1
|
Yoong SL, Lum M, Wolfenden L, Jackson J, Barnes C, Hall AE, McCrabb S, Pearson N, Lane C, Jones JZ, Nolan E, Dinour L, McDonnell T, Booth D, Grady A. Healthy eating interventions delivered in early childhood education and care settings for improving the diet of children aged six months to six years. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 8:CD013862. [PMID: 37606067 PMCID: PMC10443896 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013862.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/23/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sze Lin Yoong
- Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Melanie Lum
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Luke Wolfenden
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Jacklyn Jackson
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Courtney Barnes
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Alix E Hall
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Sam McCrabb
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Nicole Pearson
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Cassandra Lane
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Jannah Z Jones
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Erin Nolan
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Lauren Dinour
- College of Education and Human Services, Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey, USA
| | - Therese McDonnell
- School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Debbie Booth
- Auchmuty Library, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
| | - Alice Grady
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yoong SL, Lum M, Wolfenden L, Jackson J, Barnes C, Hall AE, McCrabb S, Pearson N, Lane C, Jones JZ, Dinour L, McDonnell T, Booth D, Grady A. Healthy eating interventions delivered in early childhood education and care settings for improving the diet of children aged six months to six years. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 6:CD013862. [PMID: 37306513 PMCID: PMC10259732 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013862.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sze Lin Yoong
- Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Melanie Lum
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Luke Wolfenden
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Jacklyn Jackson
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Courtney Barnes
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Alix E Hall
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Sam McCrabb
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Nicole Pearson
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Cassandra Lane
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Jannah Z Jones
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| | - Lauren Dinour
- College of Education and Human Services, Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey, USA
| | - Therese McDonnell
- School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Debbie Booth
- Auchmuty Library, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
| | - Alice Grady
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wells NM, Cosco NG, Hales D, Monsur M, Moore RC. Gardening in Childcare Centers: A Randomized Controlled Trial Examining the Effects of a Garden Intervention on Physical Activity among Children Aged 3-5 Years in North Carolina. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2023; 20:5939. [PMID: 37297543 PMCID: PMC10252818 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20115939] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2023] [Revised: 05/01/2023] [Accepted: 05/10/2023] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
This study examined the effects of a childcare gardening intervention on children's physical activity (PA). Eligible childcare centers were randomly assigned to: (1) garden intervention (n = 5; year 1); (2) waitlist control (n = 5; control year 1, intervention year 2); or (3) control (n = 5; year 2 only) groups. Across the two-year study, PA was measured for 3 days at four data collection periods using Actigraph GT3X+ accelerometers. The intervention comprised 6 raised fruit and vegetable garden beds and a gardening guide with age-appropriate learning activities. The sample included a total of 321 3-5-year-olds enrolled in childcare centers in Wake County, North Carolina, with n = 293 possessing PA data for at least one time point. The analyses employed repeated measures linear mixed models (SAS v 9.4 PROC MIXED), accounting for clustering of the children within the center and relevant covariates (e.g., cohort, weather, outside days, accelerometer wear). A significant intervention effect was found for MVPA (p < 0.0001) and SED minutes (p = 0.0004), with children at intervention centers acquiring approximately 6 min more MVPA and 14 min less sedentary time each day. The effects were moderated by sex and age, with a stronger impact for boys and the youngest children. The results suggest that childcare gardening has potential as a PA intervention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy M. Wells
- Department of Human Centered Design, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, 1300F MVR Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
| | - Nilda Graciela Cosco
- Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, College of Design, North Carolina State University, 50 Pullen Road, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
| | - Derek Hales
- Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1700 Martin L. King Jr. Blvd., CB 7426, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
| | - Muntazar Monsur
- Department of Landscape Architecture, Davis College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
| | - Robin C. Moore
- Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, College of Design, North Carolina State University, 50 Pullen Road, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Cosco NG, Wells NM, Zhang D, Goodell LS, Monsur M, Xu T, Moore RC. Hands-on childcare garden intervention: A randomized controlled trial to assess effects on fruit and vegetable identification, liking, and consumption among children aged 3–5 years in North Carolina. Front Psychol 2022; 13:993637. [DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.993637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2022] [Accepted: 10/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Gardening at childcare centers may have a potent influence on young children’s learning about fruits and vegetables and their development of healthy dietary behaviors. This randomized controlled trial examined the effect of a garden intervention on fruit and vegetable (FV) identification, FV liking, and FV consumption among 3–5-year-old children enrolled in childcare centers in Wake County, North Carolina, USA. Eligible childcare centers (serving primarily low-income families) were randomly selected and then randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) intervention; (2) waitlist-control that served as a control in year 1 and received the intervention in year 2; or (3) no-intervention control. From the 15 participating childcare centers, 285 children aged 3–5 years were consented by their parents or guardians to participate. The intervention comprised six standardized, raised, mulched garden beds, planted with warm-season annual vegetables and fruits, and perennial fruits. A Gardening Activity Guide describing 12 age-appropriate, sequential gardening activities was distributed for teachers to lead hands-on gardening activities during the growing season. Data were gathered between Spring 2018 and Fall 2019. FV identification and liking were measured using an age-appropriate tablet-enabled protocol. FV consumption was measured by weighing each child’s fruit and vegetable snack tray before and after tasting sessions. Compared to children receiving no-intervention, children who received the garden intervention showed a greater increase in accurate identification of both fruits and vegetables as well as consumption of both fruit and vegetables during the tasting sessions. Consistent with prior research, the effects on fruit consumption were greater than on vegetable consumption. There was no significant effect of the garden intervention on children’s FV liking. Garden interventions implemented early in life foster learning about FV and promote healthy eating. Early exposure to gardening may yield a return on investment throughout the lifecourse, impacting healthy diet and associated health outcomes, which are particularly important within disadvantaged communities where children’s health is challenged by a host of risk factors. Clinical Trials Registration #NCT04864574 (clinicaltrials.gov).
Collapse
|