La escuela como alternativa en la prevención de la obesidad: la experiencia en el sistema escolar mexicano

Interventions to Prevent Obesity in Mexican Children and Adolescents: Systematic Review

The prevalence of overweight and obesity has been rising among Mexican children and adolescents in the last decades. To systematically review obesity prevention interventions delivered to Mexican children and adolescents. Thirteen databases and one search engine were searched for evidence from 1995 to 2021. Searches were done in English and Spanish to capture relevant information. Studies with experimental designs, delivered in any setting (e.g., schools or clinics) or digital domains (e.g., social media campaigns) targeting Mexican children or adolescents (≤ 18 years) and reporting weight outcomes, were included in this review. In addition, the risk of bias was appraised with the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. Twenty-nine studies with 19,136 participants (3-17 years old) were included. The prevalence of overweight and obesity at baseline ranged from 21 to 69%. Most of the studies (89.6%) were delivered in school settings. The duration ranged from 2 days to 3 school years, and the number of sessions also varied from 2 to 200 sessions at different intensities. Overall, anthropometric changes varied across studies. Thus, the efficacy of the included studies is heterogeneous and inconclusive among studies. Current evidence is heterogeneous and inconclusive about the efficacy of interventions to prevent obesity in Mexican children and adolescents. Interventions should not be limited to educational activities and should include different components, such as multi-settings delivery, family inclusion, and longer-term implementations. Mixed-method evaluations (including robust quantitative and qualitative approaches) could provide a deeper understanding of the effectiveness and best practices.

The influence of the urban food environment on diet, nutrition and health outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Introduction

Diet and nutrition are leading causes of global morbidity and mortality. Our study aimed to identify and synthesise evidence on the association between food environment characteristics and diet, nutrition and health outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), relevant to urban settings, to support development and implementation of appropriate interventions.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of 9 databases from 1 January 2000 to 16 September 2020 with no language restrictions. We included original peer-reviewed observational studies, intervention studies or natural experiments conducted in at least one urban LMIC setting and reporting a quantitative association between a characteristic of the food environment and a diet, nutrition or health outcome. Study selection was done independently in duplicate. Data extraction and quality appraisal using the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute checklists were completed based on published reports using a prepiloted form on Covidence. Data were synthesised narratively.

Results

74 studies met eligibility criteria. Consistent evidence reported an association between availability characteristics in the neighbourhood food environment and dietary behaviour (14 studies, 10 rated as good quality), while the balance of evidence suggested an association with health or nutrition outcomes (17 of 24 relevant studies). We also found a balance of evidence that accessibility to food in the neighbourhood environment was associated with diet (10 of 11 studies) although evidence of an association with health outcomes was contradictory. Evidence on other neighbourhood food environment characteristics was sparse and mixed. Availability in the school food environment was also found to be associated with relevant outcomes. Studies investigating our other primary outcomes in observational studies of the school food environment were sparse, but most interventional studies were situated in schools. We found very little evidence on how workplace and home food environments are associated with relevant outcomes. This is a substantial evidence gap.

Conclusion

‘Zoning’ or ‘healthy food cart’ interventions to alter food availability may be appropriate in urban LMIC.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42020207475.

Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under

BACKGROUND

Insufficient consumption of fruits and vegetables in childhood increases the risk of future non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease. Testing the effects of interventions to increase consumption of fruit and vegetables, including those focused on specific child-feeding strategies or broader multicomponent interventions targeting the home or childcare environment is required to assess the potential to reduce this disease burden.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and associated adverse events of interventions designed to increase the consumption of fruit, vegetables or both amongst children aged five years and under.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two clinical trials registries to identify eligible trials on 25 January 2020. We searched Proquest Dissertations and Theses in November 2019. We reviewed reference lists of included trials and handsearched three international nutrition journals. We contacted authors of included trials to identify further potentially relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, including cluster-randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials, of any intervention primarily targeting consumption of fruit, vegetables or both among children aged five years and under, and incorporating a dietary or biochemical assessment of fruit or vegetable consumption. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of identified papers; a third review author resolved disagreements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risks of bias of included trials; a third review author resolved disagreements. Due to unexplained heterogeneity, we used random-effects models in meta-analyses for the primary review outcomes where we identified sufficient trials. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) to account for the heterogeneity of fruit and vegetable consumption measures. We conducted assessments of risks of bias and evaluated the quality of evidence (GRADE approach) using Cochrane procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 80 trials with 218 trial arms and 12,965 participants. Fifty trials examined the impact of child-feeding practices (e.g. repeated food exposure) in increasing child vegetable intake. Fifteen trials examined the impact of parent nutrition education only in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. Fourteen trials examined the impact of multicomponent interventions (e.g. parent nutrition education and preschool policy changes) in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. Two trials examined the effect of a nutrition education intervention delivered to children in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. One trial examined the impact of a child-focused mindfulness intervention in increasing vegetable intake. We judged 23 of the 80 included trials as free from high risks of bias across all domains. Performance, detection and attrition bias were the most common domains judged at high risk of bias for the remaining trials. There is low-quality evidence that child-feeding practices versus no intervention may have a small positive effect on child vegetable consumption, equivalent to an increase of 5.30 grams as-desired consumption of vegetables (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.71; 19 trials, 2140 participants; mean post-intervention follow-up = 8.3 weeks). Multicomponent interventions versus no intervention has a small effect on child consumption of fruit and vegetables (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.55; 9 trials, 2961 participants; moderate-quality evidence; mean post-intervention follow-up = 5.4 weeks), equivalent to an increase of 0.34 cups of fruit and vegetables a day. It is uncertain whether there are any short-term differences in child consumption of fruit and vegetables in meta-analyses of trials examining parent nutrition education versus no intervention (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 11 trials, 3050 participants; very low-quality evidence; mean post-intervention follow-up = 13.2 weeks). We were unable to pool child nutrition education interventions in meta-analysis; both trials reported a positive intervention effect on child consumption of fruit and vegetables (low-quality evidence). Very few trials reported long-term effectiveness (6 trials), cost effectiveness (1 trial) or unintended adverse consequences of interventions (2 trials), limiting our ability to assess these outcomes. Trials reported receiving governmental or charitable funds, except for four trials reporting industry funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite identifying 80 eligible trials of various intervention approaches, the evidence for how to increase children's fruit and vegetable consumption remains limited in terms of quality of evidence and magnitude of effect. Of the types of interventions identified, there was moderate-quality evidence that multicomponent interventions probably lead to, and low-quality evidence that child-feeding practice may lead to, only small increases in fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under. It is uncertain whether parent nutrition education or child nutrition education interventions alone are effective in increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under. Our confidence in effect estimates for all intervention approaches, with the exception of multicomponent interventions, is limited on the basis of the very low to low-quality evidence. Long-term follow-up of at least 12 months is required and future research should adopt more rigorous methods to advance the field. This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Double-duty actions: seizing programme and policy opportunities to address malnutrition in all its forms

Actions to address different forms of malnutrition are typically managed by separate communities, policies, programmes, governance structures, and funding streams. By contrast, double-duty actions, which aim to simultaneously tackle both undernutrition and problems of overweight, obesity, and diet-related non-communicable diseases (DR-NCDs) have been proposed as a way to effectively address malnutrition in all its forms in a more holisitic way. This Series paper identifies ten double-duty actions that have strong potential to reduce the risk of both undernutrition, obesity, and DR-NCDs. It does so by summarising evidence on common drivers of different forms of malnutrition; documenting examples of unintended harm caused by some undernutrition-focused programmes on obesity and DR-NCDs; and highlighting examples of double-duty actions to tackle multiple forms of malnutrition. We find that undernutrition, obesity, and DR-NCDs are intrinsically linked through early-life nutrition, diet diversity, food environments, and socioeconomic factors. Some evidence shows that programmes focused on undernutrition have raised risks of poor quality diets, obesity, and DR-NCDs, especially in countries undergoing a rapid nutrition transition. This Series paper builds on this evidence to develop a framework to guide the design of double-duty approaches and strategies, and defines the first steps needed to deliver them. With a clear package of double-duty actions now identified, there is an urgent need to move forward with double-duty actions to address malnutrition in all its forms.

Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under

BACKGROUND

Insufficient consumption of fruits and vegetables in childhood increases the risk of future non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease. Interventions to increase consumption of fruit and vegetables, such as those focused on specific child-feeding strategies and parent nutrition education interventions in early childhood may therefore be an effective strategy in reducing this disease burden.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and associated adverse events of interventions designed to increase the consumption of fruit, vegetables or both amongst children aged five years and under.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two clinical trials registries to identify eligible trials on 25 August 2019. We searched Proquest Dissertations and Theses in May 2019. We reviewed reference lists of included trials and handsearched three international nutrition journals. We contacted authors of included trials to identify further potentially relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, including cluster-randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials, of any intervention primarily targeting consumption of fruit, vegetables or both among children aged five years and under, and incorporating a dietary or biochemical assessment of fruit or vegetable consumption. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of identified papers; a third review author resolved disagreements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risks of bias of included trials; a third review author resolved disagreements. Due to unexplained heterogeneity, we used random-effects models in meta-analyses for the primary review outcomes where we identified sufficient trials. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) to account for the heterogeneity of fruit and vegetable consumption measures. We conducted assessments of risks of bias and evaluated the quality of evidence (GRADE approach) using Cochrane procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 trials with 214 trial arms and 13,746 participants. Forty-eight trials examined the impact of child-feeding practices (e.g. repeated food exposure) in increasing child vegetable intake. Fifteen trials examined the impact of parent nutrition education in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. Fourteen trials examined the impact of multicomponent interventions (e.g. parent nutrition education and preschool policy changes) in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. Two trials examined the effect of a nutrition education intervention delivered to children in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. One trial examined the impact of a child-focused mindfulness intervention in increasing vegetable intake. We judged 20 of the 78 included trials as free from high risks of bias across all domains. Performance, detection and attrition bias were the most common domains judged at high risk of bias for the remaining trials. There is very low-quality evidence that child-feeding practices versus no intervention may have a small positive effect on child vegetable consumption equivalent to an increase of 4.45 g as-desired consumption of vegetables (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 18 trials, 2004 participants; mean post-intervention follow-up = 8.2 weeks). Multicomponent interventions versus no intervention has a small effect on child consumption of fruit and vegetables (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.57; 9 trials, 3022 participants; moderate-quality evidence; mean post-intervention follow-up = 5.4 weeks), equivalent to an increase of 0.36 cups of fruit and vegetables per day. It is uncertain whether there are any short-term differences in child consumption of fruit and vegetables in meta-analyses of trials examining parent nutrition education versus no intervention (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.28; 11 trials, 3078 participants; very low-quality evidence; mean post-intervention follow-up = 13.2 weeks). We were unable to pool child nutrition education interventions in meta-analysis; both trials reported a positive intervention effect on child consumption of fruit and vegetables (low-quality evidence). Very few trials reported long-term effectiveness (6 trials), cost effectiveness (1 trial) and unintended adverse consequences of interventions (2 trials), limiting their assessment. Trials reported receiving governmental or charitable funds, except for four trials reporting industry funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite identifying 78 eligible trials of various intervention approaches, the evidence for how to increase children's fruit and vegetable consumption remains limited. There was very low-quality evidence that child-feeding practice may lead to, and moderate-quality evidence that multicomponent interventions probably lead to small increases in fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and younger. It is uncertain whether parent nutrition education interventions are effective in increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and younger. Given that the quality of the evidence is very low or low, future research will likely change estimates and conclusions. Long-term follow-up of at least 12 months is required and future research should adopt more rigorous methods to advance the field. This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Altering the availability or proximity of food, alcohol, and tobacco products to change their selection and consumption

BACKGROUND

Overconsumption of food, alcohol, and tobacco products increases the risk of non-communicable diseases. Interventions to change characteristics of physical micro-environments where people may select or consume these products - including shops, restaurants, workplaces, and schools - are of considerable public health policy and research interest. This review addresses two types of intervention within such environments: altering the availability (the range and/or amount of options) of these products, or their proximity (the distance at which they are positioned) to potential consumers.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the impact on selection and consumption of altering the availability or proximity of (a) food (including non-alcoholic beverages), (b) alcohol, and (c) tobacco products.2. To assess the extent to which the impact of these interventions is modified by characteristics of: i. studies, ii. interventions, and iii.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and seven other published or grey literature databases, as well as trial registries and key websites, up to 23 July 2018, followed by citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with between-participants (parallel group) or within-participants (cross-over) designs. Eligible studies compared effects of exposure to at least two different levels of availability of a product or its proximity, and included a measure of selection or consumption of the manipulated product.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used a novel semi-automated screening workflow and applied standard Cochrane methods to select eligible studies, collect data, and assess risk of bias. In separate analyses for availability interventions and proximity interventions, we combined results using random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression models to estimate summary effect sizes (as standardised mean differences (SMDs)) and to investigate associations between summary effect sizes and selected study, intervention, or participant characteristics. We rated the certainty of evidence for each outcome using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies, with the majority (20/24) giving concerns about risk of bias. All of the included studies investigated food products; none investigated alcohol or tobacco. The majority were conducted in laboratory settings (14/24), with adult participants (17/24), and used between-participants designs (19/24). All studies were conducted in high-income countries, predominantly in the USA (14/24).Six studies investigated availability interventions, of which two changed the absolute number of different options available, and four altered the relative proportion of less-healthy (to healthier) options. Most studies (4/6) manipulated snack foods or drinks. For selection outcomes, meta-analysis of three comparisons from three studies (n = 154) found that exposure to fewer options resulted in a large reduction in selection of the targeted food(s): SMD -1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.90 to -0.37) (low certainty evidence). For consumption outcomes, meta-analysis of three comparisons from two studies (n = 150) found that exposure to fewer options resulted in a moderate reduction in consumption of those foods, but with considerable uncertainty: SMD -0.55 (95% CI -1.27 to 0.18) (low certainty evidence).Eighteen studies investigated proximity interventions. Most (14/18) changed the distance at which a snack food or drink was placed from the participants, whilst four studies changed the order of meal components encountered along a line. For selection outcomes, only one study with one comparison (n = 41) was identified, which found that food placed farther away resulted in a moderate reduction in its selection: SMD -0.65 (95% CI -1.29 to -0.01) (very low certainty evidence). For consumption outcomes, meta-analysis of 15 comparisons from 12 studies (n = 1098) found that exposure to food placed farther away resulted in a moderate reduction in its consumption: SMD -0.60 (95% CI -0.84 to -0.36) (low certainty evidence). Meta-regression analyses indicated that this effect was greater: the farther away the product was placed; when only the targeted product(s) was available; when participants were of low deprivation status; and when the study was at high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence suggests that changing the number of available food options or altering the positioning of foods could contribute to meaningful changes in behaviour, justifying policy actions to promote such changes within food environments. However, the certainty of this evidence as assessed by GRADE is low or very low. To enable more certain and generalisable conclusions about these potentially important effects, further research is warranted in real-world settings, intervening across a wider range of foods - as well as alcohol and tobacco products - and over sustained time periods.

Altering the availability or proximity of food, alcohol, and tobacco products to change their selection and consumption

BACKGROUND

Overconsumption of food, alcohol, and tobacco products increases the risk of non-communicable diseases. Interventions to change characteristics of physical micro-environments where people may select or consume these products - including shops, restaurants, workplaces, and schools - are of considerable public health policy and research interest. This review addresses two types of intervention within such environments: altering the availability (the range and/or amount of options) of these products, or their proximity (the distance at which they are positioned) to potential consumers.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the impact on selection and consumption of altering the availability or proximity of (a) food (including non-alcoholic beverages), (b) alcohol, and (c) tobacco products.2. To assess the extent to which the impact of these interventions is modified by characteristics of: i. studies, ii. interventions, and iii.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and seven other published or grey literature databases, as well as trial registries and key websites, up to 23 July 2018, followed by citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with between-participants (parallel group) or within-participants (cross-over) designs. Eligible studies compared effects of exposure to at least two different levels of availability of a product or its proximity, and included a measure of selection or consumption of the manipulated product.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used a novel semi-automated screening workflow and applied standard Cochrane methods to select eligible studies, collect data, and assess risk of bias. In separate analyses for availability interventions and proximity interventions, we combined results using random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression models to estimate summary effect sizes (as standardised mean differences (SMDs)) and to investigate associations between summary effect sizes and selected study, intervention, or participant characteristics. We rated the certainty of evidence for each outcome using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies, with the majority (20/24) giving concerns about risk of bias. All of the included studies investigated food products; none investigated alcohol or tobacco. The majority were conducted in laboratory settings (14/24), with adult participants (17/24), and used between-participants designs (19/24). All studies were conducted in high-income countries, predominantly in the USA (14/24).Six studies investigated availability interventions, of which two changed the absolute number of different options available, and four altered the relative proportion of less-healthy (to healthier) options. Most studies (4/6) manipulated snack foods or drinks. For selection outcomes, meta-analysis of three comparisons from three studies (n = 154) found that exposure to fewer options resulted in a large reduction in selection of the targeted food(s): SMD -1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.90 to -0.37) (low certainty evidence). For consumption outcomes, meta-analysis of three comparisons from two studies (n = 150) found that exposure to fewer options resulted in a moderate reduction in consumption of those foods, but with considerable uncertainty: SMD -0.55 (95% CI -1.27 to 0.18) (low certainty evidence).Eighteen studies investigated proximity interventions. Most (14/18) changed the distance at which a snack food or drink was placed from the participants, whilst four studies changed the order of meal components encountered along a line. For selection outcomes, only one study with one comparison (n = 41) was identified, which found that food placed farther away resulted in a moderate reduction in its selection: SMD -0.65 (95% CI -1.29 to -0.01) (very low certainty evidence). For consumption outcomes, meta-analysis of 15 comparisons from 12 studies (n = 1098) found that exposure to food placed farther away resulted in a moderate reduction in its consumption: SMD -0.60 (95% CI -0.84 to -0.36) (low certainty evidence). Meta-regression analyses indicated that this effect was greater: the farther away the product was placed; when only the targeted product(s) was available; when participants were of low deprivation status; and when the study was at high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence suggests that changing the number of available food options or altering the positioning of foods could contribute to meaningful changes in behaviour, justifying policy actions to promote such changes within food environments. However, the certainty of this evidence as assessed by GRADE is low or very low. To enable more certain and generalisable conclusions about these potentially important effects, further research is warranted in real-world settings, intervening across a wider range of foods - as well as alcohol and tobacco products - and over sustained time periods.

The fight against overweight and obesity in school children: Public policy in Mexico

Excess weight in schoolchildren is a serious health problem in Mexico. In 2010, the government established General Guidelines for Dispensing or Distribution of Foods and Beverages at School Food Establishments (SFEs) in Elementary Schools with the objective of stopping the epidemic of overweight and obesity. This study aimed to evaluate compliance with the Guidelines during two academic years. With a sample of 39 schools already randomly selected, we carried out a follow-up study. The research team recorded foods and beverages available at schools in two academic years, and compared their nutritional characteristics to those established in the Guidelines. At the schools in both stages of the study, we found broad availability of energy-dense foods not allowed in the SFEs. Vegetables, fruits, and plain water accounted for less than 7 per cent of the foods and drinks. We observed no changes between stages in the compliance the Guidelines.

Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under

BACKGROUND

Insufficient consumption of fruits and vegetables in childhood increases the risk of future non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease. Interventions to increase consumption of fruit and vegetables, such as those focused on specific child-feeding strategies and parent nutrition education interventions in early childhood may therefore be an effective strategy in reducing this disease burden.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and associated adverse events of interventions designed to increase the consumption of fruit, vegetables or both amongst children aged five years and under.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two clinical trials registries to identify eligible trials on 25 January 2018. We searched Proquest Dissertations and Theses in November 2017. We reviewed reference lists of included trials and handsearched three international nutrition journals. We contacted authors of included studies to identify further potentially relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, including cluster-randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials, of any intervention primarily targeting consumption of fruit, vegetables or both among children aged five years and under, and incorporating a dietary or biochemical assessment of fruit or vegetable consumption. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of identified papers; a third review author resolved disagreements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risks of bias of included studies; a third review author resolved disagreements. Due to unexplained heterogeneity, we used random-effects models in meta-analyses for the primary review outcomes where we identified sufficient trials. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) to account for the heterogeneity of fruit and vegetable consumption measures. We conducted assessments of risks of bias and evaluated the quality of evidence (GRADE approach) using Cochrane procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 63 trials with 178 trial arms and 11,698 participants. Thirty-nine trials examined the impact of child-feeding practices (e.g. repeated food exposure) in increasing child vegetable intake. Fourteen trials examined the impact of parent nutrition education in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. Nine studies examined the impact of multicomponent interventions (e.g. parent nutrition education and preschool policy changes) in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. One study examined the effect of a nutrition education intervention delivered to children in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake.We judged 14 of the 63 included trials as free from high risks of bias across all domains; performance, detection and attrition bias were the most common domains judged at high risk of bias for the remaining studies.There is very low quality evidence that child-feeding practices versus no intervention may have a small positive effect on child vegetable consumption equivalent to an increase of 3.50 g as-desired consumption of vegetables (SMD 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.54; participants = 1741; studies = 13). Multicomponent interventions versus no intervention may have a very small effect on child consumption of fruit and vegetables (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.66; participants = 2009; studies = 5; low-quality evidence), equivalent to an increase of 0.37 cups of fruit and vegetables per day. It is uncertain whether there are any short-term differences in child consumption of fruit and vegetables in meta-analyses of trials examining parent nutrition education versus no intervention (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.28; participants = 3078; studies = 11; very low-quality evidence).Insufficient data were available to assess long-term effectiveness, cost effectiveness and unintended adverse consequences of interventions. Studies reported receiving governmental or charitable funds, except for four studies reporting industry funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite identifying 63 eligible trials of various intervention approaches, the evidence for how to increase children's fruit and vegetable consumption remains limited. There was very low- and low-quality evidence respectively that child-feeding practice and multicomponent interventions may lead to very small increases in fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and younger. It is uncertain whether parent nutrition education interventions are effective in increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and younger. Given that the quality of the evidence is very low or low, future research will likely change estimates and conclusions. Long-term follow-up is required and future research should adopt more rigorous methods to advance the field.This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under

BACKGROUND

Insufficient consumption of fruits and vegetables in childhood increases the risk of future chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and associated adverse events of interventions designed to increase the consumption of fruit, vegetables or both amongst children aged five years and under.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and Embase to identify eligible trials on 25 September 2017. We searched Proquest Dissertations and Theses and two clinical trial registers in November 2017. We reviewed reference lists of included trials and handsearched three international nutrition journals. We contacted authors of included studies to identify further potentially relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, including cluster-randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials, of any intervention primarily targeting consumption of fruit, vegetables or both among children aged five years and under, and incorporating a dietary or biochemical assessment of fruit or vegetable consumption. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of identified papers; a third review author resolved disagreements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risks of bias of included studies; a third review author resolved disagreements. Due to unexplained heterogeneity, we used random-effects models in meta-analyses for the primary review outcomes where we identified sufficient trials. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) to account for the heterogeneity of fruit and vegetable consumption measures. We conducted assessments of risks of bias and evaluated the quality of evidence (GRADE approach) using Cochrane procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 55 trials with 154 trial arms and 11,108 participants. Thirty-three trials examined the impact of child-feeding practices (e.g. repeated food exposure) in increasing child vegetable intake. Thirteen trials examined the impact of parent nutrition education in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. Eight studies examined the impact of multicomponent interventions (e.g. parent nutrition education and preschool policy changes) in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. One study examined the effect of a nutrition intervention delivered to children in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake.We judged 14 of the 55 included trials as free from high risks of bias across all domains; performance, detection and attrition bias were the most common domains judged at high risk of bias for the remaining studies.Meta-analysis of trials examining child-feeding practices versus no intervention revealed a positive effect on child vegetable consumption (SMD 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.61; n = 1509; 11 studies; very low-quality evidence), equivalent to a mean difference of 4.03 g of vegetables. There were no short-term differences in child consumption of fruit and vegetables in meta-analyses of trials examining parent nutrition education versus no intervention (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.28; n = 3023; 10 studies; very low-quality evidence) or multicomponent interventions versus no intervention (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.63; n = 1861; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence).Insufficient data were available to assess long-term effectiveness, cost effectiveness and unintended adverse consequences of interventions. Studies reported receiving governmental or charitable funds, except for three studies reporting industry funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite identifying 55 eligible trials of various intervention approaches, the evidence for how to increase children's fruit and vegetable consumption remains sparse. There was very low-quality evidence that child-feeding practice interventions are effective in increasing vegetable consumption in children aged five years and younger, however the effect size was very small and long-term follow-up is required. There was very low-quality evidence that parent nutrition education and multicomponent interventions are not effective in increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and younger. All findings should be considered with caution, given most included trials could not be combined in meta-analyses. Given the very low-quality evidence, future research will very likely change estimates and conclusions. Such research should adopt more rigorous methods to advance the field.This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under

BACKGROUND

Insufficient consumption of fruits and vegetables in childhood increases the risk of future chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and associated adverse events of interventions designed to increase the consumption of fruit, vegetables or both amongst children aged five years and under.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase to identify eligible trials on 30 September 2016. We searched CINAHL and PsycINFO in July 2016, Proquest Dissertations and Theses in November 2016 and three clinical trial registers in November 2016 and June 2017. We reviewed reference lists of included trials and handsearched three international nutrition journals. We contacted authors of included studies to identify further potentially relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, including cluster-randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials, of any intervention primarily targeting consumption of fruit, vegetables or both among children aged five years and under, and incorporating a dietary or biochemical assessment of fruit or vegetable consumption. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of identified papers; a third review author resolved disagreements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risks of bias of included studies; a third review author resolved disagreements. Due to unexplained heterogeneity, we used random-effects models in meta-analyses for the primary review outcomes where we identified sufficient trials. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) to account for the heterogeneity of fruit and vegetable consumption measures.We conducted assessments of risks of bias and evaluated the quality of evidence (GRADE approach) using Cochrane procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 trials with 137 trial arms and 10,267 participants. Thirty trials examined the impact of child-feeding practices (e.g. repeated food exposure) in increasing child vegetable intake. Eleven trials examined the impact of parent nutrition education in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. Eight studies examined the impact of multicomponent interventions (e.g. parent nutrition education and preschool policy changes) in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. One study examined the effect of a nutrition intervention delivered to children in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake.Thirteen of the 50 included trials were judged as free from high risks of bias across all domains; performance, detection and attrition bias were the most common domains judged at high risk of bias of remaining studies.Meta-analysis of trials examining child-feeding practices versus no intervention revealed a positive effect on child vegetable consumption (SMD 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.61; n = 1509; 11 studies; very low-quality evidence), equivalent to a mean difference of 4.03 grams of vegetables. There were no short-term differences in child consumption of fruit and vegetables in meta-analyses of trials examining parent nutrition education versus no intervention (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.28; n = 3023; 10 studies; very low-quality evidence) or multicomponent interventions versus no intervention (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.63; n = 1861; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence).Insufficient data were available to assess long-term effectiveness, cost effectiveness and unintended adverse consequences of interventions.Studies reported receiving governmental or charitable funds, except for two studies reporting industry funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite identifying 50 eligible trials of various intervention approaches, the evidence for how to increase fruit and vegetable consumption of children remains sparse. There was very low-quality evidence child-feeding practice interventions are effective in increasing vegetable consumption of children aged five years and younger, however the effect size was very small and long-term follow-up is required. There was very low-quality evidence that parent nutrition education and multicomponent interventions are not effective in increasing fruit and vegetable consumption of children aged five years and younger. All findings should be considered with caution, given most included trials could not be combined in meta-analyses. Given the very low-quality evidence, future research will very likely change estimates and conclusions. Such research should adopt more rigorous methods to advance the field.This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

The Toxic Food Environment Around Elementary Schools and Childhood Obesity in Mexican Cities

INTRODUCTION

The childhood obesity epidemic is a global concern. There is limited evidence in Mexico linking the local food environment to obesity. The purpose of this study is to describe the links between the local food environment around elementary schools and schoolchildren's BMI in two Mexican cities.

METHODS

Cross-sectional surveys were conducted in 60 elementary schools in two Mexican cities (i.e., Cuernavaca and Guadalajara) in 2012-2013. Anthropometric measurements on schoolchildren were collected, as well as environmental direct audits and observations in a 100-m buffer around schools. Children's BMI was evaluated according to WHO-recommended procedures. In BMI models, the explanatory variable was the number of retail food sources. These models were adjusted for child's characteristics, schools' socioeconomic background, compliance with federal guidelines concerning unhealthy foods within schools' facilities, and corresponding city. Analysis was conducted in 2014.

RESULTS

The number of mobile food vendors was higher around public schools than outside private schools (p<0.05). Linear regression procedures showed a significant positive statistical association between children's BMI and the number of mobile food vendors around schools. Schoolchildren from the highest tertile of mobile food vendors showed 6.8% higher BMI units than those from the lowest tertile. Children attending schools within the highest tertile of food stores also had 4.7% higher BMI units than children from schools in the lowest tertile.

CONCLUSIONS

Health policy in Mexico should target the obesogenic environment surrounding elementary schools, where children may be more exposed to unhealthy foods.

Stakeholder perspectives on national policy for regulating the school food environment in Mexico

In Mexico, the school environment has been promoting sale of unhealthy foods. There is little empirical evidence on multi-stakeholder perspectives around national school food policy to regulate this. We studied stakeholders' perspectives on the proposed regulation for school sale of unhealthy foods. Comments about the regulation were available from an open consultation process held in June 2010 before the approval and implementation of the regulation. To examine perspectives, we coded 597 comments for beliefs, expectations and demands in NVivo. We created matrices by actors: academics, parents, citizens, health professionals and food industry. For academics, citizens and health professionals, the primary issue regarding the regulation was obesity, while for parents it was health of children. Academics, citizens, health professionals and parents believed that government was responsible for health of citizens, expected that this regulation would improve eating habits and health (i.e. less obesity and chronic diseases), and demanded that unhealthy foods be removed from schools. Parents demanded immediate action for school food policy that would protect their children. Citizens and health professionals demanded nutrition education and healthy food environment. Food industry opposed the regulation because it would not solve obesity or improve diet and physical activity behaviours. Instead, industry would lose income and jobs. Food industry demanded policy aimed at families that included nutrition education and physical activity. There was substantial consensus in narratives and perspectives for most actor types, with the primary narrative being the food environment followed by shared responsibility. Food industry rejected both these narratives, espousing instead the narrative of personal responsibility. Consensus among most actor groups supports the potential success of implementation of the regulation in Mexican schools. With regard to addressing childhood obesity, sound government policy is needed to balance different perspectives and desired outcomes among societal actors, particularly in Mexico between food industry and other actors.