| Literature DB >> 28981460 |
Regina Lai-Tong Lee1, Cynthia Leung2, Hong Chen3, Lobo H T Louie4, Michael Brown5, Jyu-Lin Chen6, Gordon Cheung7, Paul H Lee8.
Abstract
There is a scarcity of resources and studies that utilize targeted weight management interventions to engage parents via mHealth tools targeting obese children and adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities (MIDs) extended from school to a home setting. To test the feasibility and acceptability of a school-based weight program (SBWMP) involving parents via mHealth tools designed to reduce weight, enhance knowledge and adopt healthy lifestyles, and thereby achieve better psychosocial well-being among children and adolescents with MIDs. Four special schools were randomly assigned as intervention or control schools. Students from the intervention group (n = 63) were compared to those in the control group (n = 52), which comprised those with usual school planned activities and no parental involvement. Demographics were considered as covariates in a general linear model, an ordinal regression model and a binary logistic regression model analyzing the relationships between the SBWMP and the outcome variables at baseline (T0) and six months later (T1). Body weight, body mass index, and triceps and subscapular skinfold thickness were lower in the intervention group compared to the control group, although the differences were not statistically significant. There was a positive and direct impact of the SBWMP on students' health knowledge and psychological impacts in the intervention group. The SBWMP extended to the home involving parents via mHealth tools is a feasible and acceptable program for this group with MIDs and their parents.Entities:
Keywords: engaging parents via mHealth tools; home setting; overweight and obese schoolchildren with mild intellectual disabilities; school-based weight management program
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28981460 PMCID: PMC5664679 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14101178
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Demographic characteristics of the sample (n = 115).
| Demographics | Intervention ( | Control ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||
| Age in Years | 13.44 | 2.734 | 15.31 | 3.387 | −3.265 | 113 | 0.001 |
|
| |||||||
| Gender | |||||||
| Male | 48 | 76.2 | 34 | 65.4 | 1.140 | 1 | 0.286 |
| Female | 15 | 23.8 | 18 | 34.6 | |||
| Education Level | |||||||
| Primary | 22 | 34.9 | 11 | 21.2 | 2.009 | 1 | 0.156 |
| Secondary | 41 | 65.1 | 41 | 78.8 | |||
| Birth Place | |||||||
| Hong Kong | 48 | 84.2 | 37 | 71.2 | 2.724 | 2 | 0.256 |
| Mainland China | 8 | 14.0 | 13 | 25.0 | |||
| Others | 1 | 1.8 | 2 | 3.8 | |||
| Religion | |||||||
| None | 37 | 67.3 | 29 | 55.8 | 7.725 | 4 | 0.102 |
| Christianity | 12 | 21.8 | 15 | 28.8 | |||
| Catholic | 0 | 0.0 | 5 | 9.6 | |||
| Buddhism | 5 | 9.1 | 3 | 5.8 | |||
| Others | 1 | 1.8 | 0 | 0.0 | |||
| Family Monthly Income in USD c | |||||||
| >3200 | 14 | 35.0 | 9 | 22.0 | 3.218 | 3 | 0.359 |
| 2000–3200 | 13 | 32.5 | 15 | 36.6 | |||
| 1000–2000 | 11 | 27.5 | 11 | 26.8 | |||
| <1000 | 2 | 5.0 | 6 | 14.6 | |||
| Receiving Government Subsidy | |||||||
| No | 40 | 88.9 | 41 | 83.7 | 0.187 | 1 | 0.665 |
| Yes | 5 | 11.1 | 8 | 16.3 | |||
| Paternal Education Attainment | |||||||
| Illiterate | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 2.0 | 3.021 | 4 | 0.554 |
| Primary School | 11 | 23.4 | 8 | 16.0 | |||
| Lower Secondary | 10 | 21.3 | 16 | 32.0 | |||
| Upper Secondary | 16 | 34.0 | 17 | 34.0 | |||
| Post-Secondary | 10 | 21.3 | 8 | 16.0 | |||
| Maternal Education Attainment | |||||||
| Primary School | 12 | 26.1 | 11 | 22.0 | 0.588 | 3 | 0.899 |
| Lower Secondary | 13 | 28.3 | 16 | 32.0 | |||
| Upper Secondary | 17 | 37.0 | 17 | 34.0 | |||
| Post-Secondary | 4 | 8.7 | 6 | 12.0 | |||
| Parents Married | |||||||
| No | 9 | 17.0 | 9 | 18.4 | 0.000 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Yes | 44 | 83.0 | 40 | 81.6 | |||
| Parents Living Together | |||||||
| No | 14 | 26.4 | 11 | 22.4 | 0.055 | 1 | 0.814 |
| Yes | 39 | 73.6 | 38 | 77.6 | |||
| Parents Divorced | |||||||
| No | 46 | 86.8 | 42 | 85.7 | 0.000 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Yes | 7 | 13.2 | 7 | 14.3 | |||
| Living With Both Parents | |||||||
| No | 15 | 27.3 | 18 | 34.6 | 0.375 | 1 | 0.540 |
| Yes | 40 | 72.7 | 34 | 65.4 | |||
| Living With Siblings | |||||||
| No | 27 | 49.1 | 22 | 42.3 | 0.260 | 1 | 0.610 |
| Yes | 28 | 50.9 | 30 | 57.7 | |||
| Living With Grandparents or Relatives | |||||||
| No | 39 | 70.9 | 44 | 84.6 | 2.152 | 1 | 0.142 |
| Yes | 16 | 29.1 | 8 | 15.4 | |||
a Independent sample t-test, 2-tailed; b Chi square test, 2-sided; c United States dollars.
Estimates of anthropometrics impact in complex sample general linear model.
| Primary Outcome Measures | Intervention | Control | Adjusted Difference | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | Covariates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | ||||||||
| Anthropometrics | |||||||||
| Height (m) | 1.54 | 0.005 | 1.55 | 0.006 | −0.005 | −0.02 | 0.007 | 0.29 | gd, pb, rb, gr, lp, ms, fp |
| Weight (kg) | 62.67 | 0.36 | 63.23 | 0.35 | −0.56 | −1.42 | 0.30 | 0.11 | gd, pb, rb, gr, lp, ms |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.72 | 0.18 | 25.87 | 0.16 | −0.14 | −0.50 | 0.22 | 0.33 | gd, pb, rb, gr, lm, ms |
| Skinfold thickness of triceps (mm) a | 25.05 | 0.76 | 25.97 | 0.60 | −0.92 | −2.46 | 0.63 | 0.15 | gd, pb, rb |
| Subscapular skinfold thickness (mm) b | 27.97 | 0.73 | 29.43 | 0.70 | −1.45 | −3.81 | 0.91 | 0.13 | gd, pb, rb, gr |
| Waist-to-hip ratio | 0.89 | 0.007 | 0.89 | 0.006 | 0.002 | −0.02 | 0.03 | 0.83 | gd, pb, rb, mi |
| Body fat (%) | 30.38 | 0.79 | 30.17 | 0.27 | 0.21 | −1.46 | 1.88 | 0.76 | gd, pb, rb, gr, ms |
SE = standard error. CI = confidence interval. p = p value. a Average skinfold thickness of left and right triceps. b Average skinfold thickness of left and right scapulars. gd = gender; gr = grade; pb = place of birth; rb = religious belief; lp = living with parents; lm = living with maid; mi = family monthly income from employment; fp = father passed away; ms: parents married.
Estimates of lifestyle health knowledge in complex sample general linear model.
| Primary Outcome Measures | Intervention | Control | Adjusted Difference | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | Covariates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | ||||||||
| Lifestyle Health Knowledge | |||||||||
| Score on Food Pyramid Test | 6.11 | 0.47 | 6.59 | 0.48 | −0.47 | −2.12 | 1.17 | 0.48 | gd, pb, rb, lg, fp |
| Score on Sports Pyramid Test | 3.23 | 0.24 | 1.86 | 0.11 | 1.37 *** | 0.54 | 2.20 | <0.001 | gd, pb, rb |
| Score on Snack Choice Test | 52.26 | 2.98 | 43.29 | 3.64 | 8.97 * | −1.83 | 19.77 | 0.04* | gd, pb, rb, me |
SE = standard error. CI = confidence interval. p = p value. a Average skinfold thickness of left and right triceps. b Average skinfold thickness of left and right scapulars. gd = gender; pb = place of birth; rb = religious belief; lg = living with grandparent or relative; me = maternal education level; fp = father passed away.
Estimates of self-efficacy in complex sample general linear model.
| Secondary Outcome Measures | Intervention | Control | Adjusted Difference | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | Covariates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | ||||||
| Self-Efficacy | 14.24 | 0.85 | 13.72 | 0.97 | 0.52 | −2.28 | 3.32 | 0.65 | gd, pb, rb |
| Children’s Self-Efficacy in Peer Interaction Scale | 43.57 | 2.95 | 40.28 | 2.68 | 3.29 | −1.80 | 8.37 | 0.11 | gd, pb, rb |
SE = standard error. CI = confidence interval. p = p value. gd = gender; pb = place of birth; rb = religious belief.
Estimates of psychosocial impacts in complex sample general linear model.
| Secondary Outcome Measures | Intervention | Control | Adjusted Difference | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | Covariates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | ||||||||
| Psychosocial Well-Being Outcomes | |||||||||
| Quality of Life | 68.56 | 2.79 | 60.61 | 2.47 | 7.95 *** | 6.19 | 9.72 | <0.001 | gd, pb, rb |
| Self-esteem | 20.24 | 1.26 | 18.12 | 0.98 | 2.13 *** | 0.83 | 3.42 | <0.001 | gd, pb, rb, gr, lp, gs |
| Self-Figure Rating Scale | 4.56 | 0.21 | 5.87 | 0.24 | −1.30 *** | −2.09 | −0.52 | <0.001 | gd, pb, rb, ms |
| Perceived Body Image Questionnaire | 2.07 | 0.10 | 2.28 | 0.07 | −0.21 ** | −0.40 | −0.02 | 0.008 | gd, pb, rb |
| Perceived Body Shape | 1.76 | 0.12 | 1.86 | 0.09 | −0.10 | −0.31 | 0.11 | 0.23 | gd, pb, rb, ls |
SE = standard error. CI = confidence interval. p = p value. gd = gender; pb = place of birth; rb = religious belief; lp = living with parents; gs = receiving government subsidy; ms = parents married;ls = living with sibling; ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Estimates of the social relationships among peers, parents and teachers with the students.
| Secondary Outcome Measures | Intervention | Control | Adjusted Difference | 95% CI Lower | 95% CI Upper | Covariates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | ||||||||
| Social Relationships | |||||||||
| Relationship with father | 0.92 | 0.21 | 0.69 | 0.25 | 0.23 | −0.15 | 0.62 | 0.14 | gd, pb, rb, lp, pe, gs, ms |
| Relationship with mother | 1.05 | 0.19 | 0.85 | 0.10 | 0.21 | −0.21 | 0.62 | 0.22 | gd, pb, rb, lp, lt |
| Relationship with teachers and school nurse | 1.04 | 0.18 | 0.94 | 0.09 | 0.11 | −0.29 | 0.51 | 0.51 | gd, pb, rb |
SE = standard error. CI = confidence interval. p = p value. gd = gender; pb = place of birth; rb = religious belief; lp = living with parents; pe = paternal education level; gs = receiving government subsidy; ms = parents married; lt = parents living together.
Estimates of students’ and their parents’ preferences of cooking methods at home in complex sample binary logistic regression.
| Secondary Outcome Measures | B | χ2 | 95% CILower | 95% CIUpper | Covariates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cooking Methods | 0.05 | 0.50 | 0.01 | 1 | 0.92 | 1.05 | 0.31 | 3.60 | gd, pb, rb, dv |
| Students’ preferred cooking method b | −0.22 | 0.21 | 1.10 | 1 | 0.29 | 0.81 | 0.49 | 1.34 | gd, pb, rb |
B = log odds. SE = standard error. χ2 = adjusted Wald chi squared. df = degrees of freedom. p = p value. OR = odds ratio. CI = confidence interval. a Parents’ preference cooking method is frying or deep frying. b Students’ preference cooking method is frying or deep frying. gd = gender; pb = place of birth; rb = religious belief; dv = parents divorced.