<p>Research question: Is an online lifestyle coaching platform more effective at modifying periconceptional behaviours than standard advice offered by the UK National Health Service (NHS)? Design: Women with subfertility or recurrent miscarriage were recruited to a two-centre randomized controlled trial. They were randomized to either the online lifestyle coaching platform Smarter Pregnancy (intervention) or periconceptional advice provided by NHS websites (control). Participants completed a lifestyle questionnaire at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and 24 weeks, and the results were used to tailor lifestyle coaching in the intervention group. At baseline, 12 and 24 weeks, composite risk scores (CRS) were calculated. A lower CRS corresponds to a healthier lifestyle. Results: Of the 400 women recruited, 262 women were randomized (131 in each arm). At 12 weeks, a reduction in CRS (includes risk score for intake of folic acid, vegetables and fruits, smoking and alcohol) was observed in the intervention versus control arms. After correcting for baseline, the difference in the CRS between intervention and control was –0.47 (95% CI –0.97 to 0.02) at 12 weeks and –0.32 (95% CI –0.82 to 0.15) at 24 weeks. A statistically significant reduction in lifestyle risk scores was found in women with a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m<sup>2</sup> or above compared with those with a BMI below 25kg/m<sup>2</sup>. The odds of being pregnant at 24 weeks was increased in the intervention versus control (OR 2.83, 95% CI 0.35 to 57.76). Conclusions: The Smarter Pregnancy coaching platform is more effective in delivering lifestyle advice and modulating behaviours to support women with a history of subfertility or recurrent miscarriage than standard online NHS advice.</p>

doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.04.003, hdl.handle.net/1765/136172
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies
Rotterdam School of Management (RSM), Erasmus University

KK (Katja) Raithel, Daan van Knippenberg, & DA (Daan) Stam. (2021). Team Leadership and Team Cultural Diversity. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 28(3), 261–272. doi:10.1177/15480518211010763