The Development of a Multilevel Intervention to Optimise Participant Engagement with an Obesity Prevention Programme Delivered in UK children's Centres

Exploring the application of behaviour change technique taxonomies in childhood obesity prevention interventions: A systematic scoping review

•

Novel critique of BCT taxonomy applications in childhood obesity prevention trials.

•

Large variation in BCT methods and reporting of BCT-related methods and results.

•

Scarce detail reported in selection of BCTs in prospective taxonomy applications.

•

Need for guidance to standardise processes and reporting of taxonomy applications.

Behaviour change technique (BCT) taxonomies provide one approach to unpack the complexity of childhood obesity prevention interventions. This scoping review sought to examine how BCT taxonomies have been applied to understand childhood obesity prevention interventions targeting children aged 12 years or under and/or their caregivers. A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL and PROSPERO, to capture all eligible research up to February 2021. No limits were placed on country, language, publication dates, or full text availability. Eligible studies included any study design that applied a BCT taxonomy and evaluated behavioural childhood obesity prevention interventions targeting children aged 12 years or under and/or their parents or caregivers. Sixty-three records, describing 54 discrete studies were included; 32 applied a BCT taxonomy prospectively (i.e., to design interventions) and 23 retrospectively (i.e., to assess interventions), 1 study did both. There was substantial variation in the methods used to apply BCT taxonomies and to report BCT-related methods and results. There was a paucity of detail reported in how BCTs were selected in studies applying BCT taxonomies prospectively. Our review provides important insight into the application of BCT taxonomies in childhood obesity prevention and several ongoing challenges, pointing to the need for best practice reporting guidance.

A cluster RCT and process evaluation of an implementation optimisation intervention to promote parental engagement enrolment and attendance in a childhood obesity prevention programme: results of the Optimising Family Engagement in HENRY (OFTEN) trial

Background

Poor and variable implementation of childhood obesity prevention programmes reduces their population impact and sustainability. We drew upon ethnographic work to develop a multi-level, theory-based implementation optimisation intervention. This intervention aimed to promote parental enrolment and attendance at HENRY (Health Exercise Nutrition for the Really Young), a UK community obesity prevention programme, by changing behaviours of children’s centre and local authority stakeholders.

Methods

We evaluated the effectiveness of the implementation optimisation intervention on HENRY programme enrolment and attendance over a 12-month implementation period in a cluster randomised controlled trial. We randomised 20 local government authorities (with 126 children’s centres) to HENRY plus the implementation optimisation intervention or to HENRY alone. Primary outcomes were (1) the proportion of centres enrolling at least eight parents per programme and (2) the proportion of centres with a minimum of 75% of parents attending at least five of eight sessions per programme. Trial analyses adjusted for stratification factors (pre-randomisation implementation of HENRY, local authority size, deprivation) and allowed for cluster design. A parallel mixed-methods process evaluation used qualitative interviews and routine monitoring to explain trial results.

Results

Neither primary outcome differed significantly between groups; 17.8% of intervention centres and 18.0% of control centres achieved the parent enrolment target (adjusted difference − 1.2%; 95% CI − 19.5%, 17.1%); 17.1% of intervention centres and 13.9% of control centres achieved the attendance target (adjusted difference 1.2%; 95% CI − 15.7%, 18.1%). Unexpectedly, the trial coincided with substantial national service restructuring, including centre closures and reduced funds. Some commissioning and management teams stopped or reduced delivery of both HENRY and the implementation optimisation intervention due to competing demands. Thus, at follow-up, HENRY programmes were delivered to approximately half the number of parents compared to baseline (n = 433 vs. 881).

Conclusions

During a period in which services were reduced by external policies, this first definitive trial found no evidence of effectiveness for an implementation optimisation intervention promoting parent enrolment to and attendance at an obesity prevention programme.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT02675699. Registered on 4 February 2016

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05757-w.