Makayla Murphy
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Makayla Murphy has a total of 8 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Andrea Shields
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT
1 shared publication - Annie D. Kearns
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT
1 shared publication - Christiana M. Field
Department of Allied Health Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
1 shared publication - Linda S. Pescatello
University of Connecticut
1 shared publication - Molly E. Waring
Department of Allied Health Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, USA
1 shared publication - Ock Kyoung Chun
Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Connecticut, 3624 Horsebarn Road Extension Unit 4017, Storrs, CT 06269-4017, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
A Randomized Pilot Trial of Medically Tailored Meals and Lifestyle Support for Gestational Diabetes: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Implementation Challenges
Background: Lifestyle interventions incorporating medically-tailored meal delivery may support rapid behavior change among pregnant individuals with gestational diabetes (GDM). Purpose: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of a multicomponent lifestyle intervention for pregnant individuals with GDM. Primary outcomes included recruitment, retention, intervention receipt, and acceptability. Methods: We conducted a pilot randomized feasibility trial among pregnant individuals with GDM recruited from maternal fetal medicine clinics in the Hartford, Connecticut area. Participants were randomized to usual GDM care or the Meals4Moms intervention plus usual care. The intervention included medically-tailored meal delivery, personalized physical activity support, and multimodal education with digital tools. Participants completed a survey and three 24-hour dietary recalls at baseline and post-intervention. Meals4Moms participants also completed a semi-structured interview at follow-up. Intervention receipt was tracked by study staff. Results: Of 30 individuals approached, we screened 80% (n=24), of whom 75% (n=18/24) were eligible; we randomized 8 participants. Seventy-five percent (n=6/8) completed at least one component of the follow-up assessment (100%, n=4/4 Meals4Moms, 50%, n=2/4 Usual Care). One participant spent ≥80% of her total food budget (n=1/4, 25%), and no participants completed ≥80% of prescribed exercise sessions (range: 0-50%). All (n=4) Meals4Moms participants reported they would be very likely to participate in the program if they had GDM again, and 100% (n=4) would be very likely to recommend the program to a friend with GDM. Conclusions: While the Meals4Moms intervention was highly acceptable to participants, procedural refinements are needed prior to conducting a full-scale efficacy trial.
Open AccessA Randomized Pilot Trial of Medically Tailored Meals and Lifestyle Support for Gestational Diabetes: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Implementation Challenges
Background: Lifestyle interventions incorporating medically-tailored meal delivery may support rapid behavior change among pregnant individuals with gestational diabetes (GDM). Purpose: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of a multicomponent lifestyle intervention for pregnant individuals with GDM. Primary outcomes included recruitment, retention, intervention receipt, and acceptability. Methods: We conducted a pilot randomized feasibility trial among pregnant individuals with GDM recruited from maternal fetal medicine clinics in the Hartford, Connecticut area. Participants were randomized to usual GDM care or the Meals4Moms intervention plus usual care. The intervention included medically-tailored meal delivery, personalized physical activity support, and multimodal education with digital tools. Participants completed a survey and three 24-hour dietary recalls at baseline and post-intervention. Meals4Moms participants also completed a semi-structured interview at follow-up. Intervention receipt was tracked by study staff. Results: Of 30 individuals approached, we screened 80% (n=24), of whom 75% (n=18/24) were eligible; we randomized 8 participants. Seventy-five percent (n=6/8) completed at least one component of the follow-up assessment (100%, n=4/4 Meals4Moms, 50%, n=2/4 Usual Care). One participant spent ≥80% of her total food budget (n=1/4, 25%), and no participants completed ≥80% of prescribed exercise sessions (range: 0-50%). All (n=4) Meals4Moms participants reported they would be very likely to participate in the program if they had GDM again, and 100% (n=4) would be very likely to recommend the program to a friend with GDM. Conclusions: While the Meals4Moms intervention was highly acceptable to participants, procedural refinements are needed prior to conducting a full-scale efficacy trial.