Be Healthy in Pregnancy (BHIP): A Randomized Controlled Trial of Nutrition and Exercise Intervention from Early Pregnancy to Achieve Recommended Gestational Weight Gain
by
, , , ,
Stephanie A. Atkinson
1,*
,
Atherai Maran
1,
Kendra Dempsey
1,
Maude Perreault
1,
Thuva Vanniyasingam
2,
Stuart M. Phillips
3
,
Eileen K. Hutton
4,
Michelle F. Mottola
5,
Olive Wahoush
6,
Feng Xie
7 and
Lehana Thabane
2 1
Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada
2
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada
3
Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada
4
Midwifery Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada
5
Department of Anatomy & Cell Biology, School of Kinesiology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada
6
School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada
7
Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2022, 14(4), 810; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14040810
Submission received: 10 January 2022
/
Revised: 3 February 2022
/
Accepted: 8 February 2022
/
Published: 15 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Nutrition in Women)
Abstract
:A randomized two-arm prospective superiority trial tested the efficacy of a novel structured and monitored nutrition (bi-weekly counselling for individualized energy and high dairy protein diet) and exercise program (walking goal of 10,000 steps/day) (intervention) compared to usual care (control) in pregnant women to achieve gestational weight gain (GWG) within current recommendations. Women recruited in communities in southern Ontario, Canada were randomized at 12–17 weeks gestation with stratification by site and pre-pregnancy BMI to intervention (n = 119) or control (n = 122). The primary outcome was the proportion of women who achieved GWG within the Institute of Medicine recommendations. Although the intervention compared to control group was more likely to achieve GWG within recommendations (OR = 1.51; 95% CI (0.81, 2.80)) and total GWG was lower by 1.45 kg (95% CI: (−11.9, 8.88)) neither reached statistical significance. The intervention group achieved significantly higher protein intake at 26–28 week (mean difference (MD); 15.0 g/day; 95% CI (8.1, 21.9)) and 36–38 week gestation (MD = 15.2 g/day; 95% CI (9.4, 21.1)) and higher healthy diet scores (22.5 ± 6.9 vs. 18.7 ± 8.5, p < 0.005) but step counts were similar averaging 6335 steps/day. Pregnancy and infant birth outcomes were similar between groups. While the structured and monitored nutrition with counselling improved diet quality and protein intake and may have benefited GWG, the exercise goal of 10,000 steps/day was unachievable. The results can inform future recommendations for diet and physical activity in pregnancy.
1. Introduction
Despite the available guidelines on gestational weight gain (GWG) from the Institute of Medicine since 2009 [1], excess GWG is highly prevalent in women across all pre-pregnancy body mass index (pBMI) categories in both Canada and the United States [2,3]. In observational studies, excessive GWG and pregravid obesity were associated with greater risk of adverse perinatal outcomes [4,5,6,7,8] and risk of infant macrosomia or large-for-gestational age rises with maternal pregravid obesity and excessive GWG [9,10,11,12].
The experimental intervention in the Be Healthy in Pregnancy (BHIP) randomized controlled trial (RCT) [13] was grounded in a synthesis of existing systematic reviews of RCTs with varying intervention strategies that suggested the most convincing approach to achieve reduction in GWG was a combination of physical activity and individualized diet counselling, preferably in combination with weight monitoring [14,15,16].
The primary objective of the BHIP study was to determine if introducing a structured and monitored nutrition and exercise program (intervention) in early pregnancy compared with usual prenatal care (control) increased the likelihood of attaining GWG within the IOM guidelines (outcome) over the pregnancy period. We hypothesized that the experimental combined structured and monitored Nutrition + Exercise intervention compared with usual care would increase the percentage of pregnant women who achieved a GWG within IOM recommendations overall and for each pre-pregnancy BMI category and site. Other pre-specified outcomes included comparison of pregnancy and birth outcomes and maternal metabolic health between intervention and control groups.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design, Data Collection, and Ethical Aspects
The BHIP study was a two-arm, two-site prospective superiority trial with 1:1 allocation ratio to either the intervention group (i.e., Nutrition + Exercise with counselling and monitoring) or the control group (usual care as per Health Canada recommendations) from early pregnancy to birth. Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Boards of Hamilton Health Sciences (REB Project#12-469), Western University, London (HSREB 103272), and Joseph Brant Hospital, Burlington (JBH 000-018-14) in Ontario, Canada. The trial was registered in 2012 [17].
2.2. Recruitment, Randomization, and Followup
Healthy pregnant women who represented all pBMI categories except extreme obesity (>40 kg/m2) were recruited from community health care clinics in Hamilton, Burlington and London, Ontario between 12 and 17 weeks of gestation from January 2013 to April 2018 as previously detailed in the study protocol paper [1]. Eligibility criteria were screened at the first contact and the baseline visit [13].
Block randomization to the two study arms was conducted at the second visit to the study center and was stratified by study site and pBMI category used by IOM [1] as detailed previously [13]. The study was open-label with blinded endpoints due to the nature of the intervention as detailed [13].
All participants received standard care delivered by their health care practitioner (physician or midwife) during pregnancy. After enrolment, all participants received counselling and hard copies of the advice from Health Canada at the time of the trial as published online [18,19,20]. The primary caretaker of each participant also received mailed copies of the same materials. A $25 Canadian grocery gift card was available for all participants on three occasions when dietary and accelerometry data were collected.
2.2.1. Intervention
The multi-component intervention strategy included the specific active intervention of a high protein dairy diet and individualized energy intake found effective in our previous two studies in non-pregnant women [21,22] and proven reasonable by our qualitative testing for feasibility [23]. In-person counselling occurred weekly or biweekly from early in the second trimester (14–17 weeks gestation) until the end of pregnancy as detailed [13]. The study nutritionist counselled the participants on their individual dietary goals, providing recipes and diet plans suited to meet energy requirements. The individualized goals were based on providing 25% of their energy intake from protein of which 50% of the protein was derived from dairy foods as approximately 4–6 servings daily of low-fat dairy, such as milk, cottage cheese, and yogurt according to each participant’s preference. The diet plan was set to each individual’s calculated Estimated Energy Requirements (EER) using the equations in the Dietary Reference Intake report for normal and overweight pregnant women based on their size, age, and physical activity levels, with additional energy goals added as pregnancy progressed [24]. Several strategies to promote adherence to the diet intervention were included such as provision of low-fat dairy foods as per participant preference as detailed previously [13]. For the walking-based exercise program, participants first completed a validated activity questionnaire which was reviewed by a certified exercise physiologist to assess participants’ activity levels at baseline. Participants were encouraged to follow guidelines from the PARmed-X for Pregnancy [22], walking 3–4 times each week for 25 min a session, increasing their walking time by 2 min a week until they reached 40 min. At each study visit, the research assistant walked with the participant for 30 to 40 min around campus or within the medical center/hospital during inclement weather. The goal was to walk 10,000 steps/day; any daily form of physical activity counted towards the step count, including walking sessions at study visits accompanied by research staff and daily habitual activities, and were measured through use of a pedometer with records kept on pedometer logs that were reviewed at each study visit [13].
2.2.2. Usual Care
The control group received usual care provided by their primary care provider and only returned to the study site for outcome measurements at 26–28 and 36–38 weeks of gestation. As a retention strategy, control participants were invited to join a focus group in the second trimester led by a midwife, with topics including pain relief options during labor and breastfeeding techniques.
2.3. Outcomes and Measurements
The primary outcome was the proportion of women who were within the appropriate GWG for pBMI category using the IOM 2009 recommendations for total GWG and GWG per week over the second and third trimesters of pregnancy [1]. Body weight was measured by trained research assistants using a Tanita Body Composition Analyzer BF-350 scale (Tanita, Arlington Heights, IL, USA) and GWG calculated as previously described [13].
Demographic information was obtained at baseline using a standard questionnaire and screening for depression score used the Edinburgh Depression Scale [25]. Diet assessment was completed at 12–17, 26–28, and 36–38 weeks gestation and included a 21-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) adapted from the validated PrimeScreen FFQ [26] to derive a score for healthy dietary practices and a 3-day food intake record to determine protein and energy intakes [13]. Physical activity and exercise behaviors were assessed during the same 3 days using a SenseWear armband tri-axis accelerometer (Model MF-SW:BodyMedia Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA) and analyzed to obtain step count, energy expenditure, and minutes of activity level using SenseWear Professional 8.1 Software (BodyMedia Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA).
Obstetrical outcomes obtained from medical charts or by self-report by the participants included delivery mode, diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM defined as blood glucose of >7.2 mmol/L 2 h after a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test), and pre-eclampsia. At 12–17 and 36–38 weeks gestation, blood pressure was measured and fasting blood samples obtained for profiles of lipids, glucose, C-reactive protein, and hormones leptin and adiponectin by methods previously detailed [13]. At these two time points and at 26–28 weeks gestation, skinfold thickness was measured in triplicate (Harpenden Skinfold Caliper, Baty International, West Sussex, UK) by trained staff on the right-hand side of the body at four sites—subscapular, triceps, biceps, and supra-iliac crest for which triplicate values were averaged and sum of skinfold thickness (SFT) calculated. Percent body fat was estimated from leg-to-leg body impedance by using the Tanita Body Composition Analyzer BF-350 scale (Tanita, Arlington Heights, IL, USA).
Pre-specified infant outcomes extracted from medical charts included gestational age, birth weights which were categorized as small, appropriate, or large for gestational age [27], length, head circumference, 1- and 5-min Apgar scores, complications related to birth, and feeding practices at birth.
2.4. Sample Size and Statistical Analysis
The proposed sample size of 155 participants per treatment group was based on the test of the null hypothesis that the percentages of women with GWG within IOM guidelines in the two populations (intervention and control) are equal as detailed in our research design paper [13]. We revised our target sample size based on our a priori calculation to a sample size of 111 per group corresponding to 30% of women in the treatment group having a GWG exceeding the IOM recommendations compared to 65% in the control group. With the revised sample size (i.e., assuming a 1:1 allocation ratio), the study would have power of 80% to yield a statistically significant result assuming a binomial distribution (using an intention-to-treat principle for the analysis) of the difference between percentages of women with GWG within IOM guidelines at alpha = 0.05.
Data were entered into an online Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) service hosted at McMaster University) [13]. Descriptive statistics of participant baselines characteristics and outcome variables (both primary and secondary) were reported as detailed previously [13]. The primary analysis for all outcomes was intention to treat (ITT) for 119 intervention and 122 control group participants with imputed data for missing values (28). Complete case analysis included 101 intervention and 104 control group participants who had outcome measurements for the primary outcome (GWG) available at the end of pregnancy.
Multivariable regression analyses were used to determine the intervention effect on each outcome of interest, adjusting for stratification variables: study site and pre-pregnancy BMI category. Due to a low number of individuals in the underweight category (n = 4), these individuals were grouped with normal weight category.
For the primary outcome, GWG within IOM guidelines (yes/no), both a binary regression model and logistic regression model were created. The adjusted odds ratio, 95% CI, and p value were computed using a logistic regression model (distribution = binomial, link = logit).
For continuous outcomes, linear regression was performed. Outcomes where the normality assumption was not met were transformed (using natural log [Ln] or square root transformations) before being used in a model. For the remaining binary outcomes, logistic regression analyses were performed. For all models, the results are expressed as an estimate of the adjusted mean difference for continuous outcomes (adjusted odds ratio (OR) for binary outcomes), corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals, and associated p-values.
For the PrimeScreen dietary assessment scores contrasted between allocation groups over time, generalized estimating equations (GEE) assuming autoregressive (AR(1)) correlation structure were used to account for correlated repeated outcome data within a participant over time. A normal model with identity link function was used. Analysis was controlled for maternal pBMI and study site.
Sensitivity analysis was performed using per protocol analysis and complete case analysis for all outcomes. Individuals were included for per protocol analyses if they had reported gestational weight gain values during their third visit; results were reported based on analysis of imputed data. Individuals included for complete case analysis were based on data available for each outcome and independent variables adjusted in the model; results were reported based on analysis of non-imputed data.
For all subgroup analyses, the treatment effect and confidence intervals for each site and each pre-pregnancy BMI level, along with the interaction p value are reported. Forest plots were constructed for the primary outcomes.
All statistical tests were performed using two-sided tests at the 0.05 level of significance. All analyses were performed using SAS software Version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and SPSS 25 (Chicago, IL, USA). Forest plots were created in Stata software (Version 15.0; College Station, TX, USA)
3. Results
3.1. Participant Recruitment and Characteristics
Recruitment occurred between January 2013 and April 2018 [13] with a total of 693 women screened by phone of whom 123 (17.7%) did not meet eligibility criteria, and 296 (42.7%) declined to participate for reasons noted in Figure 1. Challenges to recruitment of participants in the early stages of the study were detailed in the protocol paper [13]. Of 274 women who consented and attended the first visit, 33 were not randomized because they failed to return for the second visit as noted in Figure 1. After randomization, two in each treatment arm declined to initiate the study; after study initiation, 17 in the intervention group and 15 in the control group withdrew for reasons noted in Figure 1.
At study entry, participant characteristics were well balanced by randomized groups with the majority being of European descent, university educated, family income above $75,000 Canadian, and married/common law (Table 1). About 30% were categorized by pBMI as overweight and about 18% as obese (Table 1).
3.2. Gestational Weight Gain (Primary Outcome)
The odds of achieving GWG within the IOM guidelines was 51% higher in the intervention compared to control group by intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, but this was not statistically significant (OR = 1.51; 95% CI: 0.81, 2.80) (Figure 2). This observation was robust across the per protocol analysis (OR = 1.54; 95% CI: 0.79, 3.01) and the complete case analysis (OR = 1.70; 95% CI: 0.88, 3.28) (Figure 2). Gestational weight gain within the IOM guidelines was achieved by 31% (33/105) of women in the intervention group and 22% (25/112) in the control group. Mean GWG per week was similar between allocation groups (ITT: Mean difference (MD) = −0.06, 95% CI: −0.42, 0.31 kg/week) and was robust across analyses (Figure 2). The total GWG (ITT: MD = −1.45; 95% CI: −1.79, 8.88 kg) was lower but not significantly different in the intervention compared to the control group (Figure 2).
Pre-specified sensitivity analysis conducted for the primary outcome of GWG on sub-groups of BMI found no significant interaction effect between the pBMI category and treatment group (Table 2). In the normal BMI category, about 50% of the intervention and 34% of the control group had GWG within the IOM guidelines (Table 2). In the overweight and obese BMI categories, only 3 to 16% of women met GWG recommendations (Table 2). Both GWG per week and total GWG were similar between intervention and control groups within BMI categories (Table 2). However, only the normal weight BMI category had average weekly and total GWG within the IOM recommended range. Mean weekly GWG was up to double that recommended in overweight and obese BMI categories (Table 2). For mean total GWG, the overweight group exceeded the recommended range only in the control group while in the obese BMI category, the GWG was at or exceeded the upper range of the IOM recommendations for both treatment groups (Table 2).
3.3. Pre-Specified Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes
Outcomes of Cesarean section, pre-eclampsia, and gestational diabetes (GDM) were more frequent in the control than intervention group but the differences were not statistically significant (Figure 3). Regression analysis could not be performed on all outcomes due to insufficient events of GDM (<5% participants) and pre-eclampsia (<2% participants) due in part to missing data not recorded on the pregnancy birth record. Impaired fasting glucose (defined as blood glucose > 5.1 mmol/L) was similar between treatment groups (Figure 3) and occurred in about 14% of women in both groups.
No intervention effect was observed for mean difference in birth weight (MD = 138 g; 95% CI: −218, 494 g) or gestational age (MD = 0.26; 95% CI: −1.27, 1.80 week) (Table 3). Most (82–87%) infants had birth weights appropriate for gestational age (10th–90th percentile for weight), <8% were small for gestational age (<10th percentile) and <10% were large for gestational age (>90% percentile) (Table 3). Only five infants were born prematurely, two in the intervention group and three in the standard care group.
3.4. Pre-Specified Maternal Health Outcomes
At baseline measures of adiposity, blood pressure, fasting glucose, blood lipid profiles, and leptin, insulin, and adiponectin were similar between allocation groups (Table 1). At 36–38 weeks gestation blood pressure was similar between groups (Table 4). Hypertension, defined as SBP > 140 mmHg and DBP > 90 mmHg [24], was observed in 2 women in the intervention and 2 women in the control group at late pregnancy. No intervention effect was observed for maternal depression score at the end of pregnancy (Table 4). At late pregnancy, after about 23–25 weeks of intervention, the mean difference for both sum of skinfolds (MD = 1.5 mm; 95% CI: −31.02, 34.11 mm) and % body fat by BIA (MD = 0.25%; 95% CI: −0.65, 1.15%) were similar between groups (Table 4).
Metabolic profiles including blood glucose, HDL, LDL, total cholesterol, triglycerides, leptin, insulin, adiponectin, and CRP were similar between groups at 36–38 weeks gestation by ITT analysis (Table 5). By complete case analysis, the intervention compared to control group had significantly lower LDL (MD = −0.31 mmol/L; 95%CI: −0.57, −0.06) and total cholesterol (MD = −0.41; 95% CI: −0.72, −0.09 mmol/L), and higher CRP (MD = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.42 mg/L) (Table 5).
3.5. Dietary and Physical Activity Measures
At baseline, diet scores based on PrimeScreen FFQ were similar between intervention and control groups (mean ± SD; 18.7 ± 7.6 1 vs. 7.1 ± 8.7 (Figure 4)). In the intervention group, diet scores improved significantly (p < 0.001) over baseline at 26–28 weeks gestation (22.9 ± 6.1) and remained higher at the end of pregnancy (22.5 ± 6.9) (Figure 4) while scores for the control group did not change (18.7 ± 7.7 and 18.7 ± 8.5) (Figure 4). Based on 3-day food records, mean protein intake prior to randomization was similar between groups (Table 6) but rose by design in the intervention group by 28% and was significantly higher than the control group at both 26–28 weeks (MD = 15.0; 95% CI [8.1, 21.9] g/day) and 36–38 weeks (MD = 15.2; 95% CI: 9.4, 21.1 g/day) gestation (Table 7). Total energy intake (~2160 kcal/day) was similar between treatment groups (Table 7) and across pregnancy (Table 6).
Based on accelerometry data, average daily step counts were similar between intervention and control groups throughout pregnancy (Table 6 and Table 7) reducing to ~5550 steps/day at late pregnancy (Table 6). The 10,000 step goal was achieved by only 9.1% of intervention participants at 26–28 weeks gestation and 5.5% of participants at 36–38 weeks gestation. Both groups spent about 50 min per day at baseline in moderate to vigorous physical activity, but this declined to 38 min at the end of pregnancy (data not shown). The total energy expenditure was similar between treatment groups (Table 7) and across pregnancy from 12–17 to 36–38 weeks gestation averaging about 2100 kcal/day (Table 6).
4. Discussion
The BHIP structured and monitored diet with at least biweekly nutrition counselling resulted in improvements in overall diet quality, higher protein intake (106 vs. 88 g/day), and stable energy intake across pregnancy. The positive dietary response was not mirrored in achieving the exercise goal of 10,000 steps which proved challenging. Mean daily step counts remained similar across pregnancy between treatment groups and declined from baseline to 36–38 weeks gestation with fewer than 10% of women achieving the target step count despite continued encouragement and walking sessions accompanied by research staff at the bi-weekly visits for the intervention group. Taken together, the observed changes in nutritional practice in the intervention group were likely the explanation for the observed 51% greater chance of achieving a GWG within the current guidelines of the IOM [1] and a mean lower total GWG of 1.45 kg compared to the control, although the differences were not statistically significant.
Sensitivity analysis provided insights into the variation in outcome responses across BMI categories. The normal weight BMI category had a higher achievement of GWG within recommendations (49.2%) than overweight (10.3%) or obese (5.9%) women. This parallels the finding of a RCT of a behavioral intervention in women (n = 358) from all BMI categories wherein a significant main effect for BMI category for excessive GWG was observed compared with all other weight-gain categories [28].
Cardiometabolic monitoring of blood glucose, blood pressure, and lipid profiles showed similarity between intervention and control group and few abnormalities. Only 14% of women developed impaired fasting glucose, and few (n = 4) developed hypertension. In the complete case analysis, fasted blood LDL, total cholesterol, and CRP were significantly lower in the intervention group but not likely of clinical significance.
For infants, birth outcomes did not differ by treatment group. Birth weights were appropriate for gestational age with only 6–10% in the >90th percentile range and 5–6% in the <10th percentile range.
In interpreting our findings compared to other recent similar clinical trials, we observed that the proportion of women meeting the IOM GWG recommendations in the BHIP study were higher than the prospective meta-analysis of 7 harmonized RCTs called LIFE-Moms in the US in which only 17.6% in the intervention (compared to 33% in BHIP) and 10.8% in the standard care group (compared to 22% in BHIP) attained GWG within the IOM recommendations despite having a significant intervention effect in lower total weight gain [29]. Further, the 1.45 kg total lower GWG in the intervention group was twice that observed (−0.7 kg) for the intervention group reported in the individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of diet and physical activity-based interventions [30] and similar to the LIFE-Moms RCT of −1.58 kg [29]. The observed −1.45 kg lower GWG in our intervention group represents a >10% difference of the expected gain using the IOM recommendation of 11–16 kg for the normal weight BMI category. This could be considered a clinically significant difference.
That the BHIP intervention did not impact maternal pregnancy outcomes is in line with previous meta analyses of RCTs that found a treatment effect on GWG but not for GDM, preeclampsia, or pregnancy-induced hypertension [31] and is also consistent with prenatal lifestyle intervention studies in the United States [32] and Australia [33] and the recent IPD-meta-analysis that showed a significant reduction in Cesarean section with the intervention but not for GDM, hypertensive disorders, or preterm delivery [34]. The low rates of GDM and pre-eclampsia may reflect the general good health of our study groups. The infant birth outcomes in the BHIP study were also consistent with the majority of previous meta-analysis reviews of diet and exercise interventions wherein no significant differences were reported in infant birthweight, macrosomia, or prevalence estimates of SGA and LGA infants [29,32,33,35], as well as a UK study in obese pregnant women in the United Kingdom (n = 1555) [36] and in women of all BMI categories in Brazil (n = 639) [37].
The strategy of a multi-component intervention in pregnancy for GWG management as designed in BHIP aligns with recommendations of a recent evidence review [38]. Further, this study addressed the identified under-reporting of intervention content or “active intervention ingredients” for nutrition and exercise interventions by specific adherence measures [39]. The improved diet quality score and higher protein intake indicated adherence to the structured and individualized dietary guidance with counselling in the intervention group. The frequency of knowledge sharing and individualized guided support from the study nutritionist, including a nutrition handbook, in addition to the provision of self-selected low-fat dairy foods, were likely other motivating factors to improve dietary practices in the intervention group.
Our results on physical activity measures align with a recent multi-component RCT in which a goal of 10,000 steps per day was not attained out to late pregnancy [40]. Current evidence-based Canadian pregnancy guidelines for physical activity during pregnancy recommend at least 150 min of moderate-intensity exercise a week such as brisk walking, accumulated over a minimum of three days, but do not specify a daily step count [41]. Since BHIP participants averaged 50 min/day of moderate to vigorous physical activity at 26–28 weeks gestation and 38 min/day at 36–38 weeks gestation, the recommended goal of 150 weekly minutes of physical activity for health benefits [40] would have been achieved over 3 days in mid and 4 days in late pregnancy. The amount of time spent being physically active by BHIP participants fell within recommendations in a recent evidence review [38]. Maintaining 10,000 daily steps may be an unreasonable goal, particularly in pregnancy; and it has been questioned for use even in the non-pregnant population [42]. Many barriers to achieving exercise recommendations for pregnancy include time limitations [43,44,45], pregnancy-specific complications [44,45], or the misconception that exercise will cause harm to their offspring [46,47].
A major strength of the BHIP randomized trial was that it fulfilled many of the recently recommended attributes of a multi-component approach to influencing GWG [38] and addressed several methodological issues in studies on GWG noted to limit the strength of evidence in a recent National Academy of Medicine discussion paper [3]. Examples include initiation in early pregnancy; supervised physical activity; individualized intervention of energy intake and diet plan with counselling; and GWG monitoring. Further, the two diet assessment tools and accelerometry for quantitative physical activity measures employed rather than questionnaires provided measures of fidelity and adherence to the prescribed goals in the intervention group and comparison between groups. The BHIP study was also conducted in a community setting and included all pBMI categories (except extreme obesity), whereas many previous studies were targeted only to women with pregravid obesity and/or overweight recruited through hospital clinics.
Limitations of the study relate to generalizability of the findings. The recruitment sites were mostly primary care clinics of midwives or family doctors, and eligibility criteria excluded women with limited comprehension of the English, with documented signs of depression or a pre-pregnancy BMI above 40 kg/m2. Our study population was mostly Caucasian, holding a university degree, and a medium to high socio-economic status, thus being representative of populations in the cities where recruitment occurred as they are modern urban centers with universities, colleges, and major commerce. Finally, due to funding constraints, we were not able to achieve the original sample size.
5. Conclusions
While the structured and monitored nutrition and exercise intervention did not result in a statistically significantly greater proportion of women achieving recommended GWG compared to usual prenatal care offered in our community, the observed lower GWG of 1.45 kg in the intervention groups aligns with previous studies and may be clinically significant. Improvements in dietary practices within the intervention group did lead to healthier dietary practice scores and a higher protein intake as recently recommended [48]. The elements of the BHIP approach to improving nutrition may inform future studies of nutrition in pregnancy; and the targets for nutrient intake such as energy for normal weight, overweight, and obese women may need to be different [3]. While the exercise goal was not attained, the average step counts and intensity observed were similar to other studies [40], were within current guidelines [37], and were not associated with high blood pressure. Perhaps the attained step counts reveal the limitations of capacity to exercise in busy women during pregnancy and serve as realistic goals. Taken together, our results can inform future guidance for feasible guidance on nutrition and physical activity in pregnancy. As shown in the BHIP and other studies cited, achieving the current IOM recommendations for GWG [1] (now over 12 years old) is not easily attainable for many pregnant women. Our study demonstrated that a higher than recommended GWG was not associated with a preponderance of adverse pregnancy or birth outcomes suggesting it might be timely to re-visit the recommendations for ideal gestational weight gain.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.A.A., S.M.P., E.K.H., M.F.M. and L.T.; data curation, S.A.A.; formal analysis, S.A.A., K.D., T.V. and L.T.; funding acquisition, S.A.A., M.F.M., E.K.H., F.X. and L.T.; investigation, S.A.A. and M.F.M.; methodology, S.A.A., L.T. and F.X.; project administration, S.A.A.; supervision, S.A.A. and M.F.M.; writing—original draft, S.A.A.; writing—review and editing, S.A.A., A.M., M.P., K.D., F.X., S.M.P., E.K.H., M.F.M. and O.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This study was supported by competitive grants from CIHR (FRN 123347) and Dairy Research Cluster Initiative (Dairy Farmers of Canada and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC)), and in-kind provision of milk, yogurt, and cottage cheese by GayLea Foods Coop & Ultima Foods, Canada. M.P. was supported by a doctoral Vanier CIHR Canada Graduate Scholarship and a Career Enhancement Program scholarship by the Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection or analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Research Ethics Boards of Hamilton Health Sciences/McMaster University, Hamilton (REB Project#12-46, 2012), Western University, London (HSREB 103272, 2013), and Joseph Brant Hospital, Burlington (JBH 000-018-14, 2013) in Ontario, Canada.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and analyzed for this manuscript can be made available in the future from the corresponding author on reasonable request (Stephanie Atkinson at [email protected]).
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to our healthcare partners in the community who assisted in recruitment, to our research staff and students who assisted with carrying out the protocol, and to all of the participants who enthusiastically volunteered for the study.
Conflicts of Interest
S.A.A., M.P., A.M., E.K.H., M.F.M., O.W., F.X. and K.D. declare that they have no conflict of interest. S.M.P. reports grants from US National Dairy Council, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from US National Dairy Council, personal fees from US Dairy Export Council, non-financial support from Enhanced Recovery, outside the submitted work. In addition, Phillips has a patent Canadian 3052324 issued to Exerkine, and a patent US 20200230197 pending to Exerkine but reports no financial gains.
References
- Institute of Medicine. IOM—Weight Gain during Pregnancy; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; Available online: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12584 (accessed on 12 June 2021).
- Murray-Davis, B.; Berger, H.; Melamed, N.; Hasan, H.; Mawjee, K.; Syed, M.; Ray, J.G.; Geary, M.; Barrett, J.; McDonald, S.D. Weight gain during pregnancy: Does the antenatal care provider make a difference? A retrospective cohort study. CMAJ Open 2019, 7, E283–E293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Siega-Riz, A.M.; Bodnar, L.M.; Stotland, N.E.; Stang, J. The Current Understanding of Gestational Weight Gain among Women with Obesity and the Need for Future Research. NAM Perspect. 2020, 2020, E283–E293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dzakpasu, S.; Fahey, J.; Kirby, R.S.; Tough, S.C.; Chalmers, B.; Heaman, M.I.; Bartholomew, S.; Biringer, A.; Darling, E.K.; Lee, L.S.; et al. Contribution of prepregnancy body mass index and gestational weight gain to caesarean birth in Canada. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014, 14, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Durst, J.K.; Sutton, A.L.M.; Cliver, S.P.; Tita, A.T.; Biggio, J.R. Impact of Gestational Weight Gain on Perinatal Outcomes in Obese Women. Am. J. Perinatol. 2016, 33, 849–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, Y.; Shen, S.; Sun, L.; Yang, H.; Jin, B.; Cao, X. Metabolic Syndrome Risk after Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e87863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bellamy, L.; Casas, J.-P.; Hingorani, A.D.; Williams, D. Type 2 diabetes mellitus after gestational diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2009, 373, 1773–1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garovic, V.D.; August, P. Preeclampsia and the future risk of hypertension: The pregnant evidence. Curr. Hypertens. Rep. 2013, 15, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Siega-Riz, A.M.; Viswanathan, M.; Moos, M.-K.; Deierlein, A.; Mumford, S.; Knaack, J.; Thieda, P.; Lux, L.J.; Lohr, K.N. A systematic review of outcomes of maternal weight gain according to the Institute of Medicine recommendations: Birthweight, fetal growth, and postpartum weight retention. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009, 201, 339.e1–339.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eriksson, J.G.; Sandboge, S.; Salonen, M.K.; Kajantie, E.; Osmond, C. Long-term consequences of maternal overweight in pregnancy on offspring later health: Findings from the Helsinki Birth Cohort Study. Ann. Med. 2014, 46, 434–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldstein, R.F.; Abell, S.K.; Ranasinha, S.; Misso, M.; Black, M.H.; Li, N.; Hu, G.; Corrado, F.; Rode, L.; Kim, Y.J.; et al. Association of Gestational Weight Gain with Maternal and Infant Outcomes. JAMA 2017, 317, 2207–2225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldstein, R.F.; Abell, S.K.; Ransinha, S.; Misso, M.L.; Boyule, J.A.; Harrison, C.L.; Black, M.H.; Li, N.; Hu, G.; Corrado, F.; et al. Gestational weight gain across continents and ethnicity: Systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal and infant outcomes in more than one million women. BMC Med. 2018, 16, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Perreault, M.; Atkinson, S.A.; Mottola, M.F.; Phillips, S.M.; Bracken, K.; Hutton, E.K.; Xie, F.; Meyre, D.; Morassut, R.E.; Prapavessis, H.; et al. Structured diet and exercise guidance in pregnancy to improve health in women and their offspring: Study protocol for the Be Healthy in Pregnancy (BHIP) randomized controlled trial. Trials 2018, 19, 691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gardner, B.; Wardle, J.; Poston, L.; Croker, H. Changing diet and physical activity to reduce gestational weight gain: A meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2011, 12, e602-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ronnberg, A.; Nilsson, K. Interventions during pregnancy to reduce excessive gestational weight gain: A systematic review assessing current clinical evidence using the Grading of Recommendations. Assessment. Developmenmt and Evaluation (GRADE) system. BJOG 2010, 117, 1327–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Streuling, I.; Beyerlein, A.; Rosenfeld, E.; Hofmann, H.; Schulz, T.; von Kries, R. Physical activity and gestational weight gain: A meta-analysis of intervention trials. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2011, 118, 278–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Be Healthy in Pregnancy (BHIP) with Nutrition and Exercise. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01689961 (accessed on 5 January 2022).
- Health Canada. Prenatal Nutrition Guidelines for Health Professionals: Gestational Weight Gain—Canada.ca. 2010. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-food-guide/resources/prenatal-nutrition/eating-well-being-active-towards-healthy-weight-gain-pregnancy-2010.html (accessed on 12 June 2021).
- Health Canada. Pregnancy Weight Gain Calculator—Nutrition and Healthy Eating—Health Canada. 2011. Available online: https://health.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/healthy-eating/prenatal-nutrition/pregnancy-weight-gain-calculator.html (accessed on 12 June 2021).
- Health Canada. Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide. 2007. Available online: https://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/food-guide-aliment/print_eatwell_bienmang-eng.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2021).
- Josse, A.R.; Atkinson, S.A.; Tarnopolsky, M.A.; Phillips, S.M. Increased consumption of dairy foods and protein during diet and exercise-induced weight loss promotes fat mass loss and lean mass gain in overweight and obese premenopausal women. J. Nutr. 2011, 141, 1626–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davies, G.A.L.; Wolfe, L.A.; Mottola, M.F.; MacKinnon, C. Joint SOGC/CSEP clinical practice guideline: Exercise in pregnancy and the postpartum period. Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 2003, 28, 330–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walji, R.; Wahoush, O.; Atkinson, S.A. Feasibility and Acceptance of a Novel Nutrition and Exercise Intervention to Manage Excess Gestational Weight Gain: Focus group study in Ontario, Canada. Prim. Health Care 2013, 3, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fibre, Fat, Fatty Acid, Cholesterol, Protein and Amino Acids (Macronutrients); National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Cox, J.L.; Holdenand, J.M.; Sagovsky, R. Detection of Postnatal Depression Development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br. J. Psychiatry 1987, 150, 782–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rifas-Shiman, S.L.; Willett, W.C.; Lobb, R.; Kotch, J.; Dart, C.; Gillman, M.W. PrimeScreen, a brief dietary screening tool: Reproducibility and comparability with both a longer food frequency questionnaire and biomarkers. Public Health Nutr. 2001, 4, 249–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- World Health Organization. WHO Child Growth Standards. Dev. Med. Child. Neurol. 2009, 51, 1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecology of Canada. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada—Gestational hypertension—Pregnancy Info. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Available online: https://www.pregnancyinfo.ca/your-pregnancy/special-consideration/diabetes-and-hypertension/ (accessed on 12 June 2021).
- Peaceman, A.M.; Clifton, R.G.; Phelan, S.; Gallagher, D.; Evans, M.; Redman, L.M.; Knowler, W.C.; Joshipura, K.; Haire-Joshu, D.; Yanovski, S.Z.; et al. Lifestyle Interventions Limit Gestational Weight Gain in Women with Overweight or Obesity: LIFE-Moms Prospective Meta-Analysis. Obesity 2018, 26, 1396–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frangakis, C.E.; Rubin, D.B. Addressing complications of intention-to-treat analysis in the combined presence of all-or-none treatment-noncompliance and subsequent missing outcomes. Biometrika 1999, 86, 365–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruifrok, A.E.; Van Poppel, M.N.M.; Van Wely, M.; Rogozińska, E.; Khan, K.S.; De Groot, C.J.M.; Thangaratinam, S.; Mol, B.W. Association between Weight Gain during Pregnancy and Pregnancy Outcomes after Dietary and Lifestyle Interventions: A Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Perinatol. 2014, 31, 353–364. [Google Scholar]
- Phelan, S.; Phipps, M.G.; Abrams, B.; Darroch, F.; Scaffner, A.; Wing, R.R. Randomized trial of a behavioral intervention to prevent excessive wieght gain: The Fit for Delievery Study. Am. J. Clin. Nurt. 2011, 93, 772–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dodd, J.M.; Deussen, A.R.; Louise, J. A Randomised Trial to Optimise Gestational Weight Gain and Improve Maternal and Infant Health Outcomes through Antenatal Dietary, Lifestyle and Exercise Advice: The OPTIMISE Randomised Trial. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- International Weight Management in Pregnancy (i-WIP) Collaborative Group. Effect of diet and physical activity-based interventions in pregnancy on gestational weight gain and pregnancy outcomes: Meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials. BMJ 2017, 358, j3119. [Google Scholar]
- Peacock, L.; Seed, P.T.; Dalrymple, K.V.; White, S.L.; Poston, L.; Flynn, A.C. The UK Pregnancies Better Eating and Activity Trial (UPBEAT); Pregnancy Outcomes and Health Behaviours by Obesity Class. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poston, L.; Bell, R.; Croker, H.; Flynn, A.C.; Godfrey, K.M.; Goff, L.; Hayes, L.; Khazaezadeh, N.; Nelson, S.M.; Oteng-Ntim, E.; et al. Effect of a behavioural intervention in obese pregnant women (the UPBEAT study): A multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015, 3, 767–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- da Silva, S.G.; Hallal, P.C.; Domingues, M.R.; Bertoldi, A.D.; da Silveira, M.F.; Bassani, D.; da Silva, I. A randomized controlled trial of exercise during pregnancy on maternal and neonatal outcomes: Results from the PAMELA study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Farpour-Lambert, N.J.; Ells, L.J.; Martinez de Tejada, B.; Scott, C. Obesity and Weight Gain in Pregnancy and Postpartum: An Evidence Review of Lifestyle Interventions to Inform Maternal and Child Health Policies. Front. Endocrinol. 2018, 9, 546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Oteng-Ntim, E.; Varma, R.; Croker, H.; Poston, L.; Doyle, P. Lifestyle interventions for overweight and obese pregnant women to improve pregnancy outcome: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2012, 10, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Buckingham-Schutt, L.M.; Ellingson, L.D.; Vazou, S.; Campbell, C.G. The Behavioral Wellness in Pregnancy study: A randomized controlled trial of a multi-component intervention to promote appropriate weight gain. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 109, 1071–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mottola, M.F.; Davenport, M.H.; Ruchat, S.; Davies, G.; Poitras, V.; Gray, C.; Jaramillo, A.; Barrowman, N.; Adamo, K.B.; Duggan, M.; et al. 2019 Canadian Guideline for Physical Activity throughout Pregnancy. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2018, 40, 1468–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, I.M.; Shiroma, E.J.; Kamada, M.; Bassett, D.R.; Matthews, C.E.; Buring, J.E. Association of Step Volume and Intensity with All-Cause Mortality in Older Women. In: JAMA Internal Medicine. JAMA Intern. Med. 2019, 179, 1105–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McKinley, M.C.; Allen-Walker, V.; McGirr, C.; Rooney, C.; Woodside, J.V. Weight loss after pregnancy: Challenges and opportunities. Nutr. Res Rev. 2018, 31, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Murray-Davis, B.; Grenier, L.; Atkinson, S.A.; Mottola, M.F.; Wahoush, O.; Thabane, L.; Xie, F.; Vickers-Manzin, J.; Moore, C.; Hutton, E.K. Experiences regarding nutrition and exercise among women during early postpartum: A qualitative grounded theory study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019, 19, 368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Connelly, M.; Brown, H.; Van Der Pligt, P.; Teychenne, M. Modifiable barriers to leisure-time physical activity during pregnancy: A qualitative study investigating first time mother’s views and experiences. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015, 15, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Coll, C.V.N.; Domingues, M.R.; Gonçalves, H.; Bertoldi, A.D. Perceived barriers to leisure-time physical activity during pregnancy: A literature review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2017, 20, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davenport, M.H.; Ruchat, S.M.; Sobierajski, F.; Poitras, V.J.; Gray, C.E.; Yoo, C.; Skow, R.J.; Jaramillo Garcia, A.; Barrowman, N.; Meah, V.L.; et al. The impact of prenatal exercise on maternal harms, labour and delivery outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019, 53, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elango, R.; Ball, R.O. Protein and amino acid requirements during pregnancy. Adv. Nutr. 2016, 7, 839S–844S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1.
CONSORT diagram for recruitment, randomization, and follow-up of participants.
Figure 2.
Forest plots of intervention effect on primary outcomes related to gestational weight (GWG) by intention-to-treat, per protocol and complete case analysis adjusted for study site and maternal pre-pregnancy BMI category.
Figure 2.
Forest plots of intervention effect on primary outcomes related to gestational weight (GWG) by intention-to-treat, per protocol and complete case analysis adjusted for study site and maternal pre-pregnancy BMI category.
Figure 3.
Forest plots of intervention effect for binary pre-specified pregnancy outcomes by intention-to-treat, per protocol, and complete case analysis adjusted for study site and maternal pre-pregnancy BMI category. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval All analyses adjusted for site (Hamilton, London) and pre-pregnancy BMI (preBMI) categories: underweight to normal weight (≤24.9), overweight (25.0–29.9), obese (≥30). Due to a very low number of events, adjusted regression analyses could not be performed on operative vaginal delivery.
Figure 3.
Forest plots of intervention effect for binary pre-specified pregnancy outcomes by intention-to-treat, per protocol, and complete case analysis adjusted for study site and maternal pre-pregnancy BMI category. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval All analyses adjusted for site (Hamilton, London) and pre-pregnancy BMI (preBMI) categories: underweight to normal weight (≤24.9), overweight (25.0–29.9), obese (≥30). Due to a very low number of events, adjusted regression analyses could not be performed on operative vaginal delivery.
Figure 4.
Participant PrimeScreen healthy dietary practice scores in Intervention (n = 69) and Control (n = 67) groups.
Figure 4.
Participant PrimeScreen healthy dietary practice scores in Intervention (n = 69) and Control (n = 67) groups.
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of participants at 12–17 week gestation. Values are raw data.
| Demographic Characteristic | Intervention (n = 119) | Control (n = 122) |
|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) 1 | Mean (SD) | |
| Maternal age (year) | 31.6 (3.9) | 31.3 (4.3) |
| Gestational age at randomization (week) | 13.75 (1.75) | 13.60 (1.61) |
| Maternal weight, kg | 72.4 (13.4) | 71.8 (13.1) |
| Pre-pregnancy BMI 2 (kg/m2) | 25.7 (4.5) | 25.3 (4.6) |
| n (%) | n (%) | |
| Pre-pregnancy BMI (kg/m2) category | ||
| Underweight (<18.5) | 2 (1.7) | 2 (1.6) |
| Normal weight (18.5–24.9) | 61 (51.3) | 62 (50.8) |
| Overweight (25.0–29.9) | 34 (28.6) | 37 (30.3) |
| Obese (30.0–39.9) | 22 (18.5) | 21 (17.2) |
| University education | 114 (99.1) | 114 (95.8) |
| Missing | 4 | 3 |
| Race/ethnicity | ||
| European descent | 105 (88.2) | 107 (87.7) |
| Mixed/other | 14 (11.8) | 13 (10.7) |
| Missing | 0 | 2 |
| Total family income | ||
| <$45,000 | 7 (5.9) | 10 (8.9) |
| $45,000–$74,999 | 19 (16.2) | 25 (22.1) |
| >$75,000 | 91 (77.8) | 78 (69.0) |
| Missing (=Unknown) | 2 | 9 |
| Married/living with significant other | 117 (98.3) | 114 (96.6) |
| Missing | 0 | 4 |
| Nulliparous | 58 (49.15) | 56 (47.46) |
| Missing | 1 | 4 |
| Study site (city) | ||
| Western U (London) | 38 (31.9) | 39 (32.0) |
| McMaster U (Hamilton/Burlington) | 81 (68.1) | 83 (68.0) |
| Physical and Metabolic Measures | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) |
| Maternal fat mass | ||
| Bioelectrical impedence (BIA), % body fat | 33.98 (6.55) | 34.11 (7.14) |
| Missing | 8 | 3 |
| Sum of skinfolds (SFT) (mm) | 72.28 (23.32) | 72.07 (26.15) |
| Missing | 3 | 4 |
| Maternal blood pressure (mmHg) | ||
| Systolic | 109.20 (10.43) | 108.95 (10.49) |
| Missing | 2 | 3 |
| Diastolic | 68.96 (7.54) | 69.24 (7.69) |
| Missing | 2 | 3 |
| Maternal physical activity | ||
| Energy expenditure (kcal/day) | 2085 (312) | 2084 (356) |
| Missing | 11 | 11 |
| Average daily step count | 7043 (2655) | 6587 (2545) |
| Missing | 11 | 11 |
| Maternal depression score | 4.34 (3.13) | 4.24 (2.79) |
| Missing | 1 | 1 |
| Maternal metabolic outcomes | ||
| Fasting glucose (mmol/L) | 4.84 (0.60) | 4.77 (0.47) |
| Missing | 13 | 10 |
| Triglycerides (mmol/L) | 1.29 (0.60) | 1.28 (0.42) |
| Missing | 13 | 10 |
| Total cholesterol (mmol/L) | 5.42 (1.18) | 5.24 (0.97) |
| Missing | 13 | 10 |
| HDL-cholesterol (mmol/L) | 1.86 (0.44) | 1.81 (0.39) |
| Missing | 13 | 10 |
| LDL-cholesterol (mmol/L) | 2.97 (0.81) | 2.85 (0.71) |
| Missing | 14 | 10 |
| Leptin (ng/mL) | 31.76 (25.31) | 30.14 (25.54) |
| Missing | 9 | 7 |
| Insulin (pmol/L) | 42.43 (34.81) | 40.88 (29.55) |
| Missing | 10 | 8 |
| Adiponectin (µg/mL) | 8.19 (3.17) | 8.45 (4.10) |
| Missing | 9 | 7 |
| CRP (mg/L) | 6.29 (4.86) | 6.21 (5.65) |
| Missing | 9 | 8 |
1 SD = Standard Deviation; 2 BMI = Body Mass Index.
Table 2.
Gestational weight gain (GWG) outcomes in intervention compared to control group across pre-pregnancy body mass index (pBMI) categories (intention-to-treat sensitivity analysis).
Table 2.
Gestational weight gain (GWG) outcomes in intervention compared to control group across pre-pregnancy body mass index (pBMI) categories (intention-to-treat sensitivity analysis).
| Intervention (n = 119) 1 % Participants | Control (n = 122) 1 % Participants | Intervention Effect | Interaction p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR 2 (95% CI) 3 | Mean Difference (95% CI) 3 | ||||
| Within IOM guidelines for GWG/week | |||||
| Normal Weight 4 | 49.2% | 34.4% | 1.92 (0.93, 4.00) | . | |
| Overweight 4 | 10.3% | 3.1% | 1.38 (0.23, 8.27) | 0.739 | |
| Obese 4 | 5.9% | 15.8% | 0.26 (0.02, 2.74) | 0.110 | |
| GWG per week (kg/week) 5 | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | |||
| Normal Weight 4 IOM recommendation (0.42 kg/week) | n = 58 0.48 (0.15) | n = 61 0.49 (0.16) | −0.03 (−0.08, 0.02) | . | |
| Overweight 4 IOM recommendation (0.28 kg/week) | n = 30 0.48 (0.13) | n = 32 0.53 (0.15) | −0.01 (−0.07, 0.07) | 0.962 | |
| Obese 4 IOM recommendation (0.22 kg/week) | n = 17 0.45 (0.16) | n = 19 0.38 (0.22) | −0.22 (−2.25, 1.81) | 0.813 | |
| Total GWG (kg) | |||||
| Normal Weight 4 IOM recommendation (11.5–16.0 kg) | n = 58 11.02 (3.40) | n = 61 11.43 (3.67) | −0.69 (−1.94, 0.55) | . | |
| Overweight 4 IOM recommendation (7.0–11.5 kg) | n = 30 11.30 (3.11) | n = 32 12.22 (3.69) | −0.33 (−2.02, 1.36) | 0.764 | |
| Obese 4 IOM recommendation (5.0–9.0 kg) | n = 17 10.02 (3.67) | n = 19 8.92 (5.34) | −0.40 (−3.60, 4.41) | 0.539 | |
1 14 values missing from intervention; 10 missing from control. 2 OR = odds ratio. 3 CI = confidence interval. 4 Underweight to normal weight (≤24.9), overweight (25.0–29.9), obese (≥30.0–39.9). Underweight and normal weight were grouped together due to a low number of observations in the underweight category (n = 4). 5 Calculated over the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. All analyses adjusted for study site (Hamilton, London) but not PBMI as the analysis was for prevention effect across pBMI categories.
Table 3.
Pre-specified infant birth outcomes at birth in intervention compared to control groups by intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Values for intervention and control are mean (SD) of raw data with missing values noted.
Table 3.
Pre-specified infant birth outcomes at birth in intervention compared to control groups by intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Values for intervention and control are mean (SD) of raw data with missing values noted.
| Intervention n = 119 | Control n = 122 | Intervention Effect by ITT Mean Difference (95%CI) 1 | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Birth weight (g) | 3553 (508) | 3476 (456) | 138.10 (−217.72, 493.93) | 0.432 |
| Missing | 12 | 11 | ||
| Gestational age (weeks) | 39.76 (1.30) | 39.72 (1.29) | 0.26 (−1.27, 1.80) | 0.718 |
| Missing | 13 | 10 | ||
| Birth weight category, n (%) 2 | ||||
| Small for gestational age < 10% | 8 (7.55) | 7 (6.31) | 2 | |
| Appropriate for gestational age 10–90% | 87 (82.08) | 97 (87.39) | ||
| Large for gestational age > 90% | 11 (10.38) | 7 (6.31) | ||
| Missing | 13 | 11 | ||
| Birth trauma, n (%) | 3 (2.91) | 0 | 2 | |
| Missing | 16 | 16 | ||
| 5-min Apgar score | 8.92 (0.05) | 8.93 (0.40) | 2 | |
| Missing | 17 | 16 |
1 OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. 2 Due to a low number of events, adjusted regression analyses could not be performed on the categorical outcomes of SGA/AGA/LGA, birth trauma, and 5-min Apgar score. All analyses adjusted for site (Hamilton/Burlington, London) and pre-pregnancy BMI categories: underweight to normal weight (BMI ≤ 24.9), overweight (BMI = 25.0 – 29.9), obese (BMI = 30.0 – 39.9).
Table 4.
Pre-specified maternal health outcomes at 36–38 weeks gestation in intervention compared to control groups. Values are mean (SD) unless otherwise noted.
Table 4.
Pre-specified maternal health outcomes at 36–38 weeks gestation in intervention compared to control groups. Values are mean (SD) unless otherwise noted.
| Outcome | Intervention (n = 119) n (%) | Control (n = 122) n (%) | Intervention Effect | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complete Case Analysis | ITT Analysis | |||||
| Mean Difference (95% CI) 1 | p | Mean Difference (95% CI) | p | |||
| Maternal Fat Mass | ||||||
| % body fat by BIA | 38.1 (6.1) | 37.7 (5.9) | 0.09 (−0.76, 0.95) | 0.829 | 0.25 (−0.65, 1.15) | 0.582 |
| Missing | 24 | 26 | 55 | − | ||
| Sum of Skinfolds (mm) | 77.1 (22.9) | 75.8 (24.3) | −1.07 (4.86, 2.72) | 0.579 | 1.55 (−31.01, 34.11) | 0.919 |
| Missing | 22 | 26 | 49 | − | ||
| Maternal Blood Pressure (mmHg) | ||||||
| Systolic | 113 (12) | 113 (11) | −0.40 (−3.28, 2.48) | 0.784 | −2.43 (−11.78, 6.91) | 0.593 |
| Missing | 22 | 26 | 49 | − | ||
| Diastolic | 73 (9) | 74 (9) | −1.17 (−3.38, 1.05) | 0.300 | −2.64 (−8.55, 3.26) | 0.371 |
| Missing | 22 | 26 | 49 | |||
| Maternal depression score, median | 3.0 (1,5) | 3.0 (1,6) | −0.06 (−0.30, 0.18) 2 | 0.609 | −0.10 (−0.32, 0.13) 2 | 0.400 |
| Missing | 23 | 25 | 50 | − | ||
1 CI = confidence interval. 2 Regression analysis based on square root transformation of outcome. All analyses adjusted for site (Hamilton/Burlington, London) and pre-pregnancy BMI categories: underweight to normal weight (BMI ≤ 24.9), overweight (BMI = 25.0–29.9), obese (BMI ≥ 30.0–39.9).
Table 5.
Pre-specified maternal metabolic profiles at 36–38 weeks gestation for intervention and control groups based on fasting blood samples.
Table 5.
Pre-specified maternal metabolic profiles at 36–38 weeks gestation for intervention and control groups based on fasting blood samples.
| Group Mean (SD) Median (Q1, Q3) 1 | Intervention Effect | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complete Case Analysis | ITT Analysis | |||||
| Metabolite | Intervention n = 119 | Control n = 122 | Mean Difference (95% CI) | p | Mean Difference (95% CI) | p |
| Glucose, mmol/L | 4.6 (0.5) | 4.6 (0.5) | −0.04 (−0.17, 0.08) | 0.481 | −0.02 (−0.16, 0.12) | 0.787 |
| Missing | 31 | 26 | 61 | |||
| HDL, mmol/L | 1.88 (0.44) | 1.87 (0.46) | −0.03 (−0.12, 0.07) | 0.601 | −0.02 (−0.12, 0.09) | 0.759 |
| Missing | 30 | 28 | 62 | |||
| LDL, mmol/L | 4.00 (1.11) | 4.17 (1.09) | −0.31 (−0.57, −0.06) | 0.015 | −0.24 (−0.50, 0.02) | 0.073 |
| Missing | 31 | 30 | 66 | |||
| Triglycerides, mmol/L | 2.53 (0.80) | 2.66 (0.79) | −0.18 (−0.36, 0.01) | 0.062 | −0.16 (−0.38, 0.07) | 0.172 |
| Missing | 30 | 28 | 62 | |||
| Total cholesterol, mmol/L | 7.03 (1.38) | 7.26 (1.33) | −0.41 (−0.72, −0.09) | 0.012 | −0.29 (−0.62, 0.05) | 0.096 |
| Missing | 30 | 28 | 62 | |||
| Insulin, pmol/L | 52.08 (34.06, 82.36) | 47.95 (32.16, 74.31) | <0.01 (−0.15, 0.15) 2 | 0.999 | −0.04 (−0.21, 0.13) 2 | 0.633 |
| Missing | 27 | 25 | 56 | |||
| Leptin, ng/mL | 29.83 (15.97, 49.35) | 30.32 (15.47, 54.63) | −1.37 (−6.67, 3.92) | 0.609 | −0.94 (−8.56, 6.68) 2 | 0.805 |
| Missing | 26 | 25 | 54 | |||
| Adiponectin, ug/mL | 6.97 (2.62) | 7.32 (3.21) | 0.02 (−0.55, 0.58) | 0.956 | −0.05 (−0.97, 0.87) | 0.915 |
| Missing | 26 | 25 | 54 | |||
| CRP, mg/L | 4.29 (2.39, 7.37) | 4.53 (1.92, 7.36) | 0.21 (<0.01, 0.42) 2 | 0.046 | −0.11 (−0.33, 0.55) 2 | 0.600 |
| Missing | 26 | 25 | 55 | |||
1 Descriptive statistics for continuous outcome I are presented using medians and quartiles (Q1 and Q3). 2 Regression analysis based on natural log (ln) transformation of outcome. All analyses adjusted for site (Hamilton, London) and pre-pregnancy BMI categories: underweight to normal weight (BMI ≤ 24.9), overweight (BMI = 25.0–29.9), obese (BMI = 30.9). Underweight and normal weight were grouped together due to a low number of observations in the underweight category (n = 4).
Table 6.
Macronutrient intake and physical activity measures at 3 timepoints across pregnancy.
| Gestation | 12–17 Weeks | 26–28 Weeks | 36–38 Weeks | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | Intervention | Control | Intervention | Control | Intervention | Control |
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||||
| n = 115 | n = 117 | n = 84 | n = 91 | n = 91 | n = 89 | |
| Diet/Physical Activity Measure | ||||||
| 3-day Food Record Data | ||||||
| Energy intake; kcal/day | 2148 1 (491) | 2149 (539) | 2195 (423) | 2129 (499) | 2203 (545) | 2152 (496) |
| Protein intake; g/day | 84.6 (22.5) | 87.5 (23.8) | 108.6 (26.8) | 87.9 (23.2) | 104.4 (25.4) | 87.4 (23.2) |
| Body Media Data | ||||||
| Energy Expenditure; kcal/day | 2085 (312) | 2084 (357) | 2152 (338) | 2127 (387) | 2185 (375) | 2157 (325) |
| Daily step count | 7043 (2655) | 6588 (2545) | 6938 (2717) | 6337 (2647) | 5538 (2490) | 5563 (2208) |
1 Values are mean (SD) based on raw data of available dietary records. SD = Standard deviation.
Table 7.
Intervention effect on dietary and physical activity measures at 26–28 weeks and 36–38 weeks of gestation.
Table 7.
Intervention effect on dietary and physical activity measures at 26–28 weeks and 36–38 weeks of gestation.
| Outcome Measure 1 | Intervention Effect As at 26–28 Week Gestation | Intervention Effect at 36–38 Week Gestation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complete Case Analysis | ITT Analysis | Complete Case Analysis | ITT Analysis | |||||
| Mean Difference (95%CI) | p | Mean Difference (95%CI) | p | Mean Difference (95% CI) 1 | p | Mean Difference (95% CI) | p | |
| Energy Intake, kcal/day | 60 (−59, 180) | 0.320 | 28 (−984, 154) | 0.662 | 56 (−83, 195) | 0.429 | 32 (−136, 200) | 0.700 |
| Missing | 66 | 61 | ||||||
| Protein Intake, g/day | 21.3 (14.4, 28.1) | <0.001 | 15.0 (8.1, 21.9) | <0.001 | 19.2 (12.8, 25.5) | <0.001 | 15.2 (9.4, 21.1) | <0.001 |
| Missing | 66 | 61 | ||||||
| Energy Expenditure, kcal/day 2 | 0.02 (−0.02, 0.06) | 0.337 | <0.01 (−0.02, 0.02) | 0.904 | <0.01 (−0.04, 0.04) | 0.922 | <0.01 (−0.02, 0.02) | 0.971 |
| Missing | 67 | 94 | ||||||
| Step count/day | 225 (−45, 1901) | 0.512 | 69 (−554, 692) | 0.827 | −415 (−1056, 226) | 0.203 | −315 (−900, 271) | 0.286 |
| Missing | 67 | 91 | ||||||
1 Values based on 3-day food records and accelerometry measures adjusted for baseline (V1b) and design variables (pre-pregnancy body mass index and site). 2 Regression analysis was based on the log transformation of the outcome.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Atkinson, S.A.; Maran, A.; Dempsey, K.; Perreault, M.; Vanniyasingam, T.; Phillips, S.M.; Hutton, E.K.; Mottola, M.F.; Wahoush, O.; Xie, F.; et al. Be Healthy in Pregnancy (BHIP): A Randomized Controlled Trial of Nutrition and Exercise Intervention from Early Pregnancy to Achieve Recommended Gestational Weight Gain. Nutrients 2022, 14, 810. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14040810
AMA Style
Atkinson SA, Maran A, Dempsey K, Perreault M, Vanniyasingam T, Phillips SM, Hutton EK, Mottola MF, Wahoush O, Xie F, et al. Be Healthy in Pregnancy (BHIP): A Randomized Controlled Trial of Nutrition and Exercise Intervention from Early Pregnancy to Achieve Recommended Gestational Weight Gain. Nutrients. 2022; 14(4):810. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14040810
Chicago/Turabian StyleAtkinson, Stephanie A., Atherai Maran, Kendra Dempsey, Maude Perreault, Thuva Vanniyasingam, Stuart M. Phillips, Eileen K. Hutton, Michelle F. Mottola, Olive Wahoush, Feng Xie, and et al. 2022. "Be Healthy in Pregnancy (BHIP): A Randomized Controlled Trial of Nutrition and Exercise Intervention from Early Pregnancy to Achieve Recommended Gestational Weight Gain" Nutrients 14, no. 4: 810. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14040810
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
