| Literature DB >> 32329742 |
Isabelle Mack1, Nadine Reiband1,2, Carolin Etges1, Sabrina Eichhorn1, Norbert Schaeffeler1, Guido Zurstiege3, Caterina Gawrilow2, Katja Weimer4, Riyad Peeraully5, Martin Teufel6, Gunnar Blumenstock7, Katrin Elisabeth Giel1, Florian Junne1, Stephan Zipfel1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health games provide opportunities for the treatment and prevention of childhood obesity. We developed a motion-controlled serious game for children that addresses 3 core topics of nutrition, physical activity, and stress coping. It is the first serious game that extensively targets the dietary energy density principle (DED-P) in relation to nutrition. The game is intended to provide an additional educational component for the prevention and treatment of obesity in children.Entities:
Keywords: children; energy density; nutrition; serious game; stress
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32329742 PMCID: PMC7210499 DOI: 10.2196/15725
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 flow diagram for the Kids Obesity Prevention Study. ITT: intention-to-treat.
Baseline characteristics of the study population.
| Characteristics | Intervention group (n=40) | Control group (n=42) | ||||||
| Age (years), mean (SD, range) | 9.6 (4.9, 9-11) | 9.7 (0.5, 9-11) | .38 | |||||
|
|
| |||||||
|
| Male | 19 | 24 |
| ||||
|
| Female | 21 | 18 |
| ||||
| Weight (kg), mean (SD, range) | 37.3 (10.4, 24-65) | 34.4 (9.2, 24-70) | .16 | |||||
| Height (cm), mean (SD, range) | 143 (9, 129-166) | 141 (6, 129-162) | .18 | |||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| Normal weight, n (%) | 27 (68) | 35 (83) |
| ||||
|
| Thinness, n (%) | 2 (5) | 1 (2) |
| ||||
|
| Overweight, n (%) | 7 (17) | 4 (10) |
| ||||
|
| Obesity, n (%) | 4 (10) | 2 (5) |
| ||||
|
|
| |||||||
|
| German | 17 | 23 |
| ||||
|
| German and foreign language | 16 | 14 |
| ||||
|
| Foreign language | 7 | 5 |
| ||||
|
| ||||||||
|
| Percentage of total score (primary outcome) | 53 (10) | 50 (11) | .13 | ||||
|
| Percentage of food pyramid score | 50 (13) | 49 (14) | .70 | ||||
|
| Percentage of dietary energy density score | 51 (18) | 41 (19) | .02 | ||||
|
| Percentage of stress score | 56 (17) | 59 (20) | .52 | ||||
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
| Score, mean (SD) | 9.2 (2.0) | 9.8 (2.1) | .91 | |||
|
|
| Unfavorable, n (%) | 1 (3) | 2 (5) |
| |||
|
|
| Neutral, n (%) | 29 (72) | 23 (55) |
| |||
|
|
| Favorable, n (%) | 10 (25) | 17 (40) |
| |||
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
| Score, mean (SD) | 8.8 (2.1) | 8.9 (2.2) | .13 | |||
|
|
| Unfavorable, n (%) | 1 (3) | 4 (10) |
| |||
|
|
| Neutral, n (%) | 29 (72) | 30 (71) |
| |||
|
|
| Favorable, n (%) | 10 (25) | 8 (19) |
| |||
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
| Score, mean (SD) | −0.9 (2.8) | −0.9 (3.2) | .97 | |||
|
|
| Low, n (%) | 15 (38) | 17 (40) |
| |||
|
|
| Medium, n (%) | 19 (47) | 17 (41) |
| |||
|
|
| High, n (%) | 6 (15) | 8 (19) |
| |||
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
| Score, mean (SD) | −1.6 (2.7) | −1.5 (3.2) | .86 | |||
|
|
| Low, n (%) | 17 (42) | 18 (43) |
| |||
|
|
| Medium, n (%) | 20 (50) | 19 (45) |
| |||
|
|
| High, n (%) | 3 (8) | 5 (12) |
| |||
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
| ≤0.5 hours | 13 (33) | 19 (45) |
| |||
|
|
| 1-2 hours | 26 (65) | 22 (53) |
| |||
|
|
| ≥3 hours | 1 (2) | 1 (2) |
| |||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
| ≤0.5 hours | 37 (92) | 38 (90) |
| |||
|
|
| 1-2 hours | 3 (8) | 4 (10) |
| |||
|
|
| ≥3 hours | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| |||
Outcomes from the intention-to-treat analysis.
| Outcomesa | IGb (n=40) | CGc (n=42) | IG versus CG | Contrast IG versus CG | Effect size Eta2/Cramers Vd | ||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| Percentage of total score (primary outcome) | 69 (11); 65 to 72 | 52 (12); 49 to 56 | 17 (12 to 22) | <.001 | 0.235 | |||
|
| Percentage of food pyramid score | 77 (12); 74 to 81 | 54 (12); 50 to 57 | 23 (18 to 28) | <.001 | 0.337 | |||
|
| Percentage dietary energy density score | 64 (17); 58 to 69 | 46 (22); 40 to 53 | 18 (1 to 27) | .097 | 0.131 | |||
|
| Percentage of stress score | 68 (18); 63 to 74 | 58 (24); 51 to 66 | 10 (1 to 19) | <.01 | 0.086 | |||
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
| Score, mean (SD); 95% CI | −2.1 (2.8); 3.0 to −1.2 | −2.7 (2.7); −3.6 to −1.9 | −0.6 (−0.6 to 1.8) | .48 | 0.012 | ||
|
|
| Low, n (%) | 21 (53) | 27 (64) | −6 (−11) |
|
| ||
|
|
| Medium, n (%) | 17 (42) | 12 (29) | 5 (13) |
|
| ||
|
|
| High, n (%) | 2 (5) | 3 (7) | −1 (−2) |
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
| Score, mean (SD); 95% CI | −2.7 (3.1); −3.6 to −1.7 | −2.6 (3.4); −3.7 to −1.6 | 0.1 (−1.3 to 1.5) | .87 | 0.000 | ||
|
|
| Low, n (%) | 25 (62) | 25 (60) | 0 (0) |
|
| ||
|
|
| Medium, n (%) | 13 (33) | 12 (28) | 1 (5) |
|
| ||
|
| High, n (%) | 2 (5) | 5(12) | −3 (−7) |
|
| |||
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
| Score, mean (SD); 95% CI | 10.0 (2.7); 9.1 to 10.8 | 10.2 (2.0); 9.5 to 10.7 | 0.2 (−0.8 to 1.2) | .31 | 0.014 | ||
|
|
| Unfavorable, n (%) | 2 (5) | 0 (0) | 2 (5) |
|
| ||
|
|
| Neutral, n (%) | 20 (50) | 26 (62) | −6 (−12) |
|
| ||
|
|
| Favorable, n (%) | 18 (45) | 16 (38) | −2 (−7) |
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
| Score, mean (SD); 95% CI | 9.5 (2.2); 8.8 to 10.1 | 9.3 (2.5); 8.5 to 10.1 | 0.2 (−0.9 to 1.2) | .68 | 0.002 | ||
|
|
| Unfavorable, n (%) | 0 (0) | 3 (7) | −3 (−7) |
|
| ||
|
|
| Neutral, n (%) | 25 (62) | 27 (64) | −2 (−2) |
|
| ||
|
|
| Favorable, n (%) | 15 (38) | 12 (29) | 3 (9) |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
| <0.5 hours | 14 (35) | 21 (50) | −7 (−15) | N/Ae |
| ||
|
|
| 1-2 hours | 24 (60) | 16 (38) | 8 (22) | N/A |
| ||
|
|
| ≥3 hours | 2 (5) | 5 (12) | −3 (−7) | N/A |
| ||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
| ≤0.5 hours | 37 (93) | 34 (81) | 3 (12) | N/A |
| ||
|
|
| 1-2 hours | 2 (5) | 7 (17) | −5 (−12) | N/A |
| ||
|
|
| ≥3 hours | 1 (2) | 1 2) | 0 (0) | N/A |
| ||
aFor all outcomes, except for media consumption, the data are presented as mean (standard deviation) and 95% CIs for the IG and CG and for the changes between the groups (IG vs CG). For the physical activity level, the Healthy Nutrition Index, and media consumption, the data are also presented as sample size and percentage of the corresponding category. The P values of the contrasts IG versus CG of the ANOVA of the adjusted model along with the effect sizes are presented.
bIG: intervention group.
cCG: control group.
dThe effect size according to Cramers V.
eNot applicable.
Complete overview of statistics from the intention-to-treat analysis.
| Outcomea | Unadjusted group effect, | Overall class effect, | Contrast IGb versus CGc (95% CI of contrast) | Contrast IG versus CG, | Effect size (Eta2/Cramers Vd) | |||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
|
| Percentage of total score (primary outcome) | <.001 | <.001 | 0.39 (0.238 to 0.542) | <.001 | 0.235 | ||||||
|
| Percentage of food pyramid score | <.001 | <.001 | 0.686 (0.494 to 0.878) | <.001 | 0.337 | ||||||
|
| Percentage of dietary energy density score | .001 | .19 | 0.241 (−0.045-0.527) | .097 | 0.131 | ||||||
|
| Percentage of stress score | .008 | .05 | 0.379 (0.109 to 0.648) | <.01 | 0.086 | ||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
| Score | .320 | .48 | 1.270 | .48 | 0.012 | |||||
|
|
| Categories | .951 |
| (−2.325 to 4.866) |
| 0.048d | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
| Score, n | .883 | .96 | 0.278 | .87 | 0.000 | |||||
|
|
| Categories | .843 |
| −3.121 to 3.678 |
| 0.079d | |||||
|
| ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
| Score | .297 | .06 | −1.453 | .31 | 0.014 | |||||
|
|
| Categories | .353 |
| (−4.304 to 1.398) |
| 0.163d | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
| Score | .681 | .58 | 0.673 | .68 | 0.002 | |||||
|
|
| Categories | .819 |
| (−2.537 to 3.884) |
| 0.072d | |||||
|
| ||||||||||||
|
| Watching TV or video films per day in hours reported by parents | .948 (categories) | N/Ae | N/A | N/A | 0.045d | ||||||
|
| Doing gaming activities at a computer per day in hours reported by parents | .676 (categories) | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0.141d | ||||||
aThe complete statistics for the outcomes of the study are presented for the unadjusted and adjusted models, the latter being an analysis of variance with contrasts.
bIG: intervention group.
cCG: control group.
dCramers V effect size.
eNot applicable.