Effectiveness of a family-, school- and community-based intervention on physical activity and its correlates in Belgian families with an increased risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Feel4Diabetes-study

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a school- and community-based intervention to promote a healthy lifestyle and prevent type 2 diabetes in vulnerable families across Europe: the Feel4Diabetes-study

The Feel4Diabetes-study implemented a school- and community-based intervention to promote healthy lifestyle and prevent type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in six European countries. The intervention included a special focus on families at increased T2DM risk. The current study evaluates the intervention's cost-effectiveness. A Markov-type health economic model was developed to predict the incidence of T2DM and its complications. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (lifetime horizon, societal perspective) were calculated based on the overall intervention effect on health behaviour, and stratified for low- and high-risk families. Sensitivity analyses captured input parameters uncertainty. A budget impact analysis was performed. The increase in children's water consumption and physical activity led to a modest gain in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at a low intervention cost and budget impact. Medical cost savings due to avoided illness could only be achieved on the very long-term (>30 years). The intervention in its entirety was cost-effective (more QALYs at a reasonable investment) in Belgium, Finland, Bulgaria, and Hungary, while being dominant (net savings and more QALYs) in Greece and Spain. Results were cost-effective for the low-risk families, who only received the school- and community-based intervention component. Results for the high-risk families were only cost-effective (with considerable uncertainty) in Greece and Spain, but not when the intervention would need to be repeated. The Feel4Diabetes-intervention is potentially cost-effective, especially in countries with a high overweight and obesity prevalence, at a limited budget impact. The incremental financial investments to reach and support high-risk families did not result in the hoped-for health benefits.

Current Activities Centered on Healthy Living and Recommendations for the Future: A Position Statement from the HL-PIVOT Network

We continue to increase our cognizance and recognition of the importance of healthy living (HL) behaviors and HL medicine (HLM) to prevent and treat chronic disease. The continually unfolding events precipitated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have further highlighted the importance of HL behaviors, as indicated by the characteristics of those who have been hospitalized and died from this viral infection. There has already been recognition that leading a healthy lifestyle, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, may have a substantial protective effect in those who become infected with the virus. Now more than ever, HL behaviors and HLM are essential and must be promoted with a renewed vigor across the globe. In response to the rapidly evolving world since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the clear need to change lifestyle behaviors to promote human resilience and quality of life, the HL for Pandemic Event Protection (HL-PIVOT) network was established. The 4 major areas of focus for the network are: (1) knowledge discovery and dissemination; (2) education; (3) policy; (4) implementation. This HL-PIVOT network position statement provides a current synopsis of the major focus areas of the network, including leading research in the field of HL behaviors and HLM, examples of best practices in education, policy, and implementation, and recommendations for the future.

Telehealth-delivered, Cardioprotective Diet and Exercise Program for Liver Transplant Recipients: A Randomized Feasibility Study

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Rapid excess weight gain and metabolic complications contribute to poor outcomes following liver transplant care. Providing specialist lifestyle intervention with equitable access is a challenge for posttransplant service delivery.