A weight management programme for fathers of children aged 4–11 years: cultural adaptation and the Healthy Dads, Healthy Kids UK feasibility RCT

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.

Reporting of patient involvement: a mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications using a targeted search strategy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the extent and quality of patient involvement reporting in examples of current practice in health research.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study. We used a targeted search strategy across three cohorts to identify health research publications that reported patient involvement: original research articles published in 2019 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), articles listed in the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) database (2019), and articles citing the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public) reporting checklist for patient involvement or a critical appraisal guideline for user involvement. Publications were coded according to three coding schemes: 'phase of involvement', the GRIPP2-Short Form (GRIPP2-SF) reporting checklist and the critical appraisal guideline.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The phase of the study in which patients were actively involved. For the BMJ sample, the proportion of publications that reported patient involvement. The quality of reporting based on the GRIPP2-SF reporting guideline. The quality of patient involvement based on the critical appraisal guideline. Quantitative and qualitative results are reported.

RESULTS

We included 86 publications that reported patient involvement. Patients were most frequently involved in study design (90% of publications, n=77), followed by study conduct (71%, n=61) and dissemination (42%, n=36). Reporting of patient involvement was often incomplete, for example, only 40% of publications (n=34) reported the aim of patient involvement. While the methods (57%, n=49) and results (59%, n=51) of involvement were reported more frequently, reporting was often unspecific and the influence of patients' input remained vague. Therefore, a systematic assessment of the quality and impact of patient involvement according to the critical appraisal guideline was not feasible across samples.

CONCLUSIONS

As patient involvement is increasingly seen as an integral part of the research process and requested by funding bodies, it is essential that researchers receive specific guidance on how to report patient involvement activities. Complete reporting builds the foundation for assessing the quality of patient involvement and its impact on research.

A systematic review examining socioeconomic factors in trials of interventions for men that report weight as an outcome

Weight management interventions designed specifically for men have become more common, but the extent to which socioeconomic factors are considered in trials of these interventions is unclear. We synthesized study characteristics, methods, and reporting of interventions with a behavioral component for men that report weight as an outcome, to establish the extent to which socioeconomic factors are considered during intervention design, conduct, and reporting. A comprehensive search was conducted on Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL for studies published from January 2000 to July 2021. Thirty-six trials were included. Educational attainment (n = 24) was the most frequently reported socioeconomic characteristic, followed by working status (n = 14) and area level deprivation (n = 12). Seven studies did not report any socioeconomic characteristics. Most studies (n = 20) did not mention the socioeconomic profile of their samples in relation to study strengths or limitations. Few (n = 4) consulted with men from lower socioeconomic groups during intervention design. One study examined potential differential intervention effects across socioeconomic groups, with most not powered to do so. Recent feasibility trials (n = 3) targeting specific socioeconomic groups suggest a potential nascent towards a greater consideration of factors related to equity. To best inform public health policy related to health inequalities, greater consideration of socioeconomic factors is required in trials of men's weight management interventions.

Cultural adaptation of 'Healthy Dads, Healthy Kids' for Hispanic families: applying the ecological validity model

Background

Healthy Dads Healthy Kids (HDHK) is a unique lifestyle obesity intervention for fathers and children that demonstrated weight loss among the fathers and behavior change among fathers and children in Australia. The program is gender-tailored to specifically target fathers for weight loss and 5–12 year old children for obesity prevention. The aim of this formative study was to examine an Expert Panel’s and Hispanic Family Panel’s perceptions about the program and suggestions for the cultural adaptation of HDHK for Hispanic families in southwestern US.

Methods

Forty-four Hispanic participants (22 fathers, 13 mothers and 9 children) made up the Family Panel. They participated in 1–5 study contacts (focus groups, online survey, and/or interviews). The scripts and qualitative guides assessed participants’ perceptions of the HDHK content and material using the Ecological Validity Model. Studies were conducted in English or Spanish, depending on the preference of the participant. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, translated, and thematically coded. Findings were reviewed with the Expert Panel who helped inform the cultural adaptation.

Results

80% of parents were foreign-born, 57% spoke only Spanish at home, and 60% did not graduate from high school. Several themes emerged to inform the cultural adaptation of the program. Parents agreed with the HDHK goals and recommended the program place greater emphasis on parenting and limiting children’s screen time. Some mothers and fathers wanted greater mother engagement. Weekly videos and a Facebook group emerged as favorite alternative options to engage mothers. Greater promotion of familism (inclusion and impact on whole family) was recommended for the program goals and activities. Gender roles for mothers and fathers, and differences in how fathers interact with male and female children, emerged and should be considered in program activities. Several barriers to father engagement surfaced, including lack of time due to work schedules, physically demanding jobs, concerns of caring for children without mother, fathers’ current fitness/weight, and lack of knowledge of how to eat more healthfully. The reading level of the HDHK materials was too high for some parents.

Conclusion

Findings from these formative qualitative studies informed the cultural adaptation of HDHK for Hispanic families, to account for literacy level, cultural values, and barriers to participation and engagement.