Blog
About

5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Design and methods of the Healthy Kids & Families study: a parent-focused community health worker-delivered childhood obesity prevention intervention

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          One third of U.S. children and two thirds of adults are overweight or obese. Interventions to prevent obesity and thus avert threats to public health are needed. This paper describes the design and methods of the Healthy Kids & Families study, which tested the effect of a parent-focused community health worker (CHW)-delivered lifestyle intervention to prevent childhood obesity.

          Methods

          Participants were English or Spanish-speaking parent-child dyads ( n = 247) from nine elementary schools (grades K-6) located in racial/ethnically diverse low-income communities in Worcester, Massachusetts. Using a quasi-experimental design with the school as the level of allocation, the study compared the lifestyle intervention vs. an attention-control comparison condition. The lifestyle intervention was guided by social cognitive theory and social ecological principles. It targeted the child’s social and physical home environment by intervening with parental weight-related knowledge, beliefs, and skills for managing child obesogenic behaviors; and addressed families’ needs for community resources supportive of a healthy lifestyle. The two-year CHW-delivered intervention was structured based on the 5As model (Agenda, Assess, Advise, Assist, Arrange follow up) and included two in person sessions and two telephone follow-ups per year with the parent, with a personalized letter and print materials sent after each contact. Parents also received quarterly newsletters, Facebook messages, and invitations to community events. The attention-control comparison condition used the same format and contact time as the intervention condition, but targeted positive parenting skills. Measurements occurred at baseline, and at 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-month follow-up. Assessments included anthropometrics, accelerometry, global positioning system (GPS), and self-report surveys. The primary outcome was child body mass index (BMI) z score. Secondary outcomes were parent BMI; and parent and child diet, physical activity, sedentariness, and utilization of community resources supportive of a healthy lifestyle.

          Discussion

          A CHW-delivered parent-focused lifestyle intervention may provide a translatable model for targeting the high priority public health problem of childhood obesity among low-income diverse communities. If demonstrated effective, this intervention has potential for high impact.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials NCT03028233. Registered January 23,2017. The trial was retrospectively registered.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy.

          No practical method for identifying patients with low heath literacy exists. We sought to develop screening questions for identifying patients with inadequate or marginal health literacy. Patients (n=332) at a VA preoperative clinic completed in-person interviews that included 16 health literacy screening questions on a 5-point Likert scale, followed by a validated health literacy measure, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOHFLA). Based on the STOFHLA, patients were classified as having either inadequate, marginal, or adequate health literacy. Each of the 16 screening questions was evaluated and compared to two comparison standards: (1) inadequate health literacy and (2) inadequate or marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Fifteen participants (4.5%) had inadequate health literacy and 25 (7.5%) had marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Three of the screening questions, "How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials?" "How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?" and "How often do you have problems learning about your medical condition because of difficulty understanding written information?" were effective in detecting inadequate health literacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively). These questions were weaker for identifying patients with marginal health literacy. Three questions were each effective screening tests for inadequate health literacy in this population.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion.

             D Stokols (2015)
            Health promotion programs often lack a clearly specified theoretical foundation or are based on narrowly conceived conceptual models. For example, lifestyle modification programs typically emphasize individually focused behavior change strategies, while neglecting the environmental underpinnings of health and illness. This article compares three distinct, yet complementary, theoretical perspectives on health promotion: behavioral change, environmental enhancement, and social ecological models. Key strengths and limitations of each perspective are examined, and core principles of social ecological theory are used to derive practical guidelines for designing and evaluating community health promotion programs. Directions for future health promotion research are discussed, including studies examining the role of intermediaries (e.g., corporate decision-makers, legislators) in promoting the well-being of others, and those evaluating the duration and scope of intervention outcomes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research.

              The purpose of this review is to address important methodological issues related to conducting accelerometer-based assessments of physical activity in free-living individuals. We review the extant scientific literature for empirical information related to the following issues: product selection, number of accelerometers needed, placement of accelerometers, epoch length, and days of monitoring required to estimate habitual physical activity. We also discuss the various options related to distributing and collecting monitors and strategies to enhance compliance with the monitoring protocol. No definitive evidence exists currently to indicate that one make and model of accelerometer is more valid and reliable than another. Selection of accelerometer therefore remains primarily an issue of practicality, technical support, and comparability with other studies. Studies employing multiple accelerometers to estimate energy expenditure report only marginal improvements in explanatory power. Accelerometers are best placed on hip or the lower back. Although the issue of epoch length has not been studied in adults, the use of count cut points based on 1-min time intervals maybe inappropriate in children and may result in underestimation of physical activity. Among adults, 3-5 d of monitoring is required to reliably estimate habitual physical activity. Among children and adolescents, the number of monitoring days required ranges from 4 to 9 d, making it difficult to draw a definitive conclusion for this population. Face-to-face distribution and collection of accelerometers is probably the best option in field-based research, but delivery and return by express carrier or registered mail is a viable option. Accelerometer-based activity assessments requires careful planning and the use of appropriate strategies to increase compliance.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Amy.Borg@umassmed.edu
                Christina.Griecci@tufts.edu
                Msawyer@oakhillcdc.org
                Stephenie.Lemon@umassmed.edu
                Kevin.Kane@umassmed.edu
                Lori.Pbert@umassmed.edu
                Wenjun.Li@umassmed.edu
                508-856-3173 , Milagros.Rosal@umassmed.edu
                Journal
                BMC Obes
                BMC Obes
                BMC Obesity
                BioMed Central (London )
                2052-9538
                3 June 2019
                3 June 2019
                2019
                : 6
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0742 0364, GRID grid.168645.8, Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, , University of Massachusetts Medical School, ; 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA 01655 USA
                [2 ]Oak Hill Community Development Corporation, 74 Providence Street, Worcester, MA 01604 USA
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7531, GRID grid.429997.8, Tufts University Friedman School of Nutrition and Policy, ; 150 Harrison Avenue, Boston, MA 02111 USA
                Article
                240
                10.1186/s40608-019-0240-x
                6545743
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000030, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
                Award ID: 5 U48 DP005031
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Comments

                Comment on this article