Advances in Preventive Medicine

Advances in Preventive Medicine / 2019 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 |Article ID 9648926 |

Dhatri Kotekal, Melanie Worley, Hemal Patel, Laura Jensen, Godwin Y. Dogbey, David Drozek, "Effect of Participation with Accompanying Household Member in the Complete Health Improvement Program in Appalachia", Advances in Preventive Medicine, vol. 2019, Article ID 9648926, 5 pages, 2019.

Effect of Participation with Accompanying Household Member in the Complete Health Improvement Program in Appalachia

Academic Editor: William C. Cho
Received12 Nov 2018
Revised02 Jan 2019
Accepted10 Jan 2019
Published29 Jan 2019


Intensive therapeutic lifestyle modification programs, such as the Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP), reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. However, there are little data on how participation in CHIP with a household member can affect CVD biomarkers. This study focuses on the benefit of joint participation of household members in CHIP in order to have a better outcome in improving CVD risk factors compared with lone or individual participation. Data from 20 CHIP classes offered from 2011 to 2015 in Athens, Ohio, where each class was conducted over 2-4 months, consisting of 16-18 sessions, were collected. Body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, fasting glucose, and lipid profiles were measured before and near the completion of each class. A statistically significant greater reduction in BMI (p = 0.003) in those who attended with a household member compared to those who attended as individuals was found. CHIP has some effect on various CVD risk factors for those who attend intensive therapeutic lifestyle modification programs with an accompanying household member. Hence, encouragement of participation with a family member or a “buddy” may be prudent, especially if weight reduction is a key program participation goal. Further evaluation of the “buddy effect” involving both of those residing in the same household and those who do not but nevertheless provide mutual support is warranted.

1. Introduction

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States [1]. Risk factors for CVD include dyslipidemia, hypertension, smoking, elevated body mass index (BMI), and diabetes [24]. Intensive therapeutic lifestyle modification programs (ITLMP) have been effective in improving CVD biomarkers and risk factors [57]. One well-studied ITLMP is the Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP), which has demonstrated short-term effectiveness in improving many CVD risk factors [8, 9].

The Appalachian region of the United States has consistently been associated with high morbidity and mortality resulting from chronic diseases such as CVD and diabetes, lack of access to health care, and higher rates of uninsured people [10]. Prior studies have demonstrated that CHIP was effective in reducing CVD risk factors in an Appalachian population [11, 12]. In spite of the growing literature on ITLMP and CVD risk factors, there is a paucity of studies evaluating the effect of participation with an accompanying household member.

Household members may express similarities in lipid profiles due to genetic factors and similar living environments [13]. Furthermore, the resemblance in the physical health profile characteristics in systolic blood pressure and BMI of a family predisposes the development of similar CVD risk factor patterns [14]. Family can influence positive changes, such as increased physical activity seen in spouses participating together in lifestyle change programs [15]. A study evaluating environmental versus genetic influence of acquiring CVD in family members has shown that environment plays a significant role in developing CVD risk factors [16].

This study aimed to see if better CVD risk factor outcomes were achieved by participating in an ITLMP with a household member as compared to attending alone. It was hypothesized that participation with an accompanying household member would be associated with better outcomes than participation alone.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Participants

Participants attended CHIP classes offered from 2011 to 2015 in Athens, Ohio, a rural Appalachian college town. For recruitment, the program was promoted via the local media, health care providers, and churches. Participants came from varied socioeconomic backgrounds. As part of the registration process for CHIP, participants were asked to sign a consent statement to allow the use of their deidentified aggregated data for research purposes. They were informed that their choice to opt out of participation would not alter their eligibility to participate in CHIP. Data were stored on password-protected devices with restricted access to only approved CHIP administrators and study investigators. Approval for the study was obtained from Live Healthy Appalachia, the local CHIP administrator, and the Ohio University Institutional Review Board.

2.2. CHIP Description

The CHIP intervention consisted of 16 to 18 two-hour group sessions that were provided over 4 to 8 weeks. A typical session consisted of an instructional video, group discussion, cooking demonstrations, and an exercise component [9]. The goal of CHIP was for participants to consume plant-based whole foods, such as minimally processed vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, and nuts. This was done through fostering self-care and awareness of lifestyle habits. Specifically, overall dietary fat was to be kept below 20% of total calories, daily intake of sugar less than 10 teaspoons, salt intake less than 2000 mg, cholesterol below 50 mg, and fiber intake 35 to 40 grams. Stress management techniques were taught and encouraged for daily use. Daily exercise of at least 30 minutes of moderate activity or 10,000 steps measured using a pedometer was encouraged. Strength training and resistance exercises were encouraged for 20-30 minutes, 2-3 days per week.

2.3. Data Collection and Reporting

Demographic data were collected as well as status of participation with a household member (sharing the same physical address) or alone, as an individual participant, without a household member. Biomedical assessments were made at baseline and before session 12, near the end of the program. Assessments included a lifestyle questionnaire to evaluate dietary and exercise habits as well as current illnesses and medications, weight, height, pulse rate, and blood pressure. BMI was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters with a normal range considered as 18.5-24.9, overweight 25.0-29.9, and obese category 30 or above [17]. Blood was collected via venipuncture by trained phlebotomists to determine total cholesterol (TC), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), triglyceride (TG), and fasting blood glucose (GLU) levels. The data were entered into a password-protected Microsoft Access based database at the Live Healthy Appalachia office.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Actual and percentage changes in the biomarker outcome variables during the CHIP program were computed. Participation in the program as an individual or alone (without a household member) or with an accompanying household member was the variable of interest. These were considered two independent groups defined as “Individual” for those who participated in the lifestyle program solely on their own and “Household” for those who participated with an accompanying member of their household. Data from both participating household members were used in the study analysis such that each household member was considered an independent participant in the “Household” group. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare differences between those attending with a household member (Household) and those attending alone (Individual) with respect to the mean changes in their biomarker outcomes. All differences were considered statistically significant if p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results

The demographic characteristics of the CHIP participants in this study are shown in Table 1. In all, 512 people participated in the program over the period under study. Of this, 66.4% participated as an individual, or alone, while 33.6% participated with an accompanying household member. The average age of all the participants was 53.19 (±12.6 standard deviation (SD)) years with a range of 19 through 82 years.


Participation Group, n (%)512
 Individual340 (66.4)
 Household172 (33.6)
Gender, n (%)512
 Male134 (26.2)
 Female378 (73.8)

Baseline averages were calculated before CHIP intervention and after for both Individual and Household groups. All biomarkers demonstrated decreased values in both groups, after completion of the program, as shown in Table 2.


Risk FactornBaseline Average for Individual Group BEFOREAverage for Individual Group AFTER

TC mg/dL340189.2170.7
HDL mg/dL34050.246.0
LDL mg/dL336114.6100.3
TG mg/dL341127.1123.2
GLU mg/dL337105.599.2
BMI kg/m232132.331.3
BPSYS mmHg320129.6123.8
BPDIA mmHg32277.876.1
PULSE beats per minute29675.771.0


Risk FactornBaseline Average for Household Group BEFOREAverage for Household Group AFTER

TC mg/dL172182.9161.0
HDL mg/dL17246.242.2
LDL mg/dL169111.094.9
TG mg/dL172131.1121.3
GLU mg/dL172104.399.4
BMI kg/m216831.630.2
BPSYS mmHg168129.3122.0
BPDIA mmHg16877.875.0
PULSE beats per minute15872.970.4

As shown in Table 3, the only cardiovascular risk factor change that was statistically significant between the Individual and the Household groups was BMI. The reduction in BMI was higher for Household than the Individual participant group.

Risk FactorsIndividual GroupHousehold GroupPvalue
nMean Change, ()SDnMean Change, ()SD

TC340-18.6 (9.8)25.4172-21.9 (12.0)27.4.177
HDL340-4.3 (8.5)6.8172-4.02 (8.7)7.4.717
LDL339-14.5 (11.4)21.5169-16.56 (14.8)23.2.320
TG340-3.9 (3.7)48.1172-9.84 (7.5)51.5.198
GLU337-6.32 (5.9)24.1172-4.9 (4.7)11.1.468
BMI328-1.02 (3.2)1.1168-1.29 (4.1)0.8.003
BPSYS322-5.71 (4.4)14.6168-7.34 (5.7)14.1.238
BPDIA322-1.76 (2.3)9.7168-2.8 (3.6)10.1.267
PULSE296-4.47 (5.9)13.2158-2.5 (3.5)10.1.107

Note.Statistically significant at .01 level.

4. Discussion

One of the remarkable results from this study was an improvement in all CVD risk factors from baseline, for both those who participated in CHIP alone and those with an accompanied household member. This observation was consistent with results from multiple studies involving populations similar to that in this study and other populations [8, 9, 11]. For example, the English Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSA) reported that positive behavioral changes in one spouse strongly influenced the other partner to make changes resulting in correlations with increased physical activity (r = 0.478) and reduced weight (r = 0.311) [18]. Furthermore, Mosca et al. demonstrated that, with the support of family members, patients who were hospitalized with CVD benefited from lifestyle intervention at a 1-year follow-up, with an improvement in diet score (p = 0.04) and likelihood to exercise at least 3 days per week (p = 0.04) [19]. Lastly, a study utilizing Partners Together in Health intervention model for encouraging healthy eating behaviors after cardiac rehabilitation reported increased long-term adherence as compared to the usual individual care [16].

This current study revealed that those who participated in CHIP with a household member (i.e., spouse, sibling, parent, or child) showed improvement in BMI. This would suggest that familial support was important in the attainment of at least one healthy lifestyle goal. Such familial support could arise from a shared environment where food preparation and exercise are done together. It could also be through extrinsic motivation whereby the participant is held individually and jointly accountable to achieve the necessary health goals. It may be especially effective if the individuals who purchase and prepare food for the household participate in lifestyle modification as well.

To contextualize by quantifying the BMI improvement observed in this study, it should be noted that BMI improved in 4-8 weeks by a 1.29% mean change with household participation as compared to 1.09% for participation alone, as a solo individual (p=0.003). With the average BMI in men and women in the U.S. being 26.6 and 26.5, respectively, an improvement of 1.29% could mean a loss of 5-10 pounds [17]. Greater BMI is associated with higher total cholesterol, lower HDL, higher blood pressure, and diabetes, all critical biomarkers for cardiovascular disease [20]. Reduction in BMI was significantly larger when participating in CHIP with a household member, which may in turn play a role in indirectly reducing the other biomarkers and make for a more effective lifestyle modification program.

However, in this study, outcomes such as TC, HDL, LDL, TG, BPSYS and BPDIA, did not significantly change from their baseline values. Perhaps a longer length of intervention of follow up, or greater mean change in BMI is needed before significant changes are seen in other biomarkers. For example, in the Look AHEAD trial, larger weight losses produced greater improvements in HbA1c, systolic blood pressure, HDL, and triglycerides at years 1 and 4 of follow up [21].

4.1. Limitations

A confounding variable to consider is how different genders respond to lifestyle change. The participants in this study were overwhelmingly women, comprising 73.8% of the total sample, and could possibly skew the results, as men are known to improve CVD risk factors better with lifestyle change [22, 23]. The first reported CHIP intervention study, a hospital-based program conducted in Kalamazoo, Michigan (n = 288), demonstrated that males with the highest levels of TC at program entry (i.e., 240-279 mg/dL) experienced a 22% reduction in 30 days, whereas females with the highest levels of TC experienced a mean decrease of 11% [22]. These findings are consistent with a study conducted in CHIP Australasian study in which men showed improved responsiveness to reductions in chronic disease risk factors [23].

Furthermore, it may have been that those who participated with a household member were more enthusiastic, leading to recruitment of the household member. The enthusiasm, rather than the presence of the household member, may have been a major factor in success.

Canning et al. demonstrated a relationship between age and cardiovascular disease risk factors (p=.049). They showed that increased BMI was associated with an increase in prevalent risk in younger (18-40 year olds) and middle age (40-65 years old) groups but not the older age (65+ years old) groups [24]. These differences in responsiveness to lifestyle change based on gender and age could further explain why the other CVD risk factors were not significantly changed from baseline. The findings of this current study may serve to inform the medical community regarding potential outcomes associated with lifestyle modification and cardiovascular health.

The results of this study may actually underrepresent the effect of household member support. This may arise from family members participating that do not share the same physical address and were not captured as household members. In addition, others may participate with close friends who provide support. A future study could be designed to better evaluate the “buddy effect” by including these other groups in the analysis.

5. Conclusion

CHIP has been shown to have effects on various cardiovascular disease risk factors among residents of rural Appalachia. Those participating with a household member elicited a higher reduction in BMI compared to those who participated alone, as solo individuals. Encouragement of participation with a family member or a “buddy” may be prudent, especially if weight reduction is a goal of the program or participants. Further evaluation of the “buddy effect” involving both those residing in the same household and those who do not but nevertheless provide mutual support, is warranted.

Data Availability

The raw data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.


This project was completed in cooperation with Live Healthy Appalachia in Athens, Ohio, the local CHIP provider, and Lifestyle Medicine Institute, the owner and producer of CHIP.


  1. “Heart Disease Facts & Statistics |,” 09-Oct-2018,, [Accessed: 04-Nov-2018]. View at: Google Scholar
  2. M. A. Austin, J. E. Hokanson, and K. L. Edwards, “Hypertriglyceridemia as a cardiovascular risk factor,” American Journal of Cardiology, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 7B–12B, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. J. Stamler, R. Stamler, and J. D. Neaton, “Blood pressure, systolic and diastolic, and cardiovascular risks: US population data,” JAMA Internal Medicine, vol. 153, no. 5, pp. 598–615, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. H. B. Hubert, M. Feinleib, P. M. McNamara, and W. P. Castelli, “Obesity as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease: a 26-year follow-up of participants in the Framingham Heart Study,” Circulation, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 968–977, 1983. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. D. Ornish, L. W. Scherwitz, J. H. Billings et al., “Intensive lifestyle changes for reversal of coronary heart disease,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 280, no. 23, pp. 2001–2007, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. C. B. Esselstyn Jr., “Updating a 12-year experience with arrest and reversal therapy for coronary heart disease (an overdue requiem for palliative cardiology),” American Journal of Cardiology, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 339–341, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. N. D. Barnard, J. Cohen, D. J. A. Jenkins et al., “A low-fat vegan diet and a conventional diabetes diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled, 74-wk clinical trial,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 1588S–1596S, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. P. Rankin, D. P. Morton, H. Diehl, J. Gobble, P. Morey, and E. Chang, “Effectiveness of a volunteer-delivered lifestyle modification program for reducing cardiovascular disease risk factors,” American Journal of Cardiology, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 82–86, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. D. Morton, P. Rankin, L. Kent, and W. Dysinger, “The complete health improvement program (CHIP): history, evaluation, and outcomes,” American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, vol. 10, no. 1, Article ID 1559827614531391, pp. 64–73, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. K. Huttlinger, J. Schaller-Ayers, and T. Lawson, “Health care in appalachia: a population-based approach,” Public Health Nursing, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 103–110, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. D. Drozek, H. Diehl, M. Nakazawa, T. Kostohryz, D. Morton, and J. H. Shubrook, “Short-term effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention program for reducing selected chronic disease risk factors in individuals living in rural appalachia: a pilot cohort study,” Advances in Preventive Medicine, vol. 2014, Article ID 798184, 7 pages, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. C. Leibold, J. H. Shubrook, M. Nakazawa, and D. Drozek, “Effectiveness of the complete health improvement program in reducing risk factors for cardiovascular disease in an appalachian population,” The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 84–91, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. L. Perusse, T. Rice, J. P. Despres et al., “Familial resemblance of plasma lipids, lipoproteins and postheparin lipoprotein and hepatic lipases in the HERITAGE Family study,” Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 3263–3269, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. S. B. Harrap, J. L. Hopper, H. N. Hoang, and G. G. Giles, “Familial patterns of covariation for cardiovascular risk factors in adults: The Victorian Family Heart Study,” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 152, no. 8, pp. 704–715, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. L. K. Cobb, J. G. Godino, E. Selvin, A. Kucharska-Newton, J. Coresh, and S. Koton, “Spousal influence on physical activity in middle-aged and older adults,” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 183, no. 5, pp. 444–451, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. L. Pérusse, J. P. Després, A. Tremblay et al., “Genetic and environmental determinants of serum lipids and lipoproteins in French Canadian families,” Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 308–318, 1989. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. “03-0260 assigned to - adultweight.pdf,”, [Accessed: 18-Nov-2017]. View at: Google Scholar
  18. S. E. Jackson, A. Steptoe, and J. Wardle, “The influence of partner’s behavior on health behavior change: The english longitudinal study of ageing,” JAMA Internal Medicine, vol. 175, no. 3, pp. 385–392, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. L. Mosca, H. Mochari, M. Liao et al., “A novel family-based intervention trial to improve heart health: FIT heart: Results of a randomized controlled trial,” Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 98–106, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. F. Abbasi, B. W. Brown Jr., C. Lamendola, T. McLaughlin, and G. M. Reaven, “Relationship between obesity, insulin resistance, and coronary heart disease risk,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 937–943, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. R. R. Wing, M. A. Espeland, J. M. Clark et al., “Association of weight loss maintenance and weight regain on 4-year changes in CVD risk factors: the action for health in diabetes (Look AHEAD) clinical trial,” Diabetes Care, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 1345–1355, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  22. H. A. Diehl, “Coronary risk reduction through intensive community-based lifestyle intervention: the Coronary Health Improvement Project (CHIP) experience,” American Journal of Cardiology, vol. 82, supplement 2, no. 10, pp. 83–87, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. L. M. Kent, D. P. Morton, P. M. Rankin, B. G. Mitchell, E. Chang, and H. Diehl, “Gender differences in effectiveness of the Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP) lifestyle intervention: An Australasian study,” Health Promotion Journal of Australia, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 222–229, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. K. L. Canning, R. E. Brown, V. K. Jamnik, and J. L. Kuk, “Relationship between obesity and obesity-related morbidities weakens with aging,” The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 87–92, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2019 Dhatri Kotekal et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles