| Literature DB >> 29385769 |
Hui Chin Koo1,2, Bee Koon Poh3, Ruzita Abd Talib4.
Abstract
Background: The GReat-Child Trial was a quasi-experimental intervention that has emphasized whole grain as a strategy to manage childhood obesity.Entities:
Keywords: Malaysia; childhood obesity; intervention; whole grain
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29385769 PMCID: PMC5852732 DOI: 10.3390/nu10020156
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Flow of participants through the GReat-Child trial.
Baseline demographic characteristic, anthropometric measurements and pedometer step-count in the GReat-Child Trial.
| Variables | Intervention; n (%) (n = 31) | Control; n (%) (n = 32) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age; mean (SD) | 10.66 (0.60) | 10.63 (0.63) | 0.882 † |
| Sex | 0.262 †† | ||
| Boys | 18 (58.1) | 15 (46.9) | |
| Girls | 13 (41.9) | 17 (53.1) | |
| Household income; mean (SD) | 4506.45 (2384.94) | 3612.50 (1054.56) | 0.058 † |
| Low (<RM2300) | 3(9.7) | 3 (9.4) | 0.452 †† |
| Medium (RM2300–RM5599) | 23 (74.2) | 27 (84.4) | |
| High (≥RM5600) | 5 (16.1) | 2 (6.2) | |
| Anthropometric measurements | |||
| BMI-for-age | 2.35 (0.98) | 2.12 (0.81) | 0.324 † |
| Body fat percentage (%); mean (SD) | 36.9 (11.9) | 35.6 (9.6) | 0.145 † |
| Waist circumference (cm); mean (SD) | 79.5 (11.9) | 75.6 (9.9) | 0.166 † |
| Pedometer steps; mean (SD) ¥ | 8076 (739) | 7970 (658) | 0.419 † |
† Independent T test; †† Chi-Square test; SD: standard deviation; ¥ involved 55 children (28 from intervention group and 27 from control group).
Comparison between groups in all outcome measures over the nine months (n = 63).
| Intervention Group-Control Group | ||
|---|---|---|
| Mean (95% CI) | ||
| BMI-for-age z-score † | −0.12 (−0.21, −0.03) | 0.009 ** |
| Body fat percentage (%) †† | −2.6 (−3.7, −1.5) | <0.001 *** |
| Waist circumference (cm) ††† | −2.4 (−3.8, −1.0) | 0.001 ** |
| Pedometer step-count ¥,†††† | −4 (−73, 66) | 0.919 |
† F-stat(df) = 7.35(1), p-value = 0.009; †† F-stat(df) = 23.6(1), p-value < 0.001; ††† F-stat(df) = 11.4(1), p-value = 0.001; †††† F-stat(df) = 0.01(1), p-value = 0.919; Repeated measures ANCOVA between group analysis was applied followed by pairwise comparison; Household income and baseline variables were controlled by using repeated measures ANCOVA; ¥ involved 55 children (28 from intervention group and 27 from control group); ** significant at the 0.01 level; *** significant at the 0.001 level.
Nine-month changes in all outcome measures within-group (n = 63).
| Intervention Group | Control Group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison | Mean (95% CI) | Mean (95% CI) | |||
| BMI-for-age | T1-T0 | −0.07 (−0.15, 0.01) | 0.092 | 0.07 (0.01, 0.14) | 0.032 |
| T2-T0 | −0.06 (−0.25, 0.13) | 0.544 | 0.18 (0.10, 0.26) | <0.001 *** | |
| T2-T1 | 0.01 (−0.17, 0.19) | 0.905 | 0.10 (0.05, 0.16) | 0.001 ** | |
| Body fat percentage (%) | T1-T0 | −3.4 (1.8, 5.0) | <0.001 ** | 0.4 (−0.1, 0.9) | 0.081 |
| T2-T0 | −1.6 (−3.8, 0.6) | 0.154 | 2.2 (1.3, 3.0) | <0.001 *** | |
| T2-T1 | 1.8 (−0.5, 4.2) | 0.127 | 1.7 (0.7, 2.7) | 0.001 ** | |
| Waist circumference (cm) | T1-T0 | −2.1 (−3.7, −0.5) | 0.014 * | 0.7 (−0.3, 1.7) | 0.165 |
| T2-T0 | −1.9 (−4.1, 0.3) | 0.091 | 2.5 (0.9, 4.1) | 0.002 ** | |
| T2-T1 | 0.2(−1.5, 1.8) | 0.812 | 1.8 (0.7, 3.0) | 0.002 ** | |
| Pedometer step-count ¥ | T1-T0 | −8 (−60, 45) | 0.768 | 30 (−18, 78) | 0.212 |
| T2-T0 | 35 (−31, 100) | 0.290 | 51 (−83, 184) | 0.440 | |
| T2-T1 | 42 (−7, 91) | 0.087 | −21 (−109, 150) | 0.742 | |
T0—Baseline; T1—post intervention (thirteenth week); T2—follow up (ninth month); Repeated measures ANCOVA within group analysis was applied followed by pairwise comparison with confidence interval adjustment; Household income and baseline variables were controlled by using repeated measures ANCOVA; ¥ involved 55 children (28 from intervention group and 27 from control group); * significant at the 0.05 level; ** significant at the 0.01 level; *** significant at the 0.001 level.