Christopher C Cushing1, Erin E Brannon2, Kristina I Suorsa2, Dawn K Wilson2. 1. Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, and Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina christopher.cushing@okstate.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, and Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and quantify the evidence for health promotion interventions in children and adolescents. METHOD: 96 independent samples of smoking, physical activity, and diet studies were included. Outcomes included both objective and self-reports of health behavior, as well as proxy measures such as fitness. RESULTS: The aggregated effect was significant (g = .20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.08-0.32, n = 96). A significant effect of intervention was observed at approximately 1-year follow-up (g = .07, 95% CI = 0.02-0.14, n = 20). The greatest risk of bias was failure to blind outcome assessment, which occurred in 21% of studies. Most studies lacked sufficient detail to determine the quality of their randomization sequence (58%). Additional concerns about risk of bias for individual studies were minimal. Overall, the quality of this finding was moderate using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. CONCLUSION: Health promotion interventions are effective for modifying health behavior; however, effect sizes are small.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and quantify the evidence for health promotion interventions in children and adolescents. METHOD: 96 independent samples of smoking, physical activity, and diet studies were included. Outcomes included both objective and self-reports of health behavior, as well as proxy measures such as fitness. RESULTS: The aggregated effect was significant (g = .20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.08-0.32, n = 96). A significant effect of intervention was observed at approximately 1-year follow-up (g = .07, 95% CI = 0.02-0.14, n = 20). The greatest risk of bias was failure to blind outcome assessment, which occurred in 21% of studies. Most studies lacked sufficient detail to determine the quality of their randomization sequence (58%). Additional concerns about risk of bias for individual studies were minimal. Overall, the quality of this finding was moderate using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. CONCLUSION: Health promotion interventions are effective for modifying health behavior; however, effect sizes are small.
Authors: Bettina M Beech; Robert C Klesges; Shiriki K Kumanyika; David M Murray; Lisa Klesges; Barbara McClanahan; Deborah Slawson; Cynthia Nunnally; James Rochon; Bonnie McLain-Allen; Jasmine Pree-Cary Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2003 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: Matthew B Pontifex; Brian J Saliba; Lauren B Raine; Daniel L Picchietti; Charles H Hillman Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: David A Fedele; Christopher C Cushing; Alyssa Fritz; Christina M Amaro; Adrian Ortega Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Jasmin Zähringer; Lukas Schwingshackl; Ani Movsisyan; Jan M Stratil; Sara Capacci; Jürgen M Steinacker; Sarah Forberger; Wolfgang Ahrens; Daniela Küllenberg de Gaudry; Holger J Schünemann; Joerg J Meerpohl Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2020-05-24 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Adrian Ortega; Carolina M Bejarano; Christopher C Cushing; Vincent S Staggs; Amy E Papa; Chelsea Steel; Robin P Shook; Terry L Conway; Brian E Saelens; Karen Glanz; Kelli L Cain; Lawrence D Frank; Jacqueline Kerr; Jasper Schipperijn; James F Sallis; Jordan A Carlson Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2022-08-26 Impact factor: 8.915