| Literature DB >> 34075476 |
Christine Delisle Nyström1,2, Gavin Abbott3, Adrian J Cameron4, Karen J Campbell3, Marie Löf5,3,6, Jo Salmon3, Kylie D Hesketh3.
Abstract
Very few early childhood interventions have observed sustained effects regarding television viewing and none have examined the mechanisms behind sustained intervention effects at long-term follow-ups. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate potential mechanisms relating to the maintained intervention effect on television viewing at two long-term follow-ups in the Melbourne Infant Feeding Activity and Nutrition Trial (INFANT). INFANT was a cluster-randomised controlled trial. At the 2- and 3.5-year follow-ups, a total of 262 infant/mother pairs had complete information. Television viewing was assessed via a questionnaire at both follow-ups and six potential mediators were measured post-intervention (i.e. 15 months after baseline). Causal mediation analysis was conducted. At the 2- and 3.5-year follow-ups, the positive impacts of INFANT on maternal television viewing knowledge were maintained (B = 0.34 units; 95% confidence interval (CI95): 0.21, 0.48). An indirect effect of the intervention on reducing children's television viewing time was observed at the 2- and 3.5-year follow-ups (B = -11.73 min/day; CI95: -22.26, -3.28 and B = -4.78 min/day; CI95: -9.48, -0.99, respectively) via improved maternal television viewing knowledge.Entities:
Keywords: Knowledge; Long-term follow-up; Paediatrics, Screen time
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34075476 PMCID: PMC8502736 DOI: 10.1007/s00431-021-04134-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Pediatr ISSN: 0340-6199 Impact factor: 3.183
Fig. 1Illustration of the hypothesised mediating pathways
Demographic characteristics of the mothers and infants at baseline (n = 262)a
| Mean ± SD or (n, %) | |
|---|---|
| Infants | |
| Age (months) | 3.6 ± 1.0 |
| Male | 141 (54%) |
| Mothers | |
| Age (years) | 32.6 ± 4.2 |
| Education level | |
| Low (completed up to final year of 2° school) | 47 (18%) |
| Middle (completed trade/certificate postsecondary school) | 55 (21%) |
| High (completed university degree or beyond) | 160 (61%) |
SD, standard deviation
aIncludes all participants who had complete data at both the 2- and 3.5-year follow-ups
Estimated effect of the intervention on potential mediators (a path) (n = 262)
| Potential mediatorsa | B (CI95)b | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| Self-efficacy around television viewing | 0.10 (−0.07, 0.27) | 0.256 |
| Facilitating television viewing | −1.01 (−4.54, 2.53) | 0.570 |
| Television viewing knowledge | 0.34 (0.21, 0.48) | <0.001 |
| Use of television | −0.09 (−0.23, 0.04) | 0.176 |
| Sedentary behaviour in the home environment | 0.14 (−0.18, 0.45) | 0.387 |
| Future expectancies | −0.10 (−0.23, 0.03) | 0.114 |
Abbreviations: CI, 95% confidence interval
aPresented as summary scores
bEstimated mean difference between intervention and control group, and adjusted for child sex, maternal education, and the baseline mediator value
Estimated effects of potential mediators on children’s television viewing time (b path) at the 2- and 3.5-year follow-ups (n = 262)
| Potential mediatorsa | 2-year follow-upc | 3.5-year follow-up | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B (CI95)b,c | p-value | B (CI95)b | p-value | |
| Self-efficacy around television viewing | 0.90 (−18.16, 19.96) | 0.925 | −5.53 (−14.65, 3.59) | 0.230 |
| Facilitating television viewing | Intervention: −0.53 (−2.06, 1.00) | 0.491 | 1.15 (0.62, 1.68) | <0.001 |
Control: 2.18 (1.06, 3.31) | <0.001 | |||
| Television viewing knowledge | −33.92 (−57.51, −10.33) | 0.006 | −13.85 (−24.66, −3.05) | 0.013 |
| Use of television | −11.24 (−43.99, 21.52) | 0.495 | 9.75 (−3.04, 22.55) | 0.133 |
| Sedentary behaviour in the home environment | 7.69 (0.01, 15.36) | 0.050 | −0.68 (−5.92, 4.56) | 0.797 |
| Future expectancies | −34.01 (−58.14, −9.88) | 0.007 | −10.45 (−25.22, 4.31) | 0.162 |
Abbreviations: CI, 95% confidence interval
aPresented as summary scores
bAdjusted for child sex, maternal education, and the baseline mediator value
cWhere there was evidence of an interaction between treatment group and the potential mediator at the p < 0.05 level, separate effects estimates are presented for the intervention and control groups
• • | |
• • |