Scholarlink

Background <p>Middle-aged adults with obesity and diabetes-related cardiomyopathy (DRCM) face competing demands when attempting to implement dietary and physical-activity recommendations. However, little is known about how day-to-day decisions are negotiated under fluctuating energy, symptom-related fear, and competing role responsibilities.</p> Objective <p>To explore experiences of nutrition and physical-activity management among middle-aged adults with obesity and DRCM, and to develop an explanatory framework to inform individualised lifestyle counselling in general practice.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a qualitative study in the Department of General Practice, Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University (Nanjing, China), between August 2024 and August 2025. Seventeen adults aged 40–60 years with obesity (body mass index ≥ 28&#xa0;kg/m²) and clinician-diagnosed DRCM participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, theoretically informed by self-regulation theory and the Capability–Opportunity–Motivation–Behaviour (COM-B) framework.</p> Results <p>Four interrelated themes described how participants managed nutrition and physical activity in everyday life: (1) negotiating between energy and fear; (2) confronting the limits of rigid self-control; (3) integrating family involvement into routines; and (4) reconstructing control through flexible pacing. Synthesising these themes, we propose the Energy–Fear–Control (EFC) cycle—a novel explanatory model in which perceived energy availability shapes feasibility, symptom-related fear constrains action, rigid control strategies contribute to fatigue and rebound, and family-enabled co-regulation supports flexible adaptation and sustained engagement.</p> Conclusions <p>The EFC cycle extends existing accounts of lifestyle management by specifying a cyclical mechanism rather than a linear “adherence” pathway, and by highlighting actionable leverage points for general practice—assessing “energy reality,” eliciting fear triggers, involving family early, and negotiating small, repeatable adjustments that remain feasible under midlife constraints.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Negotiating energy, fear, and control: a qualitative study of nutrition and exercise experiences among middle-aged adults with obesity and diabetes-related cardiomyopathy

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月14日

查看全文
  • Lijuan Wang,
  • Lulu Gu,
  • Xiaoyong Wan,
  • Kangzhen Zhang

摘要

Background

Middle-aged adults with obesity and diabetes-related cardiomyopathy (DRCM) face competing demands when attempting to implement dietary and physical-activity recommendations. However, little is known about how day-to-day decisions are negotiated under fluctuating energy, symptom-related fear, and competing role responsibilities.

Objective

To explore experiences of nutrition and physical-activity management among middle-aged adults with obesity and DRCM, and to develop an explanatory framework to inform individualised lifestyle counselling in general practice.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study in the Department of General Practice, Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University (Nanjing, China), between August 2024 and August 2025. Seventeen adults aged 40–60 years with obesity (body mass index ≥ 28 kg/m²) and clinician-diagnosed DRCM participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, theoretically informed by self-regulation theory and the Capability–Opportunity–Motivation–Behaviour (COM-B) framework.

Results

Four interrelated themes described how participants managed nutrition and physical activity in everyday life: (1) negotiating between energy and fear; (2) confronting the limits of rigid self-control; (3) integrating family involvement into routines; and (4) reconstructing control through flexible pacing. Synthesising these themes, we propose the Energy–Fear–Control (EFC) cycle—a novel explanatory model in which perceived energy availability shapes feasibility, symptom-related fear constrains action, rigid control strategies contribute to fatigue and rebound, and family-enabled co-regulation supports flexible adaptation and sustained engagement.

Conclusions

The EFC cycle extends existing accounts of lifestyle management by specifying a cyclical mechanism rather than a linear “adherence” pathway, and by highlighting actionable leverage points for general practice—assessing “energy reality,” eliciting fear triggers, involving family early, and negotiating small, repeatable adjustments that remain feasible under midlife constraints.