| Literature DB >> 22655175 |
Sabina B Gesell1, Kimberly D Bess, Shari L Barkin.
Abstract
Background. Antiobesity interventions have generally failed. Research now suggests that interventions must be informed by an understanding of the social environment. Objective. To examine if new social networks form between families participating in a group-level pediatric obesity prevention trial. Methods. Latino parent-preschool child dyads (N = 79) completed the 3-month trial. The intervention met weekly in consistent groups to practice healthy lifestyles. The control met monthly in inconsistent groups to learn about school readiness. UCINET and SIENA were used to examine network dynamics. Results. Children's mean age was 4.2 years (SD = 0.9), and 44% were overweight/obese (BMI ≥ 85th percentile). Parents were predominantly mothers (97%), with a mean age of 31.4 years (SD = 5.4), and 81% were overweight/obese (BMI ≥ 25). Over the study, a new social network evolved among participating families. Parents selectively formed friendship ties based on child BMI z-score, (t = 2.08; P < .05). This reveals the tendency for mothers to form new friendships with mothers whose children have similar body types. Discussion. Participating in a group-level intervention resulted in new social network formation. New ties were greatest with mothers who had children of similar body types. This finding might contribute to the known inability of parents to recognize child overweight.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22655175 PMCID: PMC3359823 DOI: 10.1155/2012/749832
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Obes ISSN: 2090-0708
Figure 1Flow of participants through the trial.
Measures of network structure and predicted change.
| Measure of network structure | Definition | Predicted change after intervention |
|---|---|---|
| Degree centrality | Number of ties that an actor has with other actors in the network. | Increase |
| Constraint | Degree to which extent to which an actor's connections are to others who are connected to one another. This is important because less constrained networks would allow for the possibility of increasing potential connections through ties with others who are not already connected to others in ego's network, thereby enabling exposure to health information and health behaviors that are flowing through the network. | Decrease |
| 2-step reach | How many people in the network a person could get to within two links of him/herself, expressed as a percentage of the total number of people in the network. This is a good measure of how well any individual could spread health information or health behaviors through the network by reaching out to friends and friends-of-friends. | Increase |
| Density | The number of ties among people in the network expressed as a percentage of all possible ties. If every person is tied directly with every other person the density is 100%. Increased density would allow for accelerated flow of desired health information or health behaviors through the network. | Increase |
Network effects included in the model.
| Network effects | Definition | Variable type |
|---|---|---|
| Outdegree | Ties leaving an actor (number of people marked as friends). Measure of the level of activity in the network. | Control |
| Reciprocity | Reciprocity is the extent to which ties are reciprocated between actors. Over time if A selects B, then B will reciprocate and select A, or A will drop his/her ties to B. There is an equilibrium tendency toward dyadic relationships to be either reciprocated or null. | Control |
| Closure (transitive ties and 3 cycles) | The tendency for a friend of a friend to become a friend. | Control |
| Similarity | Actors tend to form relationships with others who are similar to them in particular ways. Also termed homophily effect or more colloquially known as the idea that “birds of a feather flock together.” | Primary outcome |
Baseline demographic characteristics of latino parent-child dyads (N = 79).
| Domain | Control | Intervention | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | |
| Age | 4.1 | 0.9 | 4.2 | 0.9 | 0.85 |
| Gender (% female) | 54.6 | 45.7 | 1.00 | ||
| BMI z-score | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 0.70 |
| Waist circumference | 56.7 | 7.3 | 55.7 | 5.8 | 0.48 |
| Body fat percentage | 34.0 | 8.2 | 34.1 | 9.9 | 0.97 |
| BMI percentile2 | |||||
| Underweight (BMI < 5%) | 5% | 3% | |||
| Normal weight (BMI ≥ 5% < 85%) | 45% | 62% | |||
| Overweight (BMI ≥ 85% < 95%) | 25% | 15% | |||
| Obese (BMI ≥ 95%) | 25% | 20% | |||
| Adult | |||||
| Age | 32.3 | 5.7 | 30.7 | 6.0 | 0.22 |
| Acculturation3 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 0.55 |
| Relationship to child4 | 93.2 | 94.3 | |||
| Maternal education5 | |||||
| <High school | 63.6% | 65.7% | |||
| ≥HS < college | 27.3% | 31.4% | |||
| ≥College | 9.1% | 2.9% | |||
| BMI6 | 30.4 | 5.8 | 29.0 | 5.3 | 0.27 |
| Waist circumference | 99.4 | 16.3 | 100.8 | 21.4 | 0.75 |
| Body fat percentage | 40.3 | 7.3 | 40.0 | 5.8 | 0.85 |
| BMI category7 | |||||
| Underweight (BMI < 18.5) | 0% | 0% | |||
| Normal (BMI ≥ 18.5 < 25) | 18.2% | 20.0% | |||
| Overweight (BMI ≥ 25 < 30) | 34.1% | 45.7% | |||
| Obese (BMI ≥ 30) | 47.7% | 34.3% | |||
1 T-tests were used except for categorical variables (those reported only in percentages), where exact Fisher tests were used.
2Percentage of children by CDC weight status categories defined by BMI percentile for age. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
3Short-Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (SASH).
4Percentage of respondents who are mothers.
5Percentage of adults by education category in each group.
6Usual measure of BMI (kg/cm2).
7Percentage of adults by BMI category in each group: underweight category is omitted. The BMI categories are defined using the BMI measure (kg/cm2) for the adult.
T-Tests of goup differences related to individual network attributes.
| Mean change in individual network attributes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention Group ( | Control Group ( | Difference | |||
| Degree Centrality | Before | 1.52 | 1.45 | 0.07 | 0.847 |
| After | 6.41 | 3.89 | 2.52 | ||
| Constraint | Before | 0.85 | 0.90 | 0.05 | 0.127 |
| After | 0.52 | 0.68 | 0.16 | ||
| 2-step reach | Before | 3.08 | 2.81 | 0.27 | 0.675 |
| After | 32.53 | 23.99 | 8.54 | ||
Figure 2Mapping of social network changes over 3-month intervention. Each graph shows the study participants who have social ties with other study participants. These maps illustrate several points: First, some study participants already knew each other at baseline. This reflects the fact that the most effective recruitment strategy in this Latino population was word of mouth referrals. Importantly, there were no differences in preexisting network ties between control and intervention groups. Second, while some study participants already knew other study participants at baseline, half did not, and thus are not shown here, reflecting the average number of ties of 1.5 at baseline. Third, after the intervention, each group increased in the number of participants who had ties with others in the group.
Parameter estimates.
| Parameter | Estimates | Standard errors | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basic network effects | |||
| outdegree (density) | −2.1628 | 0.1944 | −11.1255 |
| Reciprocity | 2.0274 | 0.2817 | 7.1970 |
| 3 cycles | 0.8184 | 0.2898 | 2.8240 |
| Transitive ties | 1.3133 | 0.2198 | 5.9968 |
| Selection effects | |||
| Similarity—Child BMI Z-score | 1.2742 | 0.6133 | 2.08 |
Please place a check in the box next to each name describing the relationship you have with that person. For each name, indicate only your relationship and leave all other options for that person blank.
| Participant name | Myself | Family member | Friend | Transactional partner | Acquaintance | No relationship |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ana Alvarez | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| Blanca Bins | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| Camila Cruz | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| Daisy Diaz | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| …… | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| …… | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |