Prevention of excess weight gain in paediatric primary care: beverages only or multiple lifestyle factors. The Smart Step Study, a cluster-randomized clinical trial

Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 5 to 11 years old

BACKGROUND

Prevention of obesity in children is an international public health priority given the prevalence of the condition (and its significant impact on health, development and well-being). Interventions that aim to prevent obesity involve behavioural change strategies that promote healthy eating or 'activity' levels (physical activity, sedentary behaviour and/or sleep) or both, and work by reducing energy intake and/or increasing energy expenditure, respectively. There is uncertainty over which approaches are more effective and numerous new studies have been published over the last five years, since the previous version of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions that aim to prevent obesity in children by modifying dietary intake or 'activity' levels, or a combination of both, on changes in BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was February 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in children (mean age 5 years and above but less than 12 years), comparing diet or 'activity' interventions (or both) to prevent obesity with no intervention, usual care, or with another eligible intervention, in any setting. Studies had to measure outcomes at a minimum of 12 weeks post baseline. We excluded interventions designed primarily to improve sporting performance.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our outcomes were body mass index (BMI), zBMI score and serious adverse events, assessed at short- (12 weeks to < 9 months from baseline), medium- (9 months to < 15 months) and long-term (≥ 15 months) follow-up. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 172 studies (189,707 participants); 149 studies (160,267 participants) were included in meta-analyses. One hundred forty-six studies were based in high-income countries. The main setting for intervention delivery was schools (111 studies), followed by the community (15 studies), the home (eight studies) and a clinical setting (seven studies); one intervention was conducted by telehealth and 31 studies were conducted in more than one setting. Eighty-six interventions were implemented for less than nine months; the shortest was conducted over one visit and the longest over four years. Non-industry funding was declared by 132 studies; 24 studies were funded in part or wholly by industry. Dietary interventions versus control Dietary interventions, compared with control, may have little to no effect on BMI at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.10; 5 studies, 2107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at medium-term follow-up (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12; 9 studies, 6815 participants; low-certainty evidence) or zBMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.01; 7 studies, 5285 participants; low-certainty evidence). Dietary interventions, compared with control, probably have little to no effect on BMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.13; 2 studies, 945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and zBMI at short- or medium-term follow-up (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.01; 8 studies, 3695 participants; MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.02; 9 studies, 7048 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Five studies (1913 participants; very low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: one reported serious adverse events (e.g. allergy, behavioural problems and abdominal discomfort) that may have occurred as a result of the intervention; four reported no effect. Activity interventions versus control Activity interventions, compared with control, may have little to no effect on BMI and zBMI at short-term or long-term follow-up (BMI short-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.13; 14 studies, 4069 participants; zBMI short-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; 6 studies, 3580 participants; low-certainty evidence; BMI long-term: MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.10; 8 studies, 8302 participants; zBMI long-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04; 6 studies, 6940 participants; low-certainty evidence). Activity interventions likely result in a slight reduction of BMI and zBMI at medium-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05; 16 studies, 21,286 participants; zBMI: MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.02; 13 studies, 20,600 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Eleven studies (21,278 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events; one study reported two minor ankle sprains and one study reported the incident rate of adverse events (e.g. musculoskeletal injuries) that may have occurred as a result of the intervention; nine studies reported no effect. Dietary and activity interventions versus control Dietary and activity interventions, compared with control, may result in a slight reduction in BMI and zBMI at short-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.01; 27 studies, 16,066 participants; zBMI: MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.00; 26 studies, 12,784 participants; low-certainty evidence) and likely result in a reduction of BMI and zBMI at medium-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.00; 21 studies, 17,547 participants; zBMI: MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; 24 studies, 20,998 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dietary and activity interventions compared with control may result in little to no difference in BMI and zBMI at long-term follow-up (BMI: MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16; 16 studies, 22,098 participants; zBMI: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.01; 22 studies, 23,594 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nineteen studies (27,882 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: four studies reported occurrence of serious adverse events (e.g. injuries, low levels of extreme dieting behaviour); 15 studies reported no effect. Heterogeneity was apparent in the results for all outcomes at the three follow-up times, which could not be explained by the main setting of the interventions (school, home, school and home, other), country income status (high-income versus non-high-income), participants' socioeconomic status (low versus mixed) and duration of the intervention. Most studies excluded children with a mental or physical disability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The body of evidence in this review demonstrates that a range of school-based 'activity' interventions, alone or in combination with dietary interventions, may have a modest beneficial effect on obesity in childhood at short- and medium-term, but not at long-term follow-up. Dietary interventions alone may result in little to no difference. Limited evidence of low quality was identified on the effect of dietary and/or activity interventions on severe adverse events and health inequalities; exploratory analyses of these data suggest no meaningful impact. We identified a dearth of evidence for home and community-based settings (e.g. delivered through local youth groups), for children living with disabilities and indicators of health inequities.

Appraisal of Clinical Care Practices for Child Obesity Treatment. Part I: Interventions

The objective of this technical report is to provide clinicians with evidence-based, actionable information upon which to make assessment and treatment decisions for children and adolescents with obesity. In addition, this report will provide an evidence base to inform clinical practice guidelines for the management and treatment of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents. To this end, the goal of this report was to identify all relevant studies to answer 2 overarching key questions: (KQ1) "What are clinically based, effective treatments for obesity?" and (KQ2) "What is the risk of comorbidities among children with obesity?" See Appendix 1 for the conceptual framework and a priori key questions.

Interventions to prevent obesity in school-aged children 6-18 years: An update of a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis including studies from 2015-2021

BACKGROUND

Childhood obesity remains a global public health priority due to the enormous burden it generates. Recent surveillance data suggests there has been a sharp increase in the prevalence of childhood obesity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Cochrane review of childhood obesity prevention interventions (0-18 years) updated to 2015 is the most rigorous and comprehensive review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic. A burgeoning number of high quality studies have been published since that are yet to be synthesised.

METHODS

An update of the Cochrane systematic review was conducted to include RCT studies in school-aged children (6-18 years) published to 30 June 2021 that assessed effectiveness on child weight (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020218928). Available cost-effectiveness and adverse effect data were extracted. Intervention effects on body mass index (BMI) were synthesised in random effects meta-analyses by setting (school, after-school program, community, home), and meta-regression examined the association of study characteristics with intervention effect.

FINDINGS

Meta-analysis of 140 of 195 included studies (183,063 participants) found a very small positive effect on body mass index for school-based studies (SMD -0·03, 95%CI -0·06,-0·01; trials = 93; participants = 131,443; moderate certainty evidence) but not after-school programs, community or home-based studies. Subgroup analysis by age (6-12 years; 13-18 years) found no differential effects in any setting. Meta-regression found no associations between study characteristics (including setting, income level) and intervention effect. Ten of 53 studies assessing adverse effects reported presence of an adverse event. Insufficient data was available to draw conclusions on cost-effectiveness.

INTERPRETATION

This updated synthesis of obesity prevention interventions for children aged 6-18 years, found a small beneficial impact on child BMI for school-based obesity prevention interventions. A more comprehensive assessment of interventions is required to identify mechanisms of effective interventions to inform future obesity prevention public health policy, which may be particularly salient in for COVID-19 recovery planning.

FUNDING

This research was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australia (Application No APP1153479).

Clinical and school-based intervention strategies for youth obesity prevention: A systematic review

Introduction

In the last couple of decades, numerous intervention strategies (ISs) have been formulated in school/community or clinical sectors using physical activity (PA) in order to prevent youth obesity because they have been highly effective in addressing this issue. These two sectors have revealed some interesting information in terms of efficient results and best practice mechanisms, but comparisons between them to learn about their functioning have been rare.

Methods

Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to analyze and synthesize PA ISs from school/community or clinical domains for the period 2013-2017, in French or English, targeting youths aged 5-19 years old through primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention.

Results

In total, 68 full articles were reserved for data extraction and synthesis and 617 were excluded because they did not meet eligibility criteria (61 of 68 were kept for the final analysis). The results identified a number of differences between the studies of the various IS sectors and also a third type of IS, mixed sector. Mixed ISs (clinical and school-community) have a special advantage because they can benefit from the strengths of both school/community-based and clinical-based ISs. Mixed ISs showed the most promising results. This review also highlighted the differences between sectors and their ISs in terms of intervention teams, prevention objectives, duration, materials, and efficiency.

Conclusion

Future studies should focus on establishing a prevention program in a given geographical area involving all stakeholders with their respective skills/knowledge, in the area of decision-making and in the development of ISs, to ensure that the program is the most efficient and best adapted to its environment.

Interventions for preventing obesity in children

BACKGROUND

Prevention of childhood obesity is an international public health priority given the significant impact of obesity on acute and chronic diseases, general health, development and well-being. The international evidence base for strategies to prevent obesity is very large and is accumulating rapidly. This is an update of a previous review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of a range of interventions that include diet or physical activity components, or both, designed to prevent obesity in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO and CINAHL in June 2015. We re-ran the search from June 2015 to January 2018 and included a search of trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of diet or physical activity interventions, or combined diet and physical activity interventions, for preventing overweight or obesity in children (0-17 years) that reported outcomes at a minimum of 12 weeks from baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk-of-bias and evaluated overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We extracted data on adiposity outcomes, sociodemographic characteristics, adverse events, intervention process and costs. We meta-analysed data as guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and presented separate meta-analyses by age group for child 0 to 5 years, 6 to 12 years, and 13 to 18 years for zBMI and BMI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 153 RCTs, mostly from the USA or Europe. Thirteen studies were based in upper-middle-income countries (UMIC: Brazil, Ecuador, Lebanon, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, US-Mexico border), and one was based in a lower middle-income country (LMIC: Egypt). The majority (85) targeted children aged 6 to 12 years.Children aged 0-5 years: There is moderate-certainty evidence from 16 RCTs (n = 6261) that diet combined with physical activity interventions, compared with control, reduced BMI (mean difference (MD) -0.07 kg/m2, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to -0.01), and had a similar effect (11 RCTs, n = 5536) on zBMI (MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.01). Neither diet (moderate-certainty evidence) nor physical activity interventions alone (high-certainty evidence) compared with control reduced BMI (physical activity alone: MD -0.22 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.01) or zBMI (diet alone: MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.04; physical activity alone: MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.13) in children aged 0-5 years.Children aged 6 to 12 years: There is moderate-certainty evidence from 14 RCTs (n = 16,410) that physical activity interventions, compared with control, reduced BMI (MD -0.10 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.05). However, there is moderate-certainty evidence that they had little or no effect on zBMI (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02). There is low-certainty evidence from 20 RCTs (n = 24,043) that diet combined with physical activity interventions, compared with control, reduced zBMI (MD -0.05 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.01). There is high-certainty evidence that diet interventions, compared with control, had little impact on zBMI (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.01) or BMI (-0.02 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.06).Children aged 13 to 18 years: There is very low-certainty evidence that physical activity interventions, compared with control reduced BMI (MD -1.53 kg/m2, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.39; 4 RCTs; n = 720); and low-certainty evidence for a reduction in zBMI (MD -0.2, 95% CI -0.3 to -0.1; 1 RCT; n = 100). There is low-certainty evidence from eight RCTs (n = 16,583) that diet combined with physical activity interventions, compared with control, had no effect on BMI (MD -0.02 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.05); or zBMI (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.07; 6 RCTs; n = 16,543). Evidence from two RCTs (low-certainty evidence; n = 294) found no effect of diet interventions on BMI.Direct comparisons of interventions: Two RCTs reported data directly comparing diet with either physical activity or diet combined with physical activity interventions for children aged 6 to 12 years and reported no differences.Heterogeneity was apparent in the results from all three age groups, which could not be entirely explained by setting or duration of the interventions. Where reported, interventions did not appear to result in adverse effects (16 RCTs) or increase health inequalities (gender: 30 RCTs; socioeconomic status: 18 RCTs), although relatively few studies examined these factors.Re-running the searches in January 2018 identified 315 records with potential relevance to this review, which will be synthesised in the next update.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that include diet combined with physical activity interventions can reduce the risk of obesity (zBMI and BMI) in young children aged 0 to 5 years. There is weaker evidence from a single study that dietary interventions may be beneficial.However, interventions that focus only on physical activity do not appear to be effective in children of this age. In contrast, interventions that only focus on physical activity can reduce the risk of obesity (BMI) in children aged 6 to 12 years, and adolescents aged 13 to 18 years. In these age groups, there is no evidence that interventions that only focus on diet are effective, and some evidence that diet combined with physical activity interventions may be effective. Importantly, this updated review also suggests that interventions to prevent childhood obesity do not appear to result in adverse effects or health inequalities.The review will not be updated in its current form. To manage the growth in RCTs of child obesity prevention interventions, in future, this review will be split into three separate reviews based on child age.

Environmental interventions to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and their effects on health

BACKGROUND

Frequent consumption of excess amounts of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) is a risk factor for obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dental caries. Environmental interventions, i.e. interventions that alter the physical or social environment in which individuals make beverage choices, have been advocated as a means to reduce the consumption of SSB.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of environmental interventions (excluding taxation) on the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and sugar-sweetened milk, diet-related anthropometric measures and health outcomes, and on any reported unintended consequences or adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 11 general, specialist and regional databases from inception to 24 January 2018. We also searched trial registers, reference lists and citations, scanned websites of relevant organisations, and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies on interventions implemented at an environmental level, reporting effects on direct or indirect measures of SSB intake, diet-related anthropometric measures and health outcomes, or any reported adverse outcome. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) and interrupted-time-series (ITS) studies, implemented in real-world settings with a combined length of intervention and follow-up of at least 12 weeks and at least 20 individuals in each of the intervention and control groups. We excluded studies in which participants were administered SSB as part of clinical trials, and multicomponent interventions which did not report SSB-specific outcome data. We excluded studies on the taxation of SSB, as these are the subject of a separate Cochrane Review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risks of bias of included studies. We classified interventions according to the NOURISHING framework, and synthesised results narratively and conducted meta-analyses for two outcomes relating to two intervention types. We assessed our confidence in the certainty of effect estimates with the GRADE framework as very low, low, moderate or high, and presented 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14,488 unique records, and assessed 1030 in full text for eligibility. We found 58 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, including 22 RCTs, 3 NRCTs, 14 CBA studies, and 19 ITS studies, with a total of 1,180,096 participants. The median length of follow-up was 10 months. The studies included children, teenagers and adults, and were implemented in a variety of settings, including schools, retailing and food service establishments. We judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain, and most studies used non-randomised designs. The studies examine a broad range of interventions, and we present results for these separately.Labelling interventions (8 studies): We found moderate-certainty evidence that traffic-light labelling is associated with decreasing sales of SSBs, and low-certainty evidence that nutritional rating score labelling is associated with decreasing sales of SSBs. For menu-board calorie labelling reported effects on SSB sales varied.Nutrition standards in public institutions (16 studies): We found low-certainty evidence that reduced availability of SSBs in schools is associated with decreased SSB consumption. We found very low-certainty evidence that improved availability of drinking water in schools and school fruit programmes are associated with decreased SSB consumption. Reported associations between improved availability of drinking water in schools and student body weight varied.Economic tools (7 studies): We found moderate-certainty evidence that price increases on SSBs are associated with decreasing SSB sales. For price discounts on low-calorie beverages reported effects on SSB sales varied.Whole food supply interventions (3 studies): Reported associations between voluntary industry initiatives to improve the whole food supply and SSB sales varied.Retail and food service interventions (7 studies): We found low-certainty evidence that healthier default beverages in children's menus in chain restaurants are associated with decreasing SSB sales, and moderate-certainty evidence that in-store promotion of healthier beverages in supermarkets is associated with decreasing SSB sales. We found very low-certainty evidence that urban planning restrictions on new fast-food restaurants and restrictions on the number of stores selling SSBs in remote communities are associated with decreasing SSB sales. Reported associations between promotion of healthier beverages in vending machines and SSB intake or sales varied.Intersectoral approaches (8 studies): We found moderate-certainty evidence that government food benefit programmes with restrictions on purchasing SSBs are associated with decreased SSB intake. For unrestricted food benefit programmes reported effects varied. We found moderate-certainty evidence that multicomponent community campaigns focused on SSBs are associated with decreasing SSB sales. Reported associations between trade and investment liberalisation and SSB sales varied.Home-based interventions (7 studies): We found moderate-certainty evidence that improved availability of low-calorie beverages in the home environment is associated with decreased SSB intake, and high-certainty evidence that it is associated with decreased body weight among adolescents with overweight or obesity and a high baseline consumption of SSBs.Adverse outcomes reported by studies, which may occur in some circumstances, included negative effects on revenue, compensatory SSB consumption outside school when the availability of SSBs in schools is reduced, reduced milk intake, stakeholder discontent, and increased total energy content of grocery purchases with price discounts on low-calorie beverages, among others. The certainty of evidence on adverse outcomes was low to very low for most outcomes.We analysed interventions targeting sugar-sweetened milk separately, and found low- to moderate-certainty evidence that emoticon labelling and small prizes for the selection of healthier beverages in elementary school cafeterias are associated with decreased consumption of sugar-sweetened milk. We found low-certainty evidence that improved placement of plain milk in school cafeterias is not associated with decreasing sugar-sweetened milk consumption.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence included in this review indicates that effective, scalable interventions addressing SSB consumption at a population level exist. Implementation should be accompanied by high-quality evaluations using appropriate study designs, with a particular focus on the long-term effects of approaches suitable for large-scale implementation.

Interventions to change the behaviour of health professionals and the organisation of care to promote weight reduction in children and adults with overweight or obesity

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing globally, an increase which has major implications for both population health and costs to health services. This is an update of a Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of strategies to change the behaviour of health professionals or the organisation of care compared to standard care, to promote weight reduction in children and adults with overweight or obesity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases for primary studies up to September 2016: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, DARE and PsycINFO. We searched the reference lists of included studies and two trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised trials that compared routine provision of care with interventions aimed either at changing the behaviour of healthcare professionals or the organisation of care to promote weight reduction in children and adults with overweight or obesity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane when conducting this review. We report the results for the professional interventions and the organisational interventions in seven 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 12 studies for inclusion in this review, seven of which evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professional and five targeting the organisation of care. Eight studies recruited adults with overweight or obesity and four recruited children with obesity. Eight studies had an overall high risk of bias, and four had a low risk of bias. In total, 139 practices provided care to 89,754 people, with a median follow-up of 12 months. Professional interventions Educational interventions aimed at general practitioners (GPs), may slightly reduce the weight of participants (mean difference (MD) -1.24 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.84 to 0.37; 3 studies, N = 1017 adults; low-certainty evidence).Tailoring interventions to improve GPs' compliance with obesity guidelines probably leads to little or no difference in weight loss (MD 0.05 (kg), 95% CI -0.32 to 0.41; 1 study, N = 49,807 adults; moderate-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if providing doctors with reminders results in a greater weight reduction than standard care (men: MD -11.20 kg, 95% CI -20.66 kg to -1.74 kg, and women: MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI [-7.34, 4.74] kg; 1 study, N = 90 adults; very low-certainty evidence).Providing clinicians with a clinical decision support (CDS) tool to assist with obesity management at the point of care leads to little or no difference in the body mass index (BMI) z-score of children (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.01 in 378 children; moderate-certainty evidence), CDS tools may lead to little or no difference in weight loss in adults: MD -0.095 kg (-0.21 lbs), P = 0.47; 1 study, N = 35,665; low-certainty evidence. Organisational interventions Adults with overweight or obesity may lose more weight if the care was provided by a dietitian (by -5.60 kg, 95% CI -4.83 kg to -6.37 kg) or by a doctor-dietitian team (by -6.70 kg, 95% CI -7.52 kg to -5.88 kg; 1 study, N = 270 adults; low-certainty evidence). Shared care leads to little or no difference in the BMI z-score of children with obesity (adjusted MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.03; 1 study, N = 105 children; low-certainty evidence).Organisational restructuring of the delivery of primary care (i.e. introducing the chronic care model) may result in a slightly lower increase in the BMI of children who received care at intervention clinics (BMI change: adjusted MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.07; 1 study, unadjusted MD -0.18, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.16; N=473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Mail and phone interventions probably lead to little or no difference in weight loss in adults (mean weight change (kg) using mail: -0.36, 95% CI -1.18 to 0.46; phone: -0.44, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.38; 1 study, N = 1801 adults; moderate-certainty evidence). Care delivered by a nurse at a primary care clinic may lead to little or no difference in the BMI z-score in children (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.12; 1 study, N = 52 children; very low-certainty evidence).Two studies reported data on cost effectiveness: one study favoured mail and standard care over telephone consultations, and the other study achieved weight loss at a modest cost in both intervention groups (doctor and doctor-dietitian). One study of shared care reported similar adverse effects in both groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found little convincing evidence for a clinically-important effect on participants' weight or BMI of any of the evaluated interventions. While pooled results from three studies indicate that educational interventions targeting healthcare professionals may lead to a slight weight reduction in adults, the certainty of these results is low. Two trials evaluating CDS tools (unpooled results) for improved weight management suggest little or no effect on weight or BMI change in adults or children with overweight or obesity. Evidence for all the other interventions evaluated came mostly from single studies. The certainty of the included evidence varied from moderate to very low for the main outcomes (weight and BMI). All of the evaluated interventions would need further investigation to ascertain their strengths and limitations as effective strategies to change the behaviour of healthcare professionals or the organisation of care. As only two studies reported on cost, we know little about cost effectiveness across the evaluated interventions.

Diet, physical activity and behavioural interventions for the treatment of overweight or obese children from the age of 6 to 11 years

BACKGROUND

Child and adolescent overweight and obesity has increased globally, and can be associated with significant short- and long-term health consequences. This is an update of a Cochrane review published first in 2003, and updated previously in 2009. However, the update has now been split into six reviews addressing different childhood obesity treatments at different ages.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of diet, physical activity and behavioural interventions (behaviour-changing interventions) for the treatment of overweight or obese children aged 6 to 11 years.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS as well as trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP Search Portal. We checked references of studies and systematic reviews. We did not apply any language restrictions. The date of the last search was July 2016 for all databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of diet, physical activity, and behavioural interventions (behaviour-changing interventions) for treating overweight or obese children aged 6 to 11 years, with a minimum of six months' follow-up. We excluded interventions that specifically dealt with the treatment of eating disorders or type 2 diabetes, or included participants with a secondary or syndromic cause of obesity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE instrument. We contacted study authors for additional information. We carried out meta-analyses according to the statistical guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 70 RCTs with a total of 8461 participants randomised to either the intervention or control groups. The number of participants per trial ranged from 16 to 686. Fifty-five trials compared a behaviour-changing intervention with no treatment/usual care control and 15 evaluated the effectiveness of adding an additional component to a behaviour-changing intervention. Sixty-four trials were parallel RCTs, and four were cluster RCTs. Sixty-four trials were multicomponent, two were diet only and four were physical activity only interventions. Ten trials had more than two arms. The overall quality of the evidence was low or very low and 62 trials had a high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Total duration of trials ranged from six months to three years. The median age of participants was 10 years old and the median BMI z score was 2.2.Primary analyses demonstrated that behaviour-changing interventions compared to no treatment/usual care control at longest follow-up reduced BMI, BMI z score and weight. Mean difference (MD) in BMI was -0.53 kg/m2 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.82 to -0.24); P < 0.00001; 24 trials; 2785 participants; low-quality evidence. MD in BMI z score was -0.06 units (95% CI -0.10 to -0.02); P = 0.001; 37 trials; 4019 participants; low-quality evidence and MD in weight was -1.45 kg (95% CI -1.88 to -1.02); P < 0.00001; 17 trials; 1774 participants; low-quality evidence.Thirty-one trials reported on serious adverse events, with 29 trials reporting zero occurrences RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.93); P = 0.37; 4/2105 participants in the behaviour-changing intervention groups compared with 7/1991 participants in the comparator groups). Few trials reported health-related quality of life or behaviour change outcomes, and none of the analyses demonstrated a substantial difference in these outcomes between intervention and control. In two trials reporting on minutes per day of TV viewing, a small reduction of 6.6 minutes per day (95% CI -12.88 to -0.31), P = 0.04; 2 trials; 55 participants) was found in favour of the intervention. No trials reported on all-cause mortality, morbidity or socioeconomic effects, and few trials reported on participant views; none of which could be meta-analysed.As the meta-analyses revealed substantial heterogeneity, we conducted subgroup analyses to examine the impact of type of comparator, type of intervention, risk of attrition bias, setting, duration of post-intervention follow-up period, parental involvement and baseline BMI z score. No subgroup effects were shown for any of the subgroups on any of the outcomes. Some data indicated that a reduction in BMI immediately post-intervention was no longer evident at follow-up at less than six months, which has to be investigated in further trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Multi-component behaviour-changing interventions that incorporate diet, physical activity and behaviour change may be beneficial in achieving small, short-term reductions in BMI, BMI z score and weight in children aged 6 to 11 years. The evidence suggests a very low occurrence of adverse events. The quality of the evidence was low or very low. The heterogeneity observed across all outcomes was not explained by subgrouping. Further research is required of behaviour-changing interventions in lower income countries and in children from different ethnic groups; also on the impact of behaviour-changing interventions on health-related quality of life and comorbidities. The sustainability of reduction in BMI/BMI z score and weight is a key consideration and there is a need for longer-term follow-up and further research on the most appropriate forms of post-intervention maintenance in order to ensure intervention benefits are sustained over the longer term.