Esther M F van Sluijs1, Susi Kriemler, Alison M McMinn. 1. MRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, Box 285, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK. esther.vansluijs@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Next to the school environment, the family and community environment are key for young people's behaviour and for promoting physical activity (PA). METHODS: A review of reviews was conducted, after which a literature search was conducted (in PubMed, Scopus and PsychInfo) from August 2007 (search date of the most recent review) to October 2010. Inclusion criteria were study population aged 18 years or younger, controlled trial, no PA control condition, PA promotion intervention and reported analyses of a PA-related outcome. Methodological quality was assessed, and data on intervention details, methods and effects on primary and secondary outcomes (PA, body composition and fitness) were extracted. RESULTS: Three previous reviews were reviewed, including 13 family-based and three community-based interventions. Study inclusion differed for each review, but all concluded that the evidence was limited, although the potential of family-based interventions delivered in the home and including self-monitoring was highlighted. A further six family-based and four community-based interventions were included in the updated review, with a methodological quality score ranging from 2 to 10 and five studies scoring 6 or higher. Significant positive effects on PA were observed for one community-based and three family-based studies. No distinctive characteristics of the effective interventions compared with those that were ineffective were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of family- and community-based interventions remains uncertain despite improvements in study quality. Of the little evidence of effectiveness, most comes from those targeted at families and set in the home. Further detailed research is needed to identify key approaches for increasing young people's PA levels in family and community settings.
BACKGROUND: Next to the school environment, the family and community environment are key for young people's behaviour and for promoting physical activity (PA). METHODS: A review of reviews was conducted, after which a literature search was conducted (in PubMed, Scopus and PsychInfo) from August 2007 (search date of the most recent review) to October 2010. Inclusion criteria were study population aged 18 years or younger, controlled trial, no PA control condition, PA promotion intervention and reported analyses of a PA-related outcome. Methodological quality was assessed, and data on intervention details, methods and effects on primary and secondary outcomes (PA, body composition and fitness) were extracted. RESULTS: Three previous reviews were reviewed, including 13 family-based and three community-based interventions. Study inclusion differed for each review, but all concluded that the evidence was limited, although the potential of family-based interventions delivered in the home and including self-monitoring was highlighted. A further six family-based and four community-based interventions were included in the updated review, with a methodological quality score ranging from 2 to 10 and five studies scoring 6 or higher. Significant positive effects on PA were observed for one community-based and three family-based studies. No distinctive characteristics of the effective interventions compared with those that were ineffective were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of family- and community-based interventions remains uncertain despite improvements in study quality. Of the little evidence of effectiveness, most comes from those targeted at families and set in the home. Further detailed research is needed to identify key approaches for increasing young people's PA levels in family and community settings.
Authors: Thomas A Farley; Rebecca A Meriwether; Erin T Baker; Liza T Watkins; Carolyn C Johnson; Larry S Webber Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-07-31 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Susan J Rodearmel; Holly R Wyatt; Mary J Barry; Fang Dong; Dongmei Pan; Richard G Israel; Susan S Cho; Michael I McBurney; James O Hill Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Mary Story; Nancy E Sherwood; John H Himes; Marsha Davis; David R Jacobs; Yolanda Cartwright; Mary Smyth; James Rochon Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2003 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: Maureen M Black; Erin R Hager; Katherine Le; Jean Anliker; S Sonia Arteaga; Carlo Diclemente; Joel Gittelsohn; Laurence Magder; Mia Papas; Soren Snitker; Margarita S Treuth; Yan Wang Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-07-26 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: David Ogilvie; Simon Griffin; Andy Jones; Roger Mackett; Cornelia Guell; Jenna Panter; Natalia Jones; Simon Cohn; Lin Yang; Cheryl Chapman Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Melbourne F Hovell; Jeanne F Nichols; Veronica L Irvin; Katharine E Schmitz; Cheryl L Rock; C Richard Hofstetter; Kristen Keating; Lori J Stark Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2009 Nov-Dec
Authors: Lars Bo Andersen; Maarike Harro; Luis B Sardinha; Karsten Froberg; Ulf Ekelund; Søren Brage; Sigmund Alfred Anderssen Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-07-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Philip J Morgan; Myles D Young; Adam B Lloyd; Monica L Wang; Narelle Eather; Andrew Miller; Elaine M Murtagh; Alyce T Barnes; Sherry L Pagoto Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Katherine Alaimo; Joseph J Carlson; Karin A Pfeiffer; Joey C Eisenmann; Hye-Jin Paek; Heather H Betz; Tracy Thompson; Yalu Wen; Gregory J Norman Journal: J Community Health Date: 2015-08
Authors: Mark L Wieland; Bridget K Biggs; Tabetha A Brockman; Amy Johnson; Sonja J Meiers; Leslie A Sim; Ellen Tolleson; Marcelo M Hanza; Jennifer A Weis; Jane R Rosenman; Paul J Novotny; Christi A Patten; Matthew M Clark; Jodi Millerbernd; Irene G Sia Journal: J Prim Prev Date: 2020-04