1
|
Rashid AFA, Syed Saadun Tarek Wafa SWW, Talib RA, Bakar NMA. Interactive Malaysian Childhood Healthy Lifestyle (i-MaCHeL) programme: a single-arm pilot study. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2024; 10:80. [PMID: 38762727 PMCID: PMC11102176 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-024-01483-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2023] [Accepted: 03/16/2024] [Indexed: 05/20/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The growing obesity epidemic in Malaysia presents a public health challenge that requires innovative intervention strategies. In an effort to address this problem, an Interactive Malaysian Childhood Healthy Lifestyle (i-MaCHeL) programme, which is a web-based initiative designed for preschool child-parent dyads offers a novel approach. Nevertheless, the success of such a web-based intervention depends on several interrelated factors. This research aims to examine the feasibility of i-MaCHeL in the Malaysian context, its usability for preschool child-parent dyads, and the acceptability of the programme among these user groups. METHODS This was a single-arm pilot study involving 46 child-parent dyads recruited from six government preschools in Terengganu, Malaysia. The preschools were selected using a cluster random sampling technique at the preschool level. The intervention feasibility was determined based on the retention rate of participants in the pilot study. The System Usability Scale (SUS) and intervention process evaluation were used to assess the usability and acceptability of the web-based i-MaCHeL programme. RESULTS The retention data demonstrated that 42 out of 46 participants completed the 13-week intervention programme, which showed that the overall retention rate was 91.3%. A mean (SD) SUS score of 84.70 (13.82) was obtained from parents, indicating that the web-based i-MaCHeL had an acceptable usability level. The mean scores of the process evaluation items ranged from 4.52 (0.63) to 4.83 (0.38), demonstrating that the web-based i-MaCHeL was highly accepted by the parents. The acceptability data also indicated that at least 92.9% (39/42) of the parents agreed/strongly agreed that the web content, programme duration, intervention dose, WhatsApp group, and delivery mode were appropriate. CONCLUSIONS According to these findings, the i-MaCHeL intervention using a web-based approach was feasible, usable, and acceptable as part of a weight-related behaviour change intervention for preschool child-parent dyads. This pilot study demonstrated that the web-based i-MaCHeL was feasible and promising for delivering weight-related behavioural intervention to child-parent dyads. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04711525 . Registered on January 15, 2021.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ahmad Faezi Ab Rashid
- School of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
- Faculty of Hospitality, Tourism, and Wellness, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia
| | | | - Ruzita Abd Talib
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Nor Mazlina Abu Bakar
- Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pfledderer CD, von Klinggraeff L, Burkart S, da Silva Bandeira A, Lubans DR, Jago R, Okely AD, van Sluijs EMF, Ioannidis JPA, Thrasher JF, Li X, Beets MW. Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2024; 10:57. [PMID: 38582840 PMCID: PMC10998328 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-024-01485-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/26/2024] [Indexed: 04/08/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences. METHODS To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences. RESULTS A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading. CONCLUSION We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher D Pfledderer
- Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health in Austin, Austin, TX, 78701, USA.
- Michael and Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health in Austin, Austin, TX, 78701, USA.
| | | | - Sarah Burkart
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| | | | - David R Lubans
- College of Human and Social Futures, The University of Newcastle Australia, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia
| | - Russell Jago
- Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1QU, UK
| | - Anthony D Okely
- Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia
| | | | - John P A Ioannidis
- Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - James F Thrasher
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| | - Xiaoming Li
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| | - Michael W Beets
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Pfledderer CD, von Klinggraeff L, Burkart S, da Silva Bandeira A, Lubans DR, Jago R, Okely AD, van Sluijs EM, Ioannidis JP, Thrasher JF, Li X, Beets MW. Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions. RESEARCH SQUARE 2023:rs.3.rs-3370077. [PMID: 38168263 PMCID: PMC10760234 DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3370077/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2024]
Abstract
Background In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences. Methods To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences. Results A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading. Conclusion We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Sarah Burkart
- University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health
| | | | | | - Russ Jago
- University of Bristol Population Health Sciences
| | | | | | | | | | - Xiaoming Li
- University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Yoong SL, Lum M, Wolfenden L, Jackson J, Barnes C, Hall AE, McCrabb S, Pearson N, Lane C, Jones JZ, Nolan E, Dinour L, McDonnell T, Booth D, Grady A. Healthy eating interventions delivered in early childhood education and care settings for improving the diet of children aged six months to six years. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 8:CD013862. [PMID: 37606067 PMCID: PMC10443896 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013862.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dietary intake during early childhood can have implications on child health and developmental trajectories. Early childhood education and care (ECEC) services are recommended settings to deliver healthy eating interventions as they provide access to many children during this important period. Healthy eating interventions delivered in ECEC settings can include strategies targeting the curriculum (e.g. nutrition education), ethos and environment (e.g. menu modification) and partnerships (e.g. workshops for families). Despite guidelines supporting the delivery of healthy eating interventions in this setting, little is known about their impact on child health. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of healthy eating interventions delivered in ECEC settings for improving dietary intake in children aged six months to six years, relative to usual care, no intervention or an alternative, non-dietary intervention. Secondary objectives were to assess the impact of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions on physical outcomes (e.g. child body mass index (BMI), weight, waist circumference), language and cognitive outcomes, social/emotional and quality-of-life outcomes. We also report on cost and adverse consequences of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions. SEARCH METHODS We searched eight electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Scopus and SportDiscus on 24 February 2022. We searched reference lists of included studies, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar, and contacted authors of relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, stepped-wedge RCTs, factorial RCTs, multiple baseline RCTs and randomised cross-over trials, of healthy eating interventions targeting children aged six months to six years that were conducted within the ECEC setting. ECEC settings included preschools, nurseries, kindergartens, long day care and family day care. To be included, studies had to include at least one intervention component targeting child diet within the ECEC setting and measure child dietary or physical outcomes, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Pairs of review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and extracted study data. We assessed risk of bias for all studies against 12 criteria within RoB 1, which allows for consideration of how selection, performance, attrition, publication and reporting biases impact outcomes. We resolved discrepancies via consensus or by consulting a third review author. Where we identified studies with suitable data and homogeneity, we performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model; otherwise, we described findings using vote-counting approaches and via harvest plots. For measures with similar metrics, we calculated mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for primary and secondary outcomes where studies used different measures. We applied GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for dietary, cost and adverse outcomes. MAIN RESULTS We included 52 studies that investigated 58 interventions (described across 96 articles). All studies were cluster-RCTs. Twenty-nine studies were large (≥ 400 participants) and 23 were small (< 400 participants). Of the 58 interventions, 43 targeted curriculum, 56 targeted ethos and environment, and 50 targeted partnerships. Thirty-eight interventions incorporated all three components. For the primary outcomes (dietary outcomes), we assessed 19 studies as overall high risk of bias, with performance and detection bias being most commonly judged as high risk of bias. ECEC-based healthy eating interventions versus usual practice or no intervention may have a positive effect on child diet quality (SMD 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.65; P = 0.03, I2 = 91%; 6 studies, 1973 children) but the evidence is very uncertain. There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECEC-based healthy eating interventions likely increase children's consumption of fruit (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.18; P < 0.01, I2 = 0%; 11 studies, 2901 children). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions on children's consumption of vegetables (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.25; P =0.08, I2 = 70%; 13 studies, 3335 children). There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECEC-based healthy eating interventions likely result in little to no difference in children's consumption of non-core (i.e. less healthy/discretionary) foods (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.08; P = 0.48, I2 = 16%; 7 studies, 1369 children) or consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.14; P = 0.41, I2 = 45%; 3 studies, 522 children). Thirty-six studies measured BMI, BMI z-score, weight, overweight and obesity, or waist circumference, or a combination of some or all of these. ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may result in little to no difference in child BMI (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.07; P = 0.30, I2 = 65%; 15 studies, 3932 children) or in child BMI z-score (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.03; P = 0.36, I2 = 0%; 17 studies; 4766 children). ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may decrease child weight (MD -0.23, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.03; P = 0.09, I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 2071 children) and risk of overweight and obesity (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01; P = 0.07, I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1070 children). ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may be cost-effective but the evidence is very uncertain (6 studies). ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may have little to no effect on adverse consequences but the evidence is very uncertain (3 studies). Few studies measured language and cognitive skills (n = 2), social/emotional outcomes (n = 2) and quality of life (n = 3). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may improve child diet quality slightly, but the evidence is very uncertain, and likely increase child fruit consumption slightly. There is uncertainty about the effect of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions on vegetable consumption. ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may result in little to no difference in child consumption of non-core foods and sugar-sweetened beverages. Healthy eating interventions could have favourable effects on child weight and risk of overweight and obesity, although there was little to no difference in BMI and BMI z-scores. Future studies exploring the impact of specific intervention components, and describing cost-effectiveness and adverse outcomes are needed to better understand how to maximise the impact of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sze Lin Yoong
- Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Melanie Lum
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Luke Wolfenden
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Jacklyn Jackson
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Courtney Barnes
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Alix E Hall
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Sam McCrabb
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Nicole Pearson
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Cassandra Lane
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Jannah Z Jones
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Erin Nolan
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Lauren Dinour
- College of Education and Human Services, Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey, USA
| | - Therese McDonnell
- School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Debbie Booth
- Auchmuty Library, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
| | - Alice Grady
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Yoong SL, Lum M, Wolfenden L, Jackson J, Barnes C, Hall AE, McCrabb S, Pearson N, Lane C, Jones JZ, Dinour L, McDonnell T, Booth D, Grady A. Healthy eating interventions delivered in early childhood education and care settings for improving the diet of children aged six months to six years. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 6:CD013862. [PMID: 37306513 PMCID: PMC10259732 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013862.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dietary intake during early childhood can have implications on child health and developmental trajectories. Early childhood education and care (ECEC) services are recommended settings to deliver healthy eating interventions as they provide access to many children during this important period. Healthy eating interventions delivered in ECEC settings can include strategies targeting the curriculum (e.g. nutrition education), ethos and environment (e.g. menu modification) and partnerships (e.g. workshops for families). Despite guidelines supporting the delivery of healthy eating interventions in this setting, little is known about their impact on child health. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of healthy eating interventions delivered in ECEC settings for improving dietary intake in children aged six months to six years, relative to usual care, no intervention or an alternative, non-dietary intervention. Secondary objectives were to assess the impact of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions on physical outcomes (e.g. child body mass index (BMI), weight, waist circumference), language and cognitive outcomes, social/emotional and quality-of-life outcomes. We also report on cost and adverse consequences of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions. SEARCH METHODS We searched eight electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Scopus and SportDiscus on 24 February 2022. We searched reference lists of included studies, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar, and contacted authors of relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, stepped-wedge RCTs, factorial RCTs, multiple baseline RCTs and randomised cross-over trials, of healthy eating interventions targeting children aged six months to six years that were conducted within the ECEC setting. ECEC settings included preschools, nurseries, kindergartens, long day care and family day care. To be included, studies had to include at least one intervention component targeting child diet within the ECEC setting and measure child dietary or physical outcomes, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Pairs of review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and extracted study data. We assessed risk of bias for all studies against 12 criteria within RoB 1, which allows for consideration of how selection, performance, attrition, publication and reporting biases impact outcomes. We resolved discrepancies via consensus or by consulting a third review author. Where we identified studies with suitable data and homogeneity, we performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model; otherwise, we described findings using vote-counting approaches and via harvest plots. For measures with similar metrics, we calculated mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for primary and secondary outcomes where studies used different measures. We applied GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for dietary, cost and adverse outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 52 studies that investigated 58 interventions (described across 96 articles). All studies were cluster-RCTs. Twenty-nine studies were large (≥ 400 participants) and 23 were small (< 400 participants). Of the 58 interventions, 43 targeted curriculum, 56 targeted ethos and environment, and 50 targeted partnerships. Thirty-eight interventions incorporated all three components. For the primary outcomes (dietary outcomes), we assessed 19 studies as overall high risk of bias, with performance and detection bias being most commonly judged as high risk of bias. ECEC-based healthy eating interventions versus usual practice or no intervention may have a positive effect on child diet quality (SMD 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.65; P = 0.03, I2 = 91%; 6 studies, 1973 children) but the evidence is very uncertain. There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECEC-based healthy eating interventions likely increase children's consumption of fruit (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.18; P < 0.01, I2 = 0%; 11 studies, 2901 children). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions on children's consumption of vegetables (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.25; P =0.08, I2 = 70%; 13 studies, 3335 children). There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECEC-based healthy eating interventions likely result in little to no difference in children's consumption of non-core (i.e. less healthy/discretionary) foods (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.08; P = 0.48, I2 = 16%; 7 studies, 1369 children) or consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.14; P = 0.41, I2 = 45%; 3 studies, 522 children). Thirty-six studies measured BMI, BMI z-score, weight, overweight and obesity, or waist circumference, or a combination of some or all of these. ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may result in little to no difference in child BMI (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.07; P = 0.30, I2 = 65%; 15 studies, 3932 children) or in child BMI z-score (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.03; P = 0.36, I2 = 0%; 17 studies; 4766 children). ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may decrease child weight (MD -0.23, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.03; P = 0.09, I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 2071 children) and risk of overweight and obesity (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01; P = 0.07, I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1070 children). ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may be cost-effective but the evidence is very uncertain (6 studies). ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may have little to no effect on adverse consequences but the evidence is very uncertain (3 studies). Few studies measured language and cognitive skills (n = 2), social/emotional outcomes (n = 2) and quality of life (n = 3). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may improve child diet quality slightly, but the evidence is very uncertain, and likely increase child fruit consumption slightly. There is uncertainty about the effect of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions on vegetable consumption. ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may result in little to no difference in child consumption of non-core foods and sugar-sweetened beverages. Healthy eating interventions could have favourable effects on child weight and risk of overweight and obesity, although there was little to no difference in BMI and BMI z-scores. Future studies exploring the impact of specific intervention components, and describing cost-effectiveness and adverse outcomes are needed to better understand how to maximise the impact of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sze Lin Yoong
- Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Melanie Lum
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Luke Wolfenden
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Jacklyn Jackson
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Courtney Barnes
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Alix E Hall
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Sam McCrabb
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Nicole Pearson
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Cassandra Lane
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Jannah Z Jones
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Lauren Dinour
- College of Education and Human Services, Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey, USA
| | - Therese McDonnell
- School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Debbie Booth
- Auchmuty Library, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
| | - Alice Grady
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Rashid AF, Wafa SW, Abd Talib R, Abu Bakar NM. An interactive Malaysian Childhood Healthy Lifestyle (i-MaCHeL) intervention programme to change weight-related behaviour in preschool child-parent dyads: Study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0276843. [PMID: 36315523 PMCID: PMC9621421 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276843] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2022] [Accepted: 09/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Unhealthy weight, especially childhood obesity, is emerging as a growing epidemic and a challenge in developed and developing countries. Partnership with parents to promote healthy lifestyle changes may have a lifelong impact on weight-related outcomes in children. This study aims to determine the efficacy of an Interactive Malaysian Childhood Healthy Lifestyle (i-MaCHeL) intervention programme to change weight-related behaviour in preschool child-parent dyads. Materials and methods The i-MaCHeL programme is a single-blind, theory-driven intervention, two-group cluster randomised controlled trial that evaluates the efficacy of a 3-month health promotion intervention in preschool child-parent dyads. In recognition of the value of multiple theoretical approaches, the strong theoretical basis consists of Social Cognitive Theory, Health Belief Model, and Trans-Theoretical Model principles underpinning the development of the intervention programme. In total, 460 child-parent dyads from 12 preschools in Terengganu, Malaysia, will be recruited. The children in the intervention group will expose to the i-MaCHeL classroom activities, while the parents will access the i-MaCHeL Web-based educational programme and numerous parent-child home-based online activities. The children in the control group will continue with any existing health-related activities, while the parents will receive the link to the general health newsletters. BMI z-score, dietary intake, physical activity, screen time duration, health-related quality of life, parental self-efficacy, parental role modelling, and parental policies will be assessed at baseline, 3 months’ post-baseline, and at 6 months’ follow-up (9 months’ post-baseline). General linear model repeated measure analysis will be used to determine differences between groups at the 3- and 9-month surveys with adjustment for potential covariates. Statistical analyses will follow intention-to-treat principles. Conclusion We hypothesise that the combination of the classroom and interactive Web-based activities will have a strong potential to be effective strategies to sustain child-parent engagement and participation in the weight-related behaviour change programme. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT04711525.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ahmad Faezi Rashid
- School of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
- Faculty of Hospitality, Tourism, and Wellness, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia
| | - Sharifah Wajihah Wafa
- School of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
- * E-mail:
| | - Ruzita Abd Talib
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Nor Mazlina Abu Bakar
- Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Hodder RK, O'Brien KM, Tzelepis F, Wyse RJ, Wolfenden L. Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 5:CD008552. [PMID: 32449203 PMCID: PMC7273132 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008552.pub7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca K Hodder
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
- Priority Research Centre in Health and Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
| | - Kate M O'Brien
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
- Priority Research Centre in Health and Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
| | - Flora Tzelepis
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
- Priority Research Centre in Health and Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
| | - Rebecca J Wyse
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
- Priority Research Centre in Health and Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
| | - Luke Wolfenden
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
- Priority Research Centre in Health and Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Malden S, Reilly JJ, Hughes A, Bardid F, Summerbell C, De Craemer M, Cardon G, Androutsos O, Manios Y, Gibson AM. Assessing the acceptability of an adapted preschool obesity prevention programme: ToyBox-Scotland. Child Care Health Dev 2020; 46:213-222. [PMID: 31856335 DOI: 10.1111/cch.12736] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2019] [Accepted: 12/14/2019] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Childhood obesity is a global public health issue. Interventions to prevent the onset of obesity in the early years are often implemented in preschool settings. The ToyBox intervention was delivered across Europe and targeted energy balance-related behaviours in preschools and children's homes through teacher-led activities and parental education materials and was adapted for use in Scotland. This study assessed the acceptability of the 18-week adapted intervention to both parents and teachers. METHODS Mixed methods were employed to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. Preschool staff and children's parents/caregivers completed post-intervention feedback surveys, from which acceptability scores were calculated and presented as proportions. Focus groups were conducted with preschool staff, whereas parents/caregivers participated in semi-structured interviews. A thematic analysis was applied to qualitative data following the development of a coding framework. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using SPSS and NVivo 10, respectively. RESULTS Preschool staff rated the intervention as highly acceptable based on post-intervention feedback surveys (80%; mean score 8.8/11). Lower acceptability scores were observed for parents/caregivers (49%; 3.9/8). Nine preschool practitioners participated in focus groups (n = 3). User-friendliness of the intervention materials, integration of the intervention with the curriculum, and flexibility of the intervention were identified as facilitators to delivery. Barriers to delivery were time, insufficient space, and conflicting policies within preschools with regard to changing classroom layouts. Parental interviews (n = 4) revealed a lack of time to be a major barrier, which prevented parents from participating in home-based activities. Parents perceived the materials to be simple to understand and visually appealing. CONCLUSIONS This study identified a number of barriers and facilitators to the delivery and evaluation of the ToyBox Scotland preschool obesity prevention programme, which should be considered before any further scale-up of the intervention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen Malden
- Physical Activity for Health Group, School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.,Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy, School of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, UK
| | - John J Reilly
- Physical Activity for Health Group, School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
| | - Adrienne Hughes
- Physical Activity for Health Group, School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
| | - Farid Bardid
- School of Education, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.,Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Carolyn Summerbell
- Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Durham University, Durham, UK
| | - Marieke De Craemer
- Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Greet Cardon
- Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Odysseas Androutsos
- Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Science and Education, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece
| | - Yannis Manios
- Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Science and Education, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece
| | - Ann-Marie Gibson
- Physical Activity for Health Group, School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Wolfenden L, Barnes C, Jones J, Finch M, Wyse RJ, Kingsland M, Tzelepis F, Grady A, Hodder RK, Booth D, Yoong SL. Strategies to improve the implementation of healthy eating, physical activity and obesity prevention policies, practices or programmes within childcare services. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 2:CD011779. [PMID: 32036618 PMCID: PMC7008062 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011779.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the existence of effective interventions and best-practice guideline recommendations for childcare services to implement evidence-based policies, practices and programmes to promote child healthy eating, physical activity and prevent unhealthy weight gain, many services fail to do so. OBJECTIVES The primary aim of the review was to examine the effectiveness of strategies aimed at improving the implementation of policies, practices or programmes by childcare services that promote child healthy eating, physical activity and/or obesity prevention. The secondary aims of the review were to: 1. Examine the cost or cost-effectiveness of such strategies; 2. Examine any adverse effects of such strategies on childcare services, service staff or children; 3. Examine the effect of such strategies on child diet, physical activity or weight status. 4. Describe the acceptability, adoption, penetration, sustainability and appropriateness of such implementation strategies. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following electronic databases on February 22 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL and SCOPUS for relevant studies. We searched reference lists of included studies, handsearched two international implementation science journals, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov). SELECTION CRITERIA We included any study (randomised or nonrandomised) with a parallel control group that compared any strategy to improve the implementation of a healthy eating, physical activity or obesity prevention policy, practice or programme by staff of centre-based childcare services to no intervention, 'usual' practice or an alternative strategy. Centre-based childcare services included preschools, nurseries, long daycare services and kindergartens catering for children prior to compulsory schooling (typically up to the age of five to six years). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened study titles and abstracts, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias; we resolved discrepancies via consensus. We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model where studies with suitable data and homogeneity were identified; otherwise, findings were described narratively. MAIN RESULTS Twenty-one studies, including 16 randomised and five nonrandomised, were included in the review. The studies sought to improve the implementation of policies, practices or programmes targeting healthy eating (six studies), physical activity (three studies) or both healthy eating and physical activity (12 studies). Studies were conducted in the United States (n = 12), Australia (n = 8) and Ireland (n = 1). Collectively, the 21 studies included a total of 1945 childcare services examining a range of implementation strategies including educational materials, educational meetings, audit and feedback, opinion leaders, small incentives or grants, educational outreach visits or academic detailing, reminders and tailored interventions. Most studies (n = 19) examined implementation strategies versus usual practice or minimal support control, and two compared alternative implementation strategies. For implementation outcomes, six studies (one RCT) were judged to be at high risk of bias overall. The review findings suggest that implementation strategies probably improve the implementation of policies, practices or programmes that promote child healthy eating, physical activity and/or obesity prevention in childcare services. Of the 19 studies that compared a strategy to usual practice or minimal support control, 11 studies (nine RCTs) used score-based measures of implementation (e.g. childcare service nutrition environment score). Nine of these studies were included in pooled analysis, which found an improvement in implementation outcomes (SMD 0.49; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.79; participants = 495; moderate-certainty evidence). Ten studies (seven RCTs) used dichotomous measures of implementation (e.g. proportion of childcare services implementing a policy or specific practice), with seven of these included in pooled analysis (OR 1.83; 95% CI 0.81 to 4.11; participants = 391; low-certainty evidence). Findings suggest that such interventions probably lead to little or no difference in child physical activity (four RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) or weight status (three RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), and may lead to little or no difference in child diet (two RCTs; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported the cost or cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Three studies assessed the adverse effects of the intervention on childcare service staff, children and parents, with all studies suggesting they have little to no difference in adverse effects (e.g. child injury) between groups (three RCTs; low-certainty evidence). Inconsistent quality of the evidence was identified across review outcomes and study designs, ranging from very low to moderate. The primary limitation of the review was the lack of conventional terminology in implementation science, which may have resulted in potentially relevant studies failing to be identified based on the search terms used. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Current research suggests that implementation strategies probably improve the implementation of policies, practices or programmes by childcare services, and may have little or no effect on measures of adverse effects. However such strategies appear to have little to no impact on measures of child diet, physical activity or weight status.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luke Wolfenden
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanNSWAustralia2308
- Hunter Medical Research InstituteNew LambtonAustralia
- Hunter New England Local Health DistrictHunter New England Population HealthWallsendAustralia
| | - Courtney Barnes
- Hunter New England Local Health DistrictHunter New England Population HealthWallsendAustralia
| | - Jannah Jones
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanNSWAustralia2308
- Hunter Medical Research InstituteNew LambtonAustralia
- Hunter New England Local Health DistrictHunter New England Population HealthWallsendAustralia
| | - Meghan Finch
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanNSWAustralia2308
- Hunter Medical Research InstituteNew LambtonAustralia
- Hunter New England Local Health DistrictHunter New England Population HealthWallsendAustralia
| | - Rebecca J Wyse
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanNSWAustralia2308
- Hunter Medical Research InstituteNew LambtonAustralia
- Hunter New England Local Health DistrictHunter New England Population HealthWallsendAustralia
| | - Melanie Kingsland
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanNSWAustralia2308
| | - Flora Tzelepis
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanNSWAustralia2308
| | - Alice Grady
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanNSWAustralia2308
| | - Rebecca K Hodder
- Hunter New England Local Health DistrictHunter New England Population HealthWallsendAustralia
| | - Debbie Booth
- University of NewcastleAuchmuty LibraryUniversity DriveCallaghanNSWAustralia2308
| | - Sze Lin Yoong
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanNSWAustralia2308
- Hunter Medical Research InstituteNew LambtonAustralia
- Hunter New England Local Health DistrictHunter New England Population HealthWallsendAustralia
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Jensen Nobile D. The 19th John M. Kinney Nestlé Nutrition Awards. Nutrition 2020; 70:110633. [DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2019.110633] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
11
|
Malden S, Reilly JJ, Gibson AM, Bardid F, Summerbell C, De Craemer M, Cardon G, Androutsos O, Manios Y, Hughes A. A feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of a preschool obesity prevention intervention: ToyBox-Scotland. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2019; 5:128. [PMID: 31728203 PMCID: PMC6842492 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-019-0521-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2019] [Accepted: 10/17/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background High levels of childhood obesity have been observed globally over the last three decades. Preschools are promising settings to implement obesity prevention interventions in the early years. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of a cluster randomised controlled trial of the ToyBox-Scotland preschool obesity prevention intervention. Methods Six preschools in predominantly deprived areas of Glasgow, UK, were randomised to either the ToyBox intervention (n = 3) or usual curriculum control group (n = 3). The intervention ran for 18 weeks from March-June 2018, and consisted of practitioner-led physical activity and sedentary behaviour sessions in preschools, with an additional interactive home component. Primary outcome measures were intervention fidelity, recruitment rates, attrition rates, and compliance with trial procedures. Secondary outcomes were body mass index (BMI) z-score, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time via activPAL accelerometer, and parent-reported home eating, snacking, and water consumption. Results The preschool component of the intervention was implemented with high fidelity (64%), while the home component was implemented with low fidelity (41%). A cluster-level recruitment rate of 10% was achieved, and the individual-level recruitment rate was 18% (42/233 children, mean age 4.4 years; 17 girls). The attrition rate was 14%, and compliance rates varied considerably by the outcome. Compliance was highest for BMI (86%), while 19% of the sample returned valid accelerometer data for both baseline and follow-up and the parental questionnaire response rate was 23%. Both intervention and control groups showed small increases in BMI z-scores at follow-up of 0.02 and 0.06, respectively. Both groups had small decreases in physical activity and increases in sedentary time at follow-up. Conclusions Before progression to an effectiveness trial, additional procedures should be considered to improve recruitment rates, compliance with outcome measures, and implementation of the home-based component of the ToyBox-Scotland intervention. Trial registration ISRCTN12831555.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen Malden
- 1Physical Activity for Health Group, School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Graham Hills Building, 40 George Street, Glasgow, G1 1XP UK
| | - John J Reilly
- 1Physical Activity for Health Group, School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Graham Hills Building, 40 George Street, Glasgow, G1 1XP UK
| | - Ann-Marie Gibson
- 1Physical Activity for Health Group, School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Graham Hills Building, 40 George Street, Glasgow, G1 1XP UK
| | - Farid Bardid
- 2School of Education, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.,3Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Carolyn Summerbell
- 4Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Durham University, Durham City, UK
| | - Marieke De Craemer
- 3Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Greet Cardon
- 3Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Odysseas Androutsos
- 5Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Science and Education, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece
| | - Yannis Manios
- 5Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Science and Education, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece
| | - Adrienne Hughes
- 1Physical Activity for Health Group, School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Graham Hills Building, 40 George Street, Glasgow, G1 1XP UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Hodder RK, O'Brien KM, Stacey FG, Tzelepis F, Wyse RJ, Bartlem KM, Sutherland R, James EL, Barnes C, Wolfenden L. Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 2019:CD008552. [PMID: 31697869 PMCID: PMC6837849 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008552.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca K Hodder
- Hunter New England Local Health DistrictHunter New England Population HealthLocked Bag 10WallsendAustralia2287
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanAustralia
- Hunter Medical Research InstituteNew LambtonAustralia
- University of NewcastlePriority Research Centre in Health and BehaviourCallaghanAustralia
| | - Kate M O'Brien
- Hunter New England Local Health DistrictHunter New England Population HealthLocked Bag 10WallsendAustralia2287
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanAustralia
- Hunter Medical Research InstituteNew LambtonAustralia
- University of NewcastlePriority Research Centre in Health and BehaviourCallaghanAustralia
| | - Fiona G Stacey
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanAustralia
- Hunter Medical Research InstituteNew LambtonAustralia
- University of NewcastlePriority Research Centre in Health and BehaviourCallaghanAustralia
- University of NewcastlePriority Research Centre in Physical Activity and NutritionCallaghanAustralia
| | - Flora Tzelepis
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanAustralia
- Hunter Medical Research InstituteNew LambtonAustralia
- University of NewcastlePriority Research Centre in Health and BehaviourCallaghanAustralia
| | - Rebecca J Wyse
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanAustralia
- Hunter Medical Research InstituteNew LambtonAustralia
- University of NewcastlePriority Research Centre in Health and BehaviourCallaghanAustralia
| | - Kate M Bartlem
- University of NewcastleSchool of PsychologyUniversity DriveCallaghanNew South WalesAustralia2308
| | - Rachel Sutherland
- Hunter New England Local Health DistrictHunter New England Population HealthLocked Bag 10WallsendAustralia2287
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanAustralia
- Hunter Medical Research InstituteNew LambtonAustralia
- University of NewcastlePriority Research Centre in Health and BehaviourCallaghanAustralia
| | - Erica L James
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanAustralia
- Hunter Medical Research InstituteNew LambtonAustralia
| | - Courtney Barnes
- Hunter New England Local Health DistrictHunter New England Population HealthLocked Bag 10WallsendAustralia2287
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanAustralia
- Hunter Medical Research InstituteNew LambtonAustralia
- University of NewcastlePriority Research Centre in Health and BehaviourCallaghanAustralia
| | - Luke Wolfenden
- Hunter New England Local Health DistrictHunter New England Population HealthLocked Bag 10WallsendAustralia2287
- University of NewcastleSchool of Medicine and Public HealthCallaghanAustralia
- Hunter Medical Research InstituteNew LambtonAustralia
- University of NewcastlePriority Research Centre in Health and BehaviourCallaghanAustralia
| | | |
Collapse
|