| Literature DB >> 34901795 |
Dagna Lek1, Annemien Haveman-Nies1, Janine Bezem2, Sonay Zainalabedin3, Safina Schetters-Mouwen2, Jenneke Saat4,5, Gerrit Gort6, Lian Roovers7, Petra van Setten8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In most childhood obesity interventions, disadvantaged groups are underrepresented, and results are modest and not maintained. A long-term collaborative community-based approach is necessary to reach out to children from multi-ethnic backgrounds and achieve sustainable behavior change, resulting in sustained Body Mass Index-Standard Deviation Score (BMI-SDS) reductions. The objective is to determine the effects of GO! on BMI-SDS and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) for children and adolescents having overweight or obesity.Entities:
Keywords: BMI-SDS; Childhood obesity; Collaborative community-based intervention; Health-related quality of life; Multi-ethnicity; Socioeconomic status
Year: 2021 PMID: 34901795 PMCID: PMC8640234 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101217
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EClinicalMedicine ISSN: 2589-5370
Figure 1Flow chart GO! showing the follow-up of participants over two years of time. Two groups were formed ‘completers’ and ‘non-completers’.
Figure 2Description of the GO! intervention [53]
GO! schematically
The GO! approach focuses on three levels: a) participants and parents level (individual level): in which the child health coach (CHC) acts as a central care provider aiming to increase self-management of both participants and parents, b) community level: in which healthcare professionals from both the medical and social fields work closely together to offer “on demand” personalized help. The CHC coordinates this process, c) neighborhood level: in which stakeholders in the direct environment of the participants and their parents adapt and stimulate a healthy lifestyle and develop activities such as cooking workshops and physical activity programs aimed at improving healthy eating and physical activity.
Management and organization of GO!
GO! lasts for two years and is free of charge for all participants. The implementation of GO! in a new community starts with a stakeholder analysis in close collaboration with local policymakers to identify potential collaborators in the (para)medical and social fields, and locally embedded activities stimulating healthy behavior. Suitable professionals are selected and trained for the GO! program during three sessions: referral criteria, communication (“how to talk about obesity”) and treatment protocols of the different disciplines are discussed. Emphasis is laid on network orientation and collaboration.
Program team
In each community, a local ambassador, two local coordinators - preferably from the paramedical and social field - and a CHC are selected. Either a “child” mayor or public role model in the field of sport/cooking may fulfill the local ambassador role. The local coordinators are responsible for promoting GO! in the community and organizing program team meetings during which the professionals and community stakeholders discuss the progress and points for improvement.
Child health coaches
CHCs are specifically selected and trained for their communicative and coaching skills and are responsible for signaling and tackling underlying problems that are often associated with obesity and hinder the adoption of a healthy lifestyle. During the first consultation with the CHC, the CHC explains the program and interviews the participant and the parents extensively to identify multi-problems in five areas: child factors, parental factors, environmental factors, healthy lifestyle and coping strategies. Motivational interviewing techniques play a pivotal role in referring participants to personalized, desired help. Subsequently, the CHC develops an appropriate plan of action in collaboration with the participant and his/her parents and professionals in the middle circle, depending on what is needed. The CHC also monitors whenever the timing is right for healthy lifestyle coaching.
Lifestyle coaching
Itself is fully customized. The CHCs use the child friendly and appealing handbook [54] in which both the theoretical framework and practical tools for the topics healthy food, physical activity, rest and sleeping habits and cognitive behavior techniques are depicted. All consultations are held in the direct surrounding of the participants. At the start, the CHC meets face to face on a weekly basis, then every two weeks, then monthly and - if successful - quarterly. During the second year, the CHC monitors the maintenance of behavioral changes.
Multi-disciplinary consultation (MDC)
Complex cases that are unable to reach their healthy lifestyle goals, or where there is a suspicion of multi-problems, are discussed by the CHC according to a protocolled format during a multi-disciplinary consultation, preferably in the presence of the parents (four times a year). Underlying causal problems are mapped and a plan of action is made. After six months, evaluation takes place.
Baseline characteristics of GO! participants
| Completers (N=107) | Non-completers (N=48) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | N | Total | N | Western | N | Non-Western | Pa,d | N | Total | N | Western | N | Non-Western | Pb,d | Pc,d | |
| Age (years) | 107 | 10.2 (3·1) | 27 | 10·9 (3·4) | 80 | 9·9 (3·0) | 0·22 | 48 | 10·8 (4·2) | 9 | 11·4 (3·9) | 39 | 10·6 (4·3) | 0·66 | 0·29 | |
| Gender, % | 107 | 27 | 0·77 | 48 | 9 | 0·57 | ||||||||||
| Female | 66 | 61·7 | 16 | 59·3 | 50 | 62·5 | 27 | 56·3 | 6 | 66·7 | 21 | 53·8 | ||||
| Male | 41 | 38·3 | 11 | 40·7 | 30 | 37·5 | 21 | 43·8 | 3 | 33·3 | 18 | 46·2 | ||||
| Ethnicity, % | 107 | 27 | 48 | 9 | 39 | |||||||||||
| Dutch | 27 | 25·2 | 27 | 100 | 1 | 9 | 18·8 | 9 | 100 | |||||||
| Turkish | 24 | 22·4 | 24 | 30·0 | 14 | 29·2 | 14 | 35·9 | ||||||||
| Moroccan | 17 | 15·9 | 17 | 21·3 | 6 | 12·5 | 6 | 15·4 | ||||||||
| Different | 39 | 36·4 | 39 | 48·8 | 19 | 39·6 | 19 | 48·7 | ||||||||
| Number of consultations | 107 | 14·9 (0·5) | 27 | 14·9 (0·8) | 80 | 14·9 (0·6) | 0·22 | 48 | 3·0 (0·3) | 9 | 3·2 (0·8) | 39 | 3·0 (0·3) | 0·66 | 0·29 | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 107 | 26·2 (4·6) | 27 | 26·7 (4·4) | 80 | 26·0 (4·7) | 0·47 | 48 | 27·2 (6·2) | 9 | 29·4 (7·3) | 39 | 26·6 (5·9) | 0·27 | 0·62 | |
| BMI-SDS | 107 | 3·0 (0·7) | 27 | 3·0 (0·6) | 80 | 3·0 (0·8) | 0·81 | 48 | 3·1 (0·7) | 9 | 3·3 (0·8) | 39 | 3·0 (0·7) | 0·26 | 0·84 | |
| Obesity Class, % | 107 | 27 | 80 | 0·73 | 48 | 9 | 39 | 0·11 | 0·77 | |||||||
| Overweight | 28 | 26·2 | 6 | 22·2 | 22 | 27·5 | 14 | 29·2 | 2 | 22·2 | 12 | 30·8 | ||||
| Obesity 1 | 42 | 39·3 | 11 | 40·7 | 31 | 38·8 | 17 | 35·4 | 1 | 11·1 | 16 | 41·0 | ||||
| Obesity 2 | 26 | 24·3 | 8 | 29·6 | 18 | 22·5 | 14 | 29·2 | 5 | 55·6 | 9 | 23·1 | ||||
| Obesity 3 | 11 | 10·3 | 2 | 7·4 | 9 | 11·3 | 3 | 6·3 | 1 | 11·1 | 2 | 5·1 | ||||
| BMI father (kg/m2) | 89 | 28·7 (5·9) | 21 | 31·6 (8·4) | 68 | 27·8 (4·6) | 0·06 | 35 | 28·1 (4·4) | 7 | 31·8 (5·8) | 28 | 27·2 (3·5) | 0·55 | ||
| BMI mother (kg/m2) | 101 | 30·9 (6·8) | 23 | 32·1 (9·2) | 78 | 30·5 (5·9) | 0·33 | 41 | 30·4 (6·6) | 7 | 29·9 (6·4) | 34 | 30·5 (6·8) | 0·83 | 0·70 | |
| Education level mother, % | 0·45 | 0·58 | 0·30 | |||||||||||||
| Low | 23 | 28·4 | 4 | 19 | 19 | 31·7 | 6 | 20·7 | 1 | 16·7 | 5 | 21·7 | ||||
| Medium | 49 | 60·5 | 15 | 71·4 | 34 | 56·7 | 18 | 62·1 | 5 | 83·3 | 13 | 56·5 | ||||
| High | 9 | 11·1 | 2 | 9·5 | 7 | 11·7 | 5 | 17·2 | 5 | 21·7 | ||||||
| HRQoL - total, child | 77 | 74·6 (12·8) | 17 | 65·7 (12·8) | 60 | 77·2 (11·8) | 32 | 73·4 (16·2) | 3 | 79·0 (9·2) | 29 | 72·8 (16·8) | 0·58 | 0·95 | ||
| HRQoL - physical functioning, child | 77 | 76·9 (14·7) | 17 | 73·0 (14·7) | 60 | 78·0 (14·6) | 0·30 | 32 | 76·8 (16·5) | 3 | 86·5 (12·6) | 29 | 75·8 (16·7) | 0·33 | 0·77 | |
| HRQoL - psychosocial functioning, child | 77 | 73·4 (15·1) | 17 | 61·7 (13·0) | 60 | 76·7 (14·0) | 32 | 71·6 (19·0) | 3 | 75·0 (13·0) | 29 | 71·2 (19·6) | 0·90 | 0·99 | ||
| HRQoL - total, parent | 78 | 74·4 (13·6) | 17 | 68·5 (13·5) | 61 | 76·0 (13·3) | 32 | 71·2 (16·9) | 3 | 62·3 (10·1) | 29 | 72·1 (17·3) | 0·23 | 0·46 | ||
| HRQoL - physical functioning, parent | 78 | 74·0 (18·0) | 17 | 71·9 (15·7) | 61 | 74·6 (18·7) | 0·50 | 32 | 75·7 (17·8) | 3 | 74·0 (20·8) | 29 | 75·9 (17·8) | 0·90 | 0·65 | |
| HRQoL - psychosocial functioning, parent | 78 | 74·5 (14·3) | 17 | 66·7 (14·4) | 61 | 76·7 (13·6) | 32 | 68·7 (18·9) | 3 | 56·1 (6·3) | 29 | 70·0 (19·4) | 0·21 | 0·22 | ||
a: P-value for the difference between Western and Non-Western children in the completers. b: P-value for the difference between Western and Non-Western children in the non-completers. c: P-value for the difference between the totals of the completers and non-completers. d: Independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, or Chi-squared test. Values have been reported as mean (SD), unless otherwise stated.
Changes in BMI-SDS of GO! participants in completers and non-completers from baseline to 24 months
| N | Completers | Pa,d | N | Non-completers | Pb,d | Pc,d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMI-SDS (unadjusted) | 107 | -0·23 [-0·33, -0·13] | 48 | -0·05 [-0·20, 0·09] | |||
| BMI-SDS adjusted for gender and ethnicity | 107 | -0·32 [-0·42, -0·21] | 48 | -0·14 [-0·29, 0·01] | |||
| BMI-SDS split by gender and adjusted for ethnicity | |||||||
| Girls | 66 | -0·18 [-0·31, -0·05] | 27 | 0·05 [-0·14, 0·24] | |||
| Boys | 41 | -0·45 [-0·61, -0·30] | 21 | -0·34 [-0·56, -0·12] | 0·40 | ||
| BMI-SDS split by ethnicity and adjusted for gender | 0·34 | ||||||
| Western | 27 | -0·44 [-0·63, -0·26] | 9 | -0·21 [-0·53, 0·11] | 0·22 | ||
| Non-Western | 80 | -0·20 [-0·31, -0·09] | 39 | -0·04 [-0·19, 0·12] | 0·08 |
Values have been reported as mean difference (95% CI).
a: P-value for the difference between the different genders and ethnicities of children in the completers.
b: P-value for the difference between the different genders and ethnicities of children in the non-completers.
c: P-value for the difference between the totals of the completers and non-completers.
d: General linear regression model with ethnicity and gender as covariates, followed by a t-test for comparisons of groups following ANOVA
Figure 3aShifts in obesity grades of the completers at T24, compared to T0. Overweight is defined as an adult equivalent BMI≥25 and obesity grade 1,2,3 as respectively adult equivalent BMI ≥ 30, 35 and 40. 1 grade up means for example a shift from overweight to grade 1 or a shift from grade 1 to obesity grade 2.
Figure 3bShifts in obesity grades of the non-completers at T24, compared to T0. Overweight is defined as an adult equivalent BMI ≥25 and obesity grade 1,2,3 as respectively adult equivalent BMI ≥ 30, 35 and 40. 1 grade up means for example a shift from overweight to grade 1 or a shift from grade 1 to obesity grade 2.
Figure 4aBMI-SDS values presented over time for girls and boys in the completers and non-completers, including the standard error. Results are presented as predicted means plus standard errors based upon the fitted mixed linear model for BMI-SDS. All values are adjusted for ethnicity. *Significantly different compared to the measurement at 0 months (T0) (p<0.05).
Figure 4bReported total Health Related Quality of Life by girls and boys in the completers and non-completers at five different timepoints. Results are presented as predicted means plus standard errors based upon the fitted generalized linear mixed model for HRQoL. For boys in the non-completers group no data was available at T3 and T6. *Significantly different compared to the measurement at 0 months (T0) (p<0.05).
Changes in reported health-related quality of life of Western and Non-Western boys and girls in the completers and the non-completers from baseline to 24 months
| Completers | Non-completers | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total(N=27|43) | Western(N=7|9) | Non-Western (N=20|34) | Pa,c | Total (N=9|13) | Pb,c | ||
| Boys | 9·1 [4·8, 13·3] | 10·6 [1·5, 19·7] | 8·5 [3·3, 13·8] | 0·67 | 10·9 [-7·2, 29·0] | 0·75 | |
| Girls | 5·8 [2·9, 8·8] | 5·7 [-5·7, 17·1] | 5·9 [3·2, 8·6] | 0·97 | 6·7 [-5·0, 18·4] | 0·88 | |
| Total | 7·1 [4·7, 9·5] | 7·8 [1·1, 14·6] | 6·9 [4·4, 9·4] | 0·74 | 8·4 [-0·8, 17·6] | 0·78 | |
| Boys | 11·4 [7·0, 15·9] | 11·1 [0·7, 21·5] | 11·6 [6·2, 16·9] | 0·93 | 5·9 [-10·0, 21·7] | 0·31 | |
| Girls | 5·2 [1·0, 9·3] | 3·1 [-6·9, 13·1] | 5·7 [0·9, 10·5] | 0·62 | 1·1 [-10·3, 12·5] | 0·39 | |
| Total | 7·6 [4·5, 10·7] | 6·6 [-0·1, 13·3] | 7·9 [4·3, 11·5] | 0·74 | 3·0 [-5·5, 11·6] | 0·31 | |
| Boys | 8·1 [3·1, 13·0] | 11·0 [1·79, 20·11] | 7·0 [0·8, 13·4] | 0·49 | 13·4 [-6·9, 33·8] | 0·42 | |
| Girls | 6·2 [2·9, 9·5] | 7·0 [-5·4, 19·5] | 6·0 [2·8, 9·1] | 0·86 | 9·7 [-4·7, 24·0] | 0·62 | |
| Total | 7·0 [4·2, 9·6] | 8·8 [1·5, 16·0] | 6·4 [3·4, 9·3] | 0·47 | 11·2 [0·4, 22·0] | 0·43 | |
a: P-value for the difference between Western and Non-Western children of the completers.
b: P-value for the difference between the total completers and non-completers.
c: Independent sample t-test
Values are reported as mean difference [95% CI].
N= Boys|Girls