D Karacabeyli1, S Allender2, S Pinkney3, S Amed1,3. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 2. School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. 3. BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multi-setting, multi-component community-based interventions have shown promise in preventing childhood obesity; however, evaluation of these complex interventions remains a challenge. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to systematically review published methodological approaches to outcome evaluation for multi-setting community-based childhood obesity prevention interventions and synthesize a set of pragmatic recommendations. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 6 July 2017. Papers were included if the intervention targeted children ≤18 years, engaged at least two community sectors and described their outcome evaluation methodology. A single reviewer conducted title and abstract scans, full article review and data abstraction. Directed content analysis was performed by three reviewers to identify prevailing themes. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included, and of these, 26 employed a quasi-experimental design; the remaining were randomized control trials. Body mass index was the most commonly measured outcome, followed by health behaviour change and psychosocial outcomes. Six themes emerged, highlighting advantages and disadvantages of active vs. passive consent, quasi-experimental vs. randomized control trials, longitudinal vs. repeat cross-sectional designs and the roles of process evaluation and methodological flexibility in evaluating complex interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Selection of study designs and outcome measures compatible with community infrastructure, accompanied by process evaluation, may facilitate successful outcome evaluation.
BACKGROUND: Multi-setting, multi-component community-based interventions have shown promise in preventing childhood obesity; however, evaluation of these complex interventions remains a challenge. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to systematically review published methodological approaches to outcome evaluation for multi-setting community-based childhood obesity prevention interventions and synthesize a set of pragmatic recommendations. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 6 July 2017. Papers were included if the intervention targeted children ≤18 years, engaged at least two community sectors and described their outcome evaluation methodology. A single reviewer conducted title and abstract scans, full article review and data abstraction. Directed content analysis was performed by three reviewers to identify prevailing themes. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included, and of these, 26 employed a quasi-experimental design; the remaining were randomized control trials. Body mass index was the most commonly measured outcome, followed by health behaviour change and psychosocial outcomes. Six themes emerged, highlighting advantages and disadvantages of active vs. passive consent, quasi-experimental vs. randomized control trials, longitudinal vs. repeat cross-sectional designs and the roles of process evaluation and methodological flexibility in evaluating complex interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Selection of study designs and outcome measures compatible with community infrastructure, accompanied by process evaluation, may facilitate successful outcome evaluation.
Authors: James Nobles; Charlotte Fox; Alan Inman-Ward; Tom Beasley; Sabi Redwood; Russ Jago; Charlie Foster Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Steven Allender; Andrew D Brown; Kristy A Bolton; Penny Fraser; Janette Lowe; Peter Hovmand Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 9.213
Authors: Rubén Aragón-Martín; María Del Mar Gómez-Sánchez; David Jiménez-Pavón; José Manuel Martínez-Nieto; Mónica Schwarz-Rodríguez; Carmen Segundo-Iglesias; José Pedro Novalbos-Ruiz; María José Santi-Cano; José Castro-Piñero; Carmen Lineros-González; Mariano Hernán-García; Amelia Rodríguez-Martín Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Sharea Ijaz; James Nobles; Laura Johnson; Theresa Moore; Jelena Savović; Russell Jago Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 3.390