A 6-week healthy eating intervention with family engagement improves food knowledge and preferences but not dietary diversity among urban preschool children in Sri Lanka

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

BACKGROUND

Insufficient consumption of fruits and vegetables in childhood increases the risk of future non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease. Testing the effects of interventions designed to increase children's 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 benefits and harms 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 March 2023. We searched Proquest Dissertations and Theses in December 2022. We reviewed reference lists of included trials and contacted authors of the included trials to identify further potentially relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials (C-RCTs) and cross-over trials, of any intervention primarily targeting consumption of fruit, vegetables or both amongst children aged five years and under compared to no-intervention control, 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. 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 certainty of evidence (GRADE approach) using Cochrane procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 trials with 120 trial arms and 12,350 participants. Sixteen trials examined the impact of child-feeding practice interventions only (e.g. repeated food exposure) in increasing child vegetable intake. Twenty trials examined the impact of multicomponent interventions primarily conducted in the childcare setting (e.g. parent nutrition education and preschool policy changes) in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. Seventeen trials examined the impact of parent nutrition education only in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. Two trials examined the effect of a nutrition education intervention delivered to children only in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake and one each examined a child-focused mindfulness intervention or providing families with fruit and vegetable interventions. We judged nine of the 53 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 moderate-certainty evidence that child-feeding practice interventions versus no-intervention control probably have a small positive effect on child vegetable consumption, equivalent to an increase of 15.5 grams as-desired consumption of vegetables (SMD 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.65; 15 trials, 1976 participants; mean post-intervention follow-up = 12.3 weeks). No trials in this comparison reported information about intervention costs. One trial reported no harms or serious unintended adverse consequences (low-certainty evidence). Multicomponent interventions versus no-intervention control probably have a small effect on child consumption of fruit and vegetables (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43; 14 trials, 4318 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; mean post-intervention follow-up = 4.0 weeks), equivalent to an increase of 0.34 cups of fruit and vegetables a day. One trial, which tested a multicomponent garden-based intervention, reported the installation of the garden as part of the intervention to be USD 1500 per childcare centre (low-certainty evidence). No trials in this comparison reported information about unintended adverse consequences of interventions. Parent nutrition education interventions may have little to no short-term impact on child consumption of fruit and vegetables versus no-intervention control (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.22; 14 trials, 4122 participants; low-certainty evidence; mean post-intervention follow-up = 6.4 weeks). One trial reported the total estimated cost of delivering a parent nutrition education intervention for infant feeding, physical activity and sedentary behaviours delivered by a dietitian as approximately AUD 500 per family (low-certainty evidence). One trial reported no unintended adverse consequences on family food expenditure following implementation of an intervention delivered over the telephone to improve parental knowledge and skills about the home food environment (low-certainty evidence). Trials reported receiving governmental or charitable funds, except for one trial reporting industry funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was moderate-certainty evidence that child-feeding practice interventions and multicomponent interventions probably lead to only small increases in fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under. Parent nutrition education interventions may have little or no effect on increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under. Future research should be prioritised on assessment and reporting of both intervention cost and adverse effects, and development and evaluation of interventions in research gaps, including in a broader range of settings and in low- and middle-income countries. This review continues to be maintained as a living systematic review with monthly searches for new evidence and incorporation of relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Inducement of positive nutritional practices through health promotion campaigns among parents/caregivers in Albania

Opting for homemade meals is the healthiest choice. We assessed the change in nutritional practices among parents/caregivers exposed to health promotion campaigns. Pre- and post-intervention surveys inquiring about nutritional practices were conducted respectively in March and June 2022 in a community-based sample of 583 parents/caregivers in Albania (62% females; age: 39.7 ± 7.1 years; response: 83%). The multi-component intervention consisted of community-based 'onsite' events (awareness raising campaigns) and 'online' interventions (knowledge portal and digital applications). After the intervention, the prevalence of home cooking and/or provision of home-made foods to children for eating at school increased by 11% (both P < 0.01). Engagement in healthy nutritional practices 'only after the intervention' increased especially among Roma/Egyptian parents/caregivers.

Sustaining Healthy Habits: The Enduring Impact of Combined School-Family Interventions on Consuming Sugar-Sweetened Beverages among Pilot Chinese Schoolchildren

This study assesses the enduring impact of combined school- and family-based interventions on reducing the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) among schoolchildren in China. Two primary schools were assigned at random to either the Intervention Group or the Control Group, in Nanjing, eastern China. All students were in grade three and received an invitation to participate. In the first year, students in the Intervention Group received one-year intervention measures, including monthly monitoring, aiming to decrease the consumption of SSBs. Students in the Control Group only received regular monitoring without interventions. In the second year, both groups received only regular monitoring, without active interventions. A generalized estimating equations model (GEE) was used to assess the intervention effects. After two years, relative to the Control Group, the Intervention Group had a significantly improved knowledge of SSBs and an improved family environment with parents. In the Intervention Group, 477 students (97.3%) had adequate knowledge about SSBs, compared to 302 students (83.2%) in the Control Group (X2 = 52.708, p < 0.001). Two years later, the number of students who stated 'my home always has SSBs' in the Intervention Group (7.8%) was fewer than that in the Control Group (12.4%), which was a statistically significant finding (p < 0.05). One year later, both the frequency and the quantity of SSB consumption in the Intervention Group were less than those in the Control Group; such differences between the groups remained statistically significant for the quantity but not for the frequency of SSB consumption two years later. In the Intervention Group, the frequency of SSB consumption was significantly reduced by 1.0 times per week, compared to a reduction of 0.1 times per week in the Control Group in the first year (p < 0.05). In the second year, the frequency of SSB consumption was reduced by 0.8 times per week in the Intervention Group, compared to 0.5 times per week in the Control Group (p > 0.05). In the first year, the volume of SSB consumption was significantly reduced by 233 mL per week in the Intervention Group, compared to an increase of 107 mL per week in the Control Group (p < 0.05). In the second year, the volume of SSB consumption was reduced by 122 mL per week in the Intervention Group compared to an increase of 31 mL per week in the Control Group (p > 0.05). The combined school-based and family-based interventions had a positive effect on the students' knowledge of SSBs and their family dynamics during the first and second year. Relative to the Control Group, the Intervention Group had a statistically significant reduction in SSB consumption after 1 year, but not after 2 years.

Healthy eating interventions delivered in early childhood education and care settings for improving the diet of children aged six months to six years

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.

Healthy eating interventions delivered in early childhood education and care settings for improving the diet of children aged six months to six years

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.

A Narrative Review of Dietary Assessment Tools for Preschool-Aged Children in the Home Environment

Preschool-aged children in the U.S. have suboptimal diets. Interventions to improve child nutrition focus on parents and their role in shaping social and physical home environments, which influence children's eating behaviors. Dietary assessment tools selected to measure intervention objectives, and how results are interpreted in key findings, are essential when examining children's diets. The objectives of this review were to (1) describe dietary assessment tools used in intervention studies in young children focused within the home environment; and (2) examine how the application of these dietary assessment tools addressed intervention objectives. PubMed and Web of Science were searched for English-language nutrition intervention studies that included children aged 2-5 years, had a home environment component, used a dietary assessment tool, and reported on diet-related outcomes. Seventeen studies were included. Intervention objectives focused on overall diet, specific food groups, eating occasions, and obesity prevention/treatment. Concordance of key findings with intervention objectives, type of tool used, and multiple tools within the same study varied with 8 studies aligning in objective and tool, 1 discordant in both, and 8 partially concordant or too broad to determine. This review highlights current challenges in measuring dietary intake in preschoolers and provides recommendations for alternative applications and strategies.

The Combination of School-Based and Family-Based Interventions Appears Effective in Reducing the Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, a Randomized Controlled Trial among Chinese Schoolchildren

To examine whether environmental interventions, student awareness and parents’ model roles are associated with the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), a randomized controlled trial was conducted among Chinese schoolchildren. A multi-stage cluster random sampling method was applied to select four primary schools, two in urban areas and two in rural areas, in Nanjing, eastern China. Classes of the third grade in the selected four schools were randomly assigned to the intervention group and control group. Among selected students in those classes, aged 9–10 years, those in the intervention group received intervention measures comprising school-based and family-based measures and accepted monthly monitoring along with interventions, for two consecutive semesters, while those in the control group did not receive any specific interventions. After intervention, there was a significant increase in SSB knowledge and an improvement in the family environment with parents in the intervention group. The proportion of frequent consumption (≥4 times/week) of any SSBs in the intervention group was lower than that in the control group (31.5% vs. 56.2%, p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis indicated that parental education level is positively associated with reduced SSB consumption. Interventions showed an average decrease in SSBs consumption by 1.77 units, those living in urban areas decreased by 2.05 units. The combination of school-based and family-based interventions appears effective in reducing SSB consumption among Chinese schoolchildren, especially in urban areas and for those with parents with lower educational levels.