Education Research. 2008;23:115-124.
6.
DiehlHA. Coronary risk reduction through intensive community-based lifestyle intervention: The CHIP experience. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82:83T-87T.
7.
EnglertHSDiehlHAGreenlawRLWillichSNAldanaS. The effect of a community-based coronary risk reduction: The Rockford CHIP. Prevent Med. 2007;44:513-519.
8.
RankinPMortonDPDiehlHGobbleJMoreyPChangE. Effectiveness of a volunteer-delivered lifestyle modification program for reducing cardiovascular disease risk factors. Am J Cardiol. 2012;109:82-86. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.07.069
9.
MortonDPRankinPMoreyP, et al.The effectiveness of the Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP) in Australasia for reducing selected chronic disease risk factors: a feasibility study. New Zeal Med J. 2013;126(1370):43-54.
10.
MortonDPRankinPKentL, et al.The Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP) and reduction of chronic disease risk factors in Canada. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2014;75:72-77.
11.
KentLMortonDHurlowTRankinPHannaADiehlH. Long-term effectiveness of the community-based complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP) lifestyle intervention: A cohort study. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003751. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003751
12.
MerrillRMAldanaSGGreenlawRLDiehlHASalbergAEnglertH. Can newly acquired healthy behaviors persist? An analysis of health behavior decay. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008;5(1):A13. http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2008/jan/07_0031.htm. Accessed March 20, 2013.
13.
AlterDA. Therapeutic lifestyle and disease-management interventions: Pushing the scientific envelope. Can Med Assoc J. 2007;177(8):887-889.
14.
EnglertHSDiehlHAGreenlawRWillichSNAldanaS. The effect of a community-based coronary risk reduction: The Rockford CHIP. Prev Med. 2007;44(6):513-519. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.01.014
15.
AldanaSGGreenlawRLDiehlHASalbergAMerrillRMOhmineS. The effects of a worksite chronic disease prevention program. J Occup Environ Med. 2005;47(6):558-564.
16.
DentonMPrusSWaltersV. Gender differences in health: A Canadian study of the psycho-social, structural and behavioural determinants of health. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:2586-2600.
17.
ParikhNI. Sex differences in the risk of cardiovascular disease. BMJ. 2011;343:d5526. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5526
18.
AldanaSGGreenlawRDiehlHAEnglertHJacksonR. Impact of the coronary health improvement project (CHIP) on several employee populations. J Occup Environ Med. 2002;44(9):831-839.
19.
MortonDRankinPKentLDysingerW. The Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP): History, evaluation, and outcomes. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2014;10:64-73. doi: 10.1177/1559827614531391
20.
KuzmaJWBohnenblustSE. Basic Statistics for the Health Sciences. 4th ed.Singapore: McGraw-Hill; 2001.
21.
EtkinCDProhaskaTRHarrisBALathamNJetteA. Feasibility of implementing the Strong for Life program in community settings. Gerontol. 2006;46(2):284-292.
SchneiderECAltpeterMWhitelawN. An innovative approach for building health promotion program capacity: A generic volunteer training curriculum. Gerontol. 2007;47(3):398-403.
24.
AliMKEchouffo-TcheuguiJBWilliamsonWF. How effective were lifestyle interventions in real-world settings that were modelled on the Diabetes Prevention Program?Health Aff. 2012;31(1):67-75.
25.
WoldieMFeyissaGTAdmasuB, et al.Community health volunteers could help improve access to and use of essential health services by communities in LMICs: An umbrella review. Health Policy Plan. 2018;33(10):1128-1143.
26.
ParkinSMcKeganeyN. The rise and rise of peer education approaches. Drugs: Educ Prev Polic. 2000;7(3):293-310.
27.
StecklerAGoodmanRM. How to institutionalize health promotion programs. Am J Health Promot. 1989;3(4):34-43.
28.
KongBW. Community-based hypertension control programs that work. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1997;8(4):409-415.
29.
MilburnK. A critical review of peer education with young people with special reference to sexual health. Health Educ Res. 1995;10(4):407-420.
30.
KentLMMortonDPRankinPMGobbleJEDiehlHA. Gender differences in effectiveness of the Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP). J Health Edu Behav. 2015;47(1):44-52.
YoungMDMorganPJPlotnikoffRCCallisterRCollinsCE. Effectiveness of male-only weight loss and weight loss maintenance interventions: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2012;13:393-408.
33.
Bautista-CastanoIMolina-CabrillanaJMontoya-AlonsoJASerra-MajemL. Variables predictive of adherence to diet and physical activity recommendations in the treatment of obesity and overweight in a group of Spanish subjects. Int J Obes. 2004;28:697-705.
34.
WardleJJohnsonF. Weight and dieting: Examining levels of weight concern in British adults. Int J Obesity. 2002;26:1144-1149.
35.
GrossmanJBFuranoK. Making the most of volunteers. Law and Contemp Probs. 1999;62:199.
36.
Morrow-HowellNHongSITangF. Who benefits from volunteering? Variations in perceived benefits. Gerontol. 2009;49(1):91-102.
37.
KarwalajtysTMcDonoughBHallH, et al.Development of the volunteer peer educator role in a Community Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP): A process evaluation in two communities. J Community Health. 2009;34(4):336-345.
38.
KleinNASondagKADroletJC. Understanding volunteer peer health educators’ motivations: Applying social learning theory. J Am Coll Health. 1994;43(3):126-130.
39.
YuasaMde SaRFPincovskySShimanouchiN. Emergence model of social and human capital and its application to the Healthy Municipalities project in Northeast Brazil. Health Promot Int2007;22(4):292-298.
40.
KentLMortonDPRankinP, et al.The effect of a low-fat, plant-based lifestyle intervention (CHIP) on serum HDL levels and the implications for Metabolic Syndrome status. Nutr Metab. 2013;10(10):58.
41.
AldanaSGGreenlawRLDiehlHA, et al.Effects of an intensive diet and physical activity modification program on the health risks of adults. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105(3):371-381.
42.
MerrillRMAldanaSG. Improving overall health status through the CHIP intervention. Am J Health Behav. 2009;33(2):135-146.
43.
KentLMMortonDPRankinPMGobbleJEDiehlHA. The Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP) and reduction of chronic disease risk factors in the Philippines. Asian Pac J Health Sci.2015;2(2):44-52.
44.
GerlachMFarbBRevelleWAmaralLAN. A robust data driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets. Nat Hum Behav. 2018;2:735-742.
