Assessing health impacts of home food gardens with Wind River Indian Reservation families: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 12 to 18 years old

BACKGROUND

Prevention of obesity in adolescents is an international public health priority. The prevalence of overweight and obesity is over 25% in North and South America, Australia, most of Europe, and the Gulf region. Interventions that aim to prevent obesity involve strategies that promote healthy diets 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 adolescents 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 adolescents (mean age 12 years and above but less than 19 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 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 74 studies (83,407 participants); 54 studies (46,358 participants) were included in meta-analyses. Sixty studies were based in high-income countries. The main setting for intervention delivery was schools (57 studies), followed by home (nine studies), the community (five studies) and a primary care setting (three studies). Fifty-one interventions were implemented for less than nine months; the shortest was conducted over one visit and the longest over 28 months. Sixty-two studies declared non-industry funding; five were funded in part by industry. Dietary interventions versus control The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of dietary interventions on body mass index (BMI) at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.41 to 0.06; 3 studies, 605 participants), medium-term follow-up (MD -0.65, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.11; 3 studies, 900 participants), and standardised BMI (zBMI) at long-term follow-up (MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.10; 2 studies, 1089 participants); all very low-certainty evidence. Compared with control, dietary interventions may have little to no effect on BMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.67 to 1.07; 1 study, 44 participants); zBMI at short-term (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.01; 5 studies, 3154 participants); and zBMI at medium-term (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.21; 1 study, 112 participants) follow-up; all low-certainty evidence. Dietary interventions may have little to no effect on serious adverse events (two studies, 377 participants; low-certainty evidence). Activity interventions versus control Compared with control, activity interventions do not reduce BMI at short-term follow-up (MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.86 to 0.58; 6 studies, 1780 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce zBMI at medium- (MD 0, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05; 6 studies, 5335 participants) or long-term (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.02; 1 study, 985 participants) follow-up; both moderate-certainty evidence. Activity interventions do not reduce zBMI at short-term follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.05; 7 studies, 4718 participants; high-certainty evidence), but may reduce BMI slightly at medium-term (MD -0.32, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.11; 3 studies, 2143 participants) and long-term (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.05; 1 study, 985 participants) follow-up; both low-certainty evidence. Seven studies (5428 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: two reported injuries relating to the exercise component of the intervention and five reported no effect of intervention on reported serious adverse events. Dietary and activity interventions versus control Dietary and activity interventions, compared with control, do not reduce BMI at short-term follow-up (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 11 studies, 3429 participants; high-certainty evidence), and probably do not reduce BMI at medium-term (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; 8 studies, 5612 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or long-term (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.16; 6 studies, 8736 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) follow-up. They may have little to no effect on zBMI in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.02; 3 studies, 515 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and they may not reduce zBMI at medium-term (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.01; 6 studies, 3511 participants; low-certainty evidence) or long-term (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.01; 7 studies, 8430 participants; low-certainty evidence) follow-up. Four studies (2394 participants) reported data on serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence): one reported an increase in weight concern in a few adolescents and three reported no effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence demonstrates that dietary interventions may have little to no effect on obesity in adolescents. There is low-certainty evidence that activity interventions may have a small beneficial effect on BMI at medium- and long-term follow-up. Diet plus activity interventions may result in little to no difference. Importantly, this updated review also suggests that interventions to prevent obesity in this age group may result in little to no difference in serious adverse effects. Limitations of the evidence include inconsistent results across studies, lack of methodological rigour in some studies and small sample sizes. Further research is justified to investigate the effects of diet and activity interventions to prevent childhood obesity in community settings, and in young people with disabilities, since very few ongoing studies are likely to address these. Further randomised trials to address the remaining uncertainty about the effects of diet, activity interventions, or both, to prevent childhood obesity in schools (ideally with zBMI as the measured outcome) would need to have larger samples.

Participant Preferences for the Development of a Digitally Delivered Gardening Intervention to Improve Diet, Physical Activity, and Cardiovascular Health: Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Low dietary intake of fruits and vegetables and physical inactivity are 2 modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Fruit and vegetable gardening can provide access to fresh produce, and many gardening activities are considered moderate physical activity. This makes gardening interventions a potential strategy for cardiovascular disease risk reduction. Previously developed gardening interventions have relied on in-person delivery models, which limit scalability and reach.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to ascertain participant insight on intervention components and topics of interest to inform a digitally delivered, gardening-focused, multiple health behavior change intervention.

METHODS

A web-based survey was delivered via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), including quantitative and open-ended questions. Eligible participants were aged ≥20 years, could read and write in English, were US residents, and had at least a 98% MTurk task approval rating. A multilevel screening process was used to identify and exclude respondents with response inattention, poor language fluency, or suspected automated web robots (bots). Participants were asked about their interest in gardening programming, their preferences for intervention delivery modalities (1-hour expert lectures, a series of brief <5-minute videos, or in-person meetings), and what information is needed to teach new gardeners. Comparisons were made between never gardeners (NG) and ever gardeners (EG) in order to examine differences in perceptions based on prior experience. Quantitative data were summarized, and differences between groups were tested using chi-square tests. Qualitative data were coded and organized into intervention functions based on the Behavior Change Wheel.

RESULTS

A total of 465 participants were included (n=212, 45.6% NG and n=253, 54.4% EG). There was a high level of program interest overall (n=355, 76.3%), though interest was higher in EG (142/212, 67% NG; 213/253, 84.2% EG; P<.001). The majority of participants (n=282, 60.7%) preferred a series of brief <5-minute videos (136/212, 64.2% NG; 146/253, 57.7% EG; P=.16) over 1-hour lectures (29/212, 13.7% NG; 50/253, 19.8% EG; P=.08) or in-person delivery modes (47/212, 22.2% NG; 57/253, 22.5% EG; P=.93). Intervention functions identified were education and training (performing fundamental gardening and cooking activities), environmental restructuring (eg, social support), enablement (provision of tools or seeds), persuasion (offering encouragement and highlighting the benefits of gardening), and modeling (using content experts and participant testimonials). Content areas identified included the full lifecycle of gardening activities, from the fundamentals of preparing a garden site, planting and maintenance to harvesting and cooking.

CONCLUSIONS

In a sample of potential web-based learners, participants were interested in a digitally delivered gardening program. They preferred brief videos for content delivery and suggested content topics that encompassed how to garden from planting to harvesting and cooking. The next step in this line of work is to identify target behavior change techniques and pilot test the intervention to assess participant acceptability and preliminary efficacy.

BMI Status and Trends among Native American Family Members Participating in the Growing Resilience Home Garden Study

This research reports the BMI status of 176 adults and 134 children from 96 Native American families who are participating in a randomized controlled trial to assess health impacts of home gardens. Analyses include demographic associations with BMI using a novel approach of analyzing BMI status of children and adults together as one population by using LMS-based z scores generated from NHANES data. Results fit national data, with Native Americans more likely to be overweight/obese than other US demographic groups. This, in turn, makes Indigenous communities more vulnerable to chronic diseases. Ending these health inequities requires substantial public health nutrition investments in, for example, restoration of Indigenous foodways. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02672748.

Garden Access, Race and Vegetable Acquisition among U.S. Adults: Findings from a National Survey

With the majority of U.S. adults not meeting recommended vegetable intakes and well-documented racial and ethnic disparities in fruit and vegetable consumption, various approaches to increase vegetable consumption have been implemented. Gardening is one approach that has been associated with increased vegetable consumption in various subpopulations; however, limited national data exist examining this relationship. Since vegetable acquisition is a necessary antecedent to increased vegetable consumption, this study examines if garden access is associated with vegetable acquisition among adults in a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. Data come from the National Food Acquisition and Purchasing Survey (FAPS), a survey of 4826 US households. Descriptive analysis and modified Poisson regressions were performed to examine associations between household garden access and vegetable acquisition amongst the total population and by race. Results indicate that for foods for at-home consumption, respondents with their own garden had a 30% greater prevalence (PR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.64) of acquiring enough vegetables to meet USDA recommendations compared to respondents in households without access to any gardens. Among Black respondents, those with access to their own garden had over two times increased prevalence (PR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.10, 5.01) of acquiring enough vegetables to meet recommended consumption amounts, compared to Black respondents without any access to a garden. No relationships between garden access and vegetable acquisition were observed for White or Asian respondents. This information may contribute to the body of evidence on strategies for increasing vegetable consumption among U.S. adults.

A Scoping Review of the Use of Indigenous Food Sovereignty Principles for Intervention and Future Directions

Indigenous food sovereignty (IFS) represents a community-led movement with potential to reduce health inequities, but no scoping review of the impact of taking an IFS approach on intervention research has been conducted. This review sought to: 1) describe intervention studies that employ IFS principles, and 2) describe the impact of studies using IFS principles on food access, eating patterns, diet quality, physical activity, and health. Through a literature review, 4 IFS principles were identified: 1) community ownership, 2) inclusion of traditional food knowledge, 3) inclusion and promotion of cultural foods, and 4) environmental/intervention sustainability. Twenty intervention studies published between January 1, 2000 and February 5, 2020 were included. Most of the studies that scored high in IFS principles saw a positive impact on diet. This review found evidence supporting the value of IFS principles in the development, implementation, and evaluation of health interventions for Indigenous communities.

Growing Healthy Hearts: Gardening Program Feasibility in a Hospital-Based Community Garden

OBJECTIVE

To assess feasibility in terms of acceptability, demand, and participant willingness to engage in gardening activities during an intervention delivered at a hospital-based community garden for patients at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS

In a pre-post study design, 15 adults with ≥1 CVD risk factor attended 5 education sessions over 12 weeks, tended garden beds, and completed questionnaires related to program acceptability and future gardening intentions. Interviews were used to identify areas for programmatic improvement.

RESULTS

Most participants rated the intervention as good or excellent (93%), and 73% indicated that it was likely that they would garden next season. Areas for programmatic improvement included creating opportunities for group discussion, providing online materials, and offering more cooking and gardening content.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Gardening as an intervention for adult patients with CVD risk factors is feasible. Assessment of the effect of gardening on health outcomes and dietary intake is warranted.

Growing intergenerational resilience for Indigenous food sovereignty through home gardening

As a community-based participatory research project designed to promote health and wellbeing, Growing Resilience supports home gardens for 96 primarily Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho families in the Wind River Reservation, located in Wyoming. Through analysis of data from two years of qualitative fieldwork, including stories told by 53 gardeners and members of the project's community advisory board in talking circles and through our novel sovereign storytelling method, we investigated if and how these participants employ relationships, knowledge, and practices across generations through home gardening. We find that participants describe home gardening within present, past, future, and cross-generational frames, rooted in family relationships and knowledge shared across generations. Our analysis of these themes suggests that gardening provides families a means to transmit resilience across generations or, as we call it here, intergenerational resilience. We conclude by discussing intergenerational resilience as a culturally specific mechanism of social-ecological community resilience that may be particularly relevant in Indigenous movements for food sovereignty.

Adult Health Status Among Native American Families Participating in the Growing Resilience Home Garden Study

Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone tribes sharing the Wind River Indian Reservation (WRIR) in Wyoming reportedly die 30 years earlier than whites in the state. We analyzed data on the health status of 176 adults from 96 families who participated in a randomized controlled trial to assess health effects of home gardens. Measures of body mass index, waist circumference, blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, vitamin D, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and household food security were collected from participating adults before the intervention. Results indicated that this group has considerably worse health status than average US adults and also fares worse than average American Indians/Alaska Natives. To help improve these disparities, Native Americans need access to appropriate and effective means of health promotion.