| Literature DB >> 20492667 |
Lorrene D Ritchie1, Sushma Sharma, Joanne P Ikeda, Rita A Mitchell, Aarthi Raman, Barbara S Green, Mark L Hudes, Sharon E Fleming.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Associated with a tripling in obesity since 1970, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in children has risen 9-10 fold. There is a critical need of protocols for trials to prevent T2DM in children. METHODS/Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20492667 PMCID: PMC2894820 DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-60
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Trials ISSN: 1745-6215 Impact factor: 2.279
Evaluation Measures in Taking Action Together
| Measurement | Procedure &/or reference |
|---|---|
| Waist & hip circum and ratio | With plastic non-elastic tape [ |
| Weight, height, BMI and BMIz | Wt: digital electronic scale, Ht: portable stadiometes, BMIz Calc [ |
| % Body fat | BIA [ |
| Fasting Glucose, Insulin | Commercially available kits [ |
| HOMA-IR | Calculation of insulin resistance [ |
| HbA1c, C-Peptide, NEFA | HbA1c [ |
| Acanthosis nigricans | Appearance of skin on back of neck with 0-4 scale of severity [ |
| Dietary intakes | Food diary [ |
| Dietary habits & Nutrition knowledge | After-School Student Questionnaire self-efficacy [ |
| Physical activity & fitness | 3-day PA diaries [ |
| PA habits & knowledge | California Dept. of Education's Healthy Kids Survey [ |
| Athletic competence | Harter self-perception profile for children [ |
| Diet self-efficacy | ASSQ self-efficacy questions [ |
| PA self-efficacy | Child's Self-Assessment for Physical Activity (CSAAPA) [ |
| Self-worth & social acceptance | Harter self-perception profile for children [ |
| Body satisfaction | Validated in African American adults [ |
| Self-esteem | Behavioral Assessment System for Children, BASC-2 [ |
| Conduct problems & activities | BASC-2 [ |
| Communication & social skills | BASC-2 [ |
| Family food behaviors | Shopping, meal preparation and family eating [ |
| Change for diet and PA | Fruit & vegetables [ |
| Family PA habits & weight | Family member's habits, duration of activity, and prevalence of overweight [ |
| Family environment & SEI | Moos Family Environment Scale [ |
| Family & Intrauterine history of T2DM | American Diabetes Association instrument [ |
| Polyovarian syndrome | (female child participants only) [ |
| Pubertal stage | Estradiol (E2), luteinizing hormone [ |
Figure 1Theoretical model for .
Coordinated and Complementary Roles of Research Staff, Consultants and Advisory Board Members for the Taking Action Together Project
| EXPERTISE | UCB | Collaborators & Consultants1 | Board |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adult education | √ | √ | |
| Cultural relevance | √ | √ | |
| Curriculum | √ | √ | |
| Family involvement | √ | √ | |
| Medical management | √ | ||
| Nutrition | √ | √ | |
| Physical education | √ | √ | √ |
| Process evaluation | √ | ||
| Self-esteem | √ | √ | √ |
| Study management | √ | ||
| Anthropometry | √ | √ | √ |
| Biochemical | √ | √ | √ |
| Diet | √ | √ | |
| Family demographics & characteristics | √ | √ | |
| Physical activity & fitness | √ | √ | √ |
| Self-esteem & behavior | √ | √ | √ |
| Statistics & data analysis | √ | ||
| Behavioral scientists | √ | ||
| Cooperative Extension | √ | ||
| Medical community | √ | √ | √ |
| Research scientists | √ | √ | √ |
| YMCA and other after-school/community venues | √ | ||
Academic collaborators and consultants included researchers at University of California (UC) Berkeley, UC San Francisco, UC Riverside, Brock University in Toronto, and UC Cooperative Extension.
Advisory board members included representation from diverse programs including the Food Stamp and Nutrition Education Program (youth and adult programs), Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP), 5-a-Day Power Play, Sports Play and Active Recreation for Kids (SPARK), California Adolescent Nutrition and Fitness Program (CanFIT), and the YMCA of the East Bay. Other collaborating institutions and organizations with a long history of involvement in the inner-city Oakland community included Children's Hospital and Research Institute Oakland, the California Department of Health Services and UC county-based Cooperative Extension.
Taking Action Together Project Plan - Participants by Group
| Control group | Intervention group | |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Number of participants (boys; girls) | |
| Cohort 1 | 51 (21; 30) | 52 (20; 32) |
| Cohort 2 | 28 (16; 12) | 35 (16; 19) |
| Cohort 3 | 32 (14; 18) | 37 (16; 21) |
| Total | 111 (51; 60) | 124 (52; 72) |
| End of 1st Year Follow-up | ||
| Cohort 1 | 33 (13; 20) | 37 (14; 23) |
| Cohort 2 | 20 (11; 9) | 18 (7; 11) |
| Cohort 3 | 14 (9; 5) | 14 (7; 7) |
| Total | 67 (33; 34) | 69 (28; 41) |
| End of 2nd Year Follow-up | ||
| Cohort 1 | 26 (10; 16) | 24 (10; 14) |
| Cohort 2 | 12 (6; 6) | 11 (7; 4) |
| Total | 38 (16; 22) | 35 (17:28) |
Figure 2Flowchart of study participant recruitment, self-selection to site, and eligibility assessment.
Some baseline characteristics of participants in the control and intervention groups (p-value for difference by group).
| Characteristic | Control | Intervention | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child | Age (yr) | 9.84 | 9.85 | 0.92 |
| BMI z-score | 2.00 | 2.05 | 0.52 | |
| Waist-to-hip ratio | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.36 | |
| % body fat | 36.2 | 36.3 | 0.90 | |
| Pubertal stage (1-5 scale) | 2.28 | 2.17 | 0.54 | |
| Fasting HbA1c (%) | 5.18 | 5.14 | 0.44 | |
| Fasting HOMA-IR | 2.49 | 2.51 | 0.94 | |
| Fasting ISI-FFA | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.72 | |
| Energy intake (kcal/day) | 1829 | 1887 | 0.53 | |
| Fat intake (g/day) | 75.2 | 73.0 | 0.62 | |
| Carbohydrate intake (g/day) | 220 | 245 | 0.04 | |
| Protein intake (g/day) | 71.5 | 67.9 | 0.38 | |
| Whole grains intake (servings/day) | 0.70 | 0.73 | 0.77 | |
| Fruit & vegetable intake (servings/day) | 2.06 | 2.38 | 0.10 | |
| Dairy intake (servings/day) | 1.27 | 1.21 | 0.59 | |
| Nutrition knowledge (1-22 scale) | 9.63 | 9.96 | 0.25 | |
| Food preferences (7-25 scale) | 16.0 | 16.3 | 0.32 | |
| Snack habits (1-5 scale) | 2.41 | 2.45 | 0.76 | |
| Fitness (ml O2/min/kg body wt) | 41.8 | 43.8 | 0.26 | |
| Moderate- & high-intensity physical activity (min/day) | 89.7 | 104.4 | 0.31 | |
| Global self-worth (1-4 scale) | 2.98 | 3.04 | 0.55 | |
| Athletic competence (1-4 scale) | 2.76 | 2.82 | 0.47 | |
| Family or Adult | Age of adult responder (yr) | 37.1 | 38.5 | 0.30 |
| SEI (4-12 range) | 8.42 | 8.29 | 0.59 | |
| Family History of T2DM (0-2 scale) | 0.13 | 0.20 | 0.18 | |
| Intrauterine risk for T2DM (0-2 scale) | 0.34 | 0.32 | 0.82 | |
| Food habits (7-36 scale) | 21.9 | 23.0 | 0.04 | |
| Physical activity habits (3-15 scale) | 11.7 | 12.2 | 0.28 | |
| Family Cohesion (1-4 scale) | 3.47 | 3.45 | 0.81 | |
| Family Conflict (1-4 scale) | 0.94 | 0.85 | 0.38 |
Taking Action Together Project Plan - Project Timeline
| Project Year1 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Develop program | A | B | C | D | ||||||||||||
| Refine program | A | B | C | D | A | B | C | D | ||||||||
| Convene Advisory Board | B | B | B | B | ||||||||||||
| Train staff | C | D | A | B | C | D | A | B | C | D | A | B | C | |||
| Conduct process evaluation | A | B | C | D | A | B | C | D | A | B | C | D | ||||
| Recruit study participants | ||||||||||||||||
| First cohort (n = 103) | C | D | ||||||||||||||
| Second cohort (n = 63) | C | D | ||||||||||||||
| Third cohort (n = 69) | C | D | ||||||||||||||
| Provide intervention2 | ||||||||||||||||
| First cohort | A | B | C | D | A | B | C | D | A | |||||||
| Second cohort | A | B | C | D | A | B | C | D | ||||||||
| Third cohort | A | B | C | D | ||||||||||||
| Perform impact measures (0 = pre-study;1 = 1st Yr follow-up; 2 = 2nd Yr follow-up)2 | ||||||||||||||||
| First cohort | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||
| Second cohort | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||
| Third cohort | 0 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
1 Project began middle of 2004 and ended in middle of 2008.
2 Quartiles of each study year are indicated as follows: A, 1st quartile; B, 2nd quartile, C, 3rd quartile, D, 4th quartile.
3 The first and second cohorts were followed for a total of two years whereas the third cohort was followed only for a single year.
Training Components and Content
| Program Component | Training time | Content |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Introductions, team-building, project overview1 | 1 hr during initial and yearly training (+3 hr additional during year-long program) | Introduce personnel roles. Describe the research project and program. Build team atmosphere. Introduce Body Positive and Health at Every Size concepts. |
| 2. Healthy lifestyle challenges in an obesogenic environment2 | 1 hr (+0 hr) | Introduce nutrition, physical activity and self-esteem goals. Discuss challenges African American families experience in inner-city Oakland in efforts to live a healthy lifestyle. |
| 3. Managing challenging behaviors in children2 | 1 hr (+8 hr) | Introduce positive behavioral management approaches and describe how to effectively develop social skills and problem-solving abilities in children. |
| 4. Social cognitive theory (SCT) in practice2 | 1 hr (+2 hr) | Understanding and using self-observation, peer modeling, feedback, verbal encouragement, mastery through trials of increasing difficulty. |
| 5. Nutrition2 | 1 hr (+2 hr) | Describe components of healthy diet, considerations of African American culture, income, food availability and transportation; demonstrate use of SCT3, importance of fun. |
| 6. Physical activity2 | 1 hr (+2 hr) | Discuss barriers, use of Health at Every Size concept and SCT to increase activity self-efficacy, motivational strategies, cultural preferences and considerations. |
| 7. Self-esteem2 | 1 hr (+2 hr) | Describe contributors to and effect of positive self-esteem, cultural differences in expression. Discuss strategies to develop self-esteem using Body Positive approach, preventing harm. |
| 8. Motivating families2 | 1 hr (+1 hr) | Influence of parenting style, family food and activity practices, and community environment on development of healthy behaviors; motivational strategies; cultural considerations. |
1 Separate sessions for Control and Intervention site staff.
2 Intervention site staff only.
Process Evaluation Data Collection in Taking Action Together
| Variables | Methods and Frequency1 |
|---|---|
| Adherence to schedule of lessons | Observation - monthly for child component; twice per year for adult component |
| Fidelity of lesson delivery | Observation - monthly for child component; twice yearly for adult component |
| Training, support and monitoring of staff | Observation of attendance and engagement |
| Response of participants to sessions | Attendance log - by session; reviewed monthly |
| Response of staff and volunteers to sessions | Session evaluation form - administered lesson-by-lesson for child sessions |
| Family response to mailings | Telephone survey - contact intervention families once per year |
| Overall assessment of program | Confidential telephone survey of intervention families - end of year |