Waters Et Al-2011-The Cochrane Library
Waters Et Al-2011-The Cochrane Library
Waters Et Al-2011-The Cochrane Library
Waters E, de Silva-Sanigorski A, Burford BJ, Brown T, Campbell KJ, Gao Y, Armstrong R, Prosser L, Summerbell CD.
Interventions for preventing obesity in children.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD001871.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001871.pub3.
www.cochranelibrary.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HEADER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 1.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 2.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 3.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 4.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 5.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 6.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 7.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 8.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DATA AND ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Childhood obesity interventions versus control by age groups 0-5, 6-12 and 13-18 years,
Outcome 1 Standardised mean change in Body Mass Index (BMI/zBMI) from baseline to postintervention. .
ADDITIONAL TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WHATS NEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SOURCES OF SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INDEX TERMS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
32
34
35
36
47
160
160
163
201
221
221
222
222
223
223
223
[Intervention Review]
Brockhoff Child Health and Wellbeing Program, The McCaughey Centre, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health,
The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia. 2 Jack Brockhoff Child Health and Wellbeing Program, The McCaughey Centre,
Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. 3 The Jack Brockhoff Child
Health and Wellbeing Program, The McCaughey Centre, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. 4 Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, Division of Clinical Effectiveness, School of Population,
Community and Behavioural Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 5 Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research,
School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia. 6 School of Public Health and Primary Care,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 7 Dental Health Services Victoria, Carlton, Australia. 8 School of
Medicine and Health, Wolfson Research Institute, Queens Campus, Durham University, Stockton-on-Tees, UK
Contact address: Elizabeth Waters, Jack Brockhoff Child Health and Wellbeing Program, The McCaughey Centre, Melbourne
School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Level 5/207 Bouverie St, Carlton, VIC, 3010, Australia.
[email protected].
Editorial group: Cochrane Heart Group.
Publication status and date: Edited (no change to conclusions), published in Issue 12, 2011.
Review content assessed as up-to-date: 22 September 2010.
Citation: Waters E, de Silva-Sanigorski A, Burford BJ, Brown T, Campbell KJ, Gao Y, Armstrong R, Prosser L, Summerbell CD.
Interventions for preventing obesity in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD001871. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD001871.pub3.
Copyright 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ABSTRACT
Background
Prevention of childhood obesity is an international public health priority given the significant impact of obesity on acute and chronic
diseases, general health, development and well-being. The international evidence base for strategies that governments, communities
and families can implement to prevent obesity, and promote health, has been accumulating but remains unclear.
Objectives
This review primarily aims to update the previous Cochrane review of childhood obesity prevention research and determine the
effectiveness of evaluated interventions intended to prevent obesity in children, assessed by change in Body Mass Index (BMI). Secondary
aims were to examine the characteristics of the programs and strategies to answer the questions What works for whom, why and for
what cost?
Search methods
The searches were re-run in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and CINAHL in March 2010 and searched relevant
websites. Non-English language papers were included and experts were contacted.
Selection criteria
The review includes data from childhood obesity prevention studies that used a controlled study design (with or without randomisation).
Studies were included if they evaluated interventions, policies or programs in place for twelve weeks or more. If studies were randomised
at a cluster level, 6 clusters were required.
Interventions for preventing obesity in children (Review)
Copyright 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
school curriculum that includes healthy eating, physical activity and body image
increased sessions for physical activity and the development of fundamental movement skills throughout the school week
environments and cultural practices that support children eating healthier foods and being active throughout each day
support for teachers and other staff to implement health promotion strategies and activities (e.g. professional development,
capacity building activities)
parent support and home activities that encourage children to be more active, eat more nutritious foods and spend less time in
screen based activities
However, study and evaluation designs need to be strengthened, and reporting extended to capture process and implementation factors,
outcomes in relation to measures of equity, longer term outcomes, potential harms and costs.
Childhood obesity prevention research must now move towards identifying how effective intervention components can be embedded
within health, education and care systems and achieve long term sustainable impacts.
missing small studies with negative findings. We also tried to work out why some programmes work better than others, and whether
there was potential harm associated with children being involved in the programmes. Although only a few studies looked at whether
programmes were harmful, the results suggest that those obesity prevention strategies do not increase body image concerns, unhealthy
dieting practices, level of underweight, or unhealthy attitudes to weight, and that all children can benefit. It is important that more
studies in very young children and adolescents are conducted to find out more about obesity prevention in these age groups, and also
that we assess how long the intervention effects last. Also, we need to develop ways of ensuring that research findings benefit all children
by embedding the successful programme activities into everyday practices in homes, schools, child care settings, the health system and
the wider community.
BACKGROUND
Obesity prevention is an international public health priority and
there is growing evidence of the impact of overweight and obesity on short- and long-term functioning, health and well being. In children, adolescents and adults in a wide range of countries (including more recently, middle- and low-income countries) high and increasing rates of overweight and obesity have
been reported over the last 20 to 30 years (Lobstein 2004; Popkin
2004; Wang 2001; Wang 2006a). Internationally, childhood obesity rates continue to rise in some countries (e.g. Mexico, India,
China, Canada), although there is emerging evidence of a slowing
of this increase or a plateauing in some age groups across European
countries, the US (Rokholm 2010) and Australia (Nichols 2011;
Olds 2010). The evidence is strong however, that once obesity
is established, it is both difficult to reverse through interventions
(Luttikhuis 2009), and tracks through to adulthood (Singh 2008;
Whitaker 1997), strengthening the case for primary prevention.
Governments internationally are acting to implement strategies
for obesity prevention and, behaviour change relating to diet and
physical activity is an integral component of any such strategy.
However, behaviour change interventions cannot operate in isolation from the context and the interplay between the obesogenic
environment and the child is an important consideration.
Childhood obesity has been described as the primary childhood
health problem in developed nations (Ebbeling 2002), having been
linked to many serious physical, social and psychological consequences. These include increased risk of cardiovascular dysfunction (Freedman 1999), type 2 diabetes (Fagot-Campagna 2000),
and pulmonary (Figueroa-Muoz 2001), hepatic (Strauss 2000),
renal (Adelman 2001) and musculoskeletal (Chan 2009) complications; lower health-related quality of life (Tsiros 2009); negative emotional states such as sadness, loneliness, and nervousness,
and increased likelihood of engagement in high-risk behaviours
(Strauss 2000a); and undesirable stereotyping including perceptions of poor health, academic and social ineptness, poor hygiene
and laziness (Hill 1995).
Obesity prevalence is also inextricably linked to the degree of relative social inequality, with greater social inequality associated with
a higher risk of obesity in most developed countries but in most developing countries the reverse relationship is observed (Monteiro
2004). It is therefore critical that in preventing obesity we are also
reducing the associated gap in health inequalities, ensuring that
interventions do not inadvertently have more favourable outcomes
in those with a more socio-economically advantaged position in
society. The available knowledge base on which to develop a platform of obesity prevention action and base decisions about appropriate public health interventions to reduce the risk of obesity
across the whole population, or targeted towards those at greatest
risk, still remains limited (Gortmaker 2011). The impact of interventions on preventing obesity, the extent that they work equitably, their safety and how they work, remains poorly understood.
dent risk factors for adult obesity (Must 1992; Must 1999; Power
1997; Singh 2008; Whitaker 1997), underpinning the importance
of obesity prevention efforts.
making recommendations in relation to comprehensive reporting of studies. Overall however, although there was insufficient
evidence to determine that any one particular programme could
prevent obesity in children, the evidence suggested that comprehensive strategies to increase the healthiness of childrens diets and
their physical activity levels, coupled with psycho-social support
and environmental change were most promising. We incorporated
research evidence that has been published since that time and is
also consistent with emerging issues in relation to evidence reviews
and synthesis (Doak 2009; Tugwell 2010). In addition, to meet
the growing demand from public health and health promotion
practitioners and decision makers, we have attempted to include
information related to not only the impact of interventions on
preventing obesity, but also information related to how outcomes
were achieved, how interventions were implemented, the context
in which they were implemented (Wang 2006) and the extent to
which they work equitably (Tugwell 2010). This new aspect of
the review was partly guided by the Systematic Reviews of Health
Promotion and Public Health Interventions (Armstrong 2007),
more recent recommendations for complex reviews and useful evidence for decision makers (Waters 2011), and informed by expert
opinion.
OBJECTIVES
The main objective of the review is to update the previous review and determine the effectiveness of educational, health promotion and/or psychological/family/behavioural therapy/counselling/management interventions which focus on diet, physical
activity or lifestyle support, or both and were designed, or had
an underlying intention to prevent obesity/further weight gain, in
children. Specific objectives include:
Evaluation of the effect of dietary educational interventions
versus control on changes in BMI, prevalence of obesity, rate of
weight gain and other outcomes among children under 18 years
Evaluation of the effect of physical activity interventions
versus control on changes in BMI, prevalence of obesity and rate
of weight gain and other outcomes among children under 18
years
Evaluation of the effect of dietary educational interventions
versus physical activity intervention on changes in BMI,
prevalence of obesity and rate of weight gain and other outcomes
among children under 18 years
Evaluation of combined effects of dietary educational
interventions and physical activity interventions versus control
on changes in BMI, prevalence of obesity and rate of weight gain
and other outcomes among children under 18 years
study. Studies that only enrolled children who were obese at baseline were considered to be focused toward treatment rather than
prevention and were therefore excluded. Interventions for treating
obesity in children have been reviewed in another Cochrane review
(Luttikhuis 2009). We excluded studies of interventions designed
to prevent obesity in pregnant women and studies designed for
children with a critical illness or severe co-morbidities.
Types of interventions
Secondary aims are to describe the interventions in order to identify the characteristics of the interventions that are related to the
reported outcomes. Specific objectives include:
Strategies
We included educational, health promotion (this would include community-based interventions), psychological/family/
behavioural therapy/counselling/management strategies.
METHODS
Interventions included
Types of studies
Setting
We included data from controlled trials (with or without randomisation), with a minimum duration of 12 weeks, that were designed,
or had an underlying intention to prevent obesity. The terms research studies and trials also represent programme/demonstration project evaluations and are used interchangeably throughout
this review. In the previous version of this review, studies were
categorised into long-term (at least one year) and short-term (at
least 12 weeks), referring to the length of the intervention itself or
to a combination of the intervention with a follow-up phase. For
this review update, studies were required to have minimum intervention duration of 12 weeks and we categorised studies based
on target age group rather than study duration, though length of
duration has been captured and integrated into the analysis.
We accepted studies in which individuals or groups of individuals
were randomised, however, for those with group randomisation
we accepted only studies with six or more groups.
Types of comparison
We included studies that compared diet or physical activity interventions, or both with a non-intervention control group who received usual care or another active intervention (i.e. head-to-head
comparisons).
Intervention personnel
Types of participants
We included studies of children less than 18 years at the commencement of the study, including studies where children were
part of a family group receiving the intervention if data could be extracted separately for the children. Studies with interventions that
included children who were already obese were included to reflect
a public health approach that recognises the prevalence of a range
of weight within the general population of children, provided that
obesity was not a requirement for children to be included in the
We collected data on indicators of intervention process and evaluation, health promotion theory underpinning intervention design, modes of strategies and attrition rates from these trials. We
compared where possible, whether the effect of the intervention
varied according to these factors. This information was included
in descriptive analyses and used to guide the interpretation of findings and recommendations.
Interventions excluded
Secondary outcomes
activity levels
dietary intake (using validated measures such as diaries etc)
change in knowledge
environment change (such as food provision service)
stakeholders views of the intervention and other evaluation
findings
measures of self-esteem, health status and well being,
quality of life
harm associated with the process or outcomes of the
intervention
cost effectiveness/costs of the intervention
Websites searched
Electronic searches
For this updated search in March 2010 and searches for previous
versions of this review, we searched the following databases:
Cochrane Central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL)
MEDLINE
EMBASE
PsycINFO
CINAHL
Selection of studies
For this update of the review, we included studies published during
or after 2005. Included and excluded studies published between
1990 and 2005 that were identified for previous versions of this
review were carried forward to this review. Articles were rejected
on initial screen when the review author determined from the title
and abstract that the article was not a report of a controlled trial
(randomised or non-randomised); or the trial did not address an
intervention which aims to improve food intake, physical activity
and/or prevent obesity; or the trial was exclusively in individuals
older than 18 years, pregnant women/young adults, or the critically ill; or the trial was of less than 12 weeks duration; or the
intervention was concerned with the treatment of eating disorders
such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa.
When a title or abstract could not be rejected with certainty, we
obtained the full text of the article for further evaluation. Two
review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion
and resolved differences between their assessments by discussion
and, when necessary, in consultation with a third review author.
Data extraction and management
We developed a data extraction form, based on the Effective Public
Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for quantitative
studies (Thomas 2003).
This review update introduced additional data extraction items
specifically related to implementation. These have now been included in the Characteristics of included studies tables grouped
under the category of implementation-related factors. We included
quality criteria questions relating to randomised controlled trials
(RCTs), as well as non-randomised controlled trials in the data
extraction form. We used the PROGRESS checklist to collect data
relevant for equity (Ueffing 2009). We extracted data from related
publications that reported findings on the process evaluation or
the design of the intervention. Two review authors independently
extracted data from included papers into the data extraction form
for each study and managed numerical data for analysis in an Excel
spreadsheet.
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies
We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Risk
of bias tool developed by The Cochrane Collaboration (Higgins
2008). This includes five domains of bias: selection, performance,
attrition, detection and reporting, as well as an other bias category to capture other potential threats to validity. The guidance
provided with the EPOC (Effective Practice and Organisation of
Care) Risk of bias tool for studies with a separate control group
(Cochrane EPOC 2009) was also used to guide assessments for
non-randomised studies. At least two review authors assessed the
risk of bias for each study. Review authors were not blinded with
respect to study authors, institution or journal as they were familiar with the literature. We used discussion and consensus to resolve
any disagreements.
Selection bias included an assessment of adequate sequence generation as well as allocation concealment. We assessed sequence gen-
RESULTS
Description of studies
Figure 1. Quorom statement flow diagram - Interventions for preventing obesity in children
In summary, for this review update, the hits identified from the
searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE 7,194, CINAHL
1,459, PsycINFO 783, EMBASE 6,772 CENTRAL 1,201) were
combined (n = 17,409) and de-duplicated (n = 13,734). These
list hits were then de-duplicated against the hits identified for the
previous version of this review. This reduced list of hits were then
screened on titles and abstracts (review author initials: LP). Articles were rejected on initial screen if the review author could determine from the title and abstract that the article did not meet
the inclusion criteria for this review.
The review authors (EW, KC, LP, RA, GY, CS, BH, AdS-S) independently assessed full-text copies of 117 papers against the inclusion criteria. Thirty six new studies have been included in this
version of the review, giving a total number of 55 included studies
(Amaro 2006; Coleman 2005; Donnelly 2009; Ebbeling 2006;
Fernandes 2009; Fitzgibbon 2005; Fitzgibbon 2006; Foster 2008;
Gentile 2009; Gutin 2008; Haerens 2006; Hamelink-Basteen
2008; Harrison 2006; Jouret 2009; Keller 2009; Kipping 2008;
Lazaar 2007; Macias-Cervantes 2009; Marcus 2009; Paineau
2008; Pate 2005; Patrick 2006; Peralta 2009; Reed 2008; Reilly
2006; Robbins 2006; Rodearmel 2006; Salmon 2008; Sanigorski
2008; Sichieri 2009; Simon 2008; Singh 2009; Spiegel 2006;
Taylor 2008; Vizcaino 2008; Webber 2008).
The excluded studies included those that did not meet the minimum duration of 12 weeks, studies with a cluster allocation of
fewer than six groups, those that were studies of treatment for
obesity rather than prevention, studies recruiting only obese participants, and those not reporting at least one of the primary outcomes of interest for this review (weight and height, per cent fat
content, BMI, ponderal index, skin-fold thickness or prevalence
of overweight and obesity). In a change to the inclusion criteria
for this review update, we excluded studies with an intervention
period of less than 12 weeks, even if the follow-up period extended
beyond 12 weeks (Danielzik 2005). The last published version of
this review included 22 studies, however, three of these studies
have now been excluded (Donnelly 1996; Flores 1995; Robinson
1999) because they were studies with a cluster allocation of fewer
than six groups, and therefore should not have been included in
the last version of this review. Therefore, only 19 of the 22 previously included studies were carried forward into this review. Studies identified that were ongoing at the time of the search have
been listed under Characteristics of ongoing studies. While some
studies appear to have completed based on dates listed in study
records, studies with no available outcome data published at the
time of the search remain classified as ongoing studies to ensure
this information is available to end-users of this review.
Included studies
10
Figure 2. Risk of bias graph: review authors judgements about each risk of bias item presented as
percentages across all included studies.
11
Other bias
Most studies (n = 35) were assessed as being at low risk of other
sources of bias and 17 were assessed as being at high risk for other
sources of bias. Of the studies we assessed as being at high risk of
bias, a common issue was that the units of analyses were inadequately addressed, with randomisation at a group level, but analysis conducted at an individual level without clearly identifying
if, or how, the effects of clustering were accounted for. Other issues included significant differences in outcome measures between
groups at baseline and likely contamination between intervention groups. One study implemented a cross-over study design in
which every alternating year, intervention schools became control
schools and vice versa (Mller 2001). Given obesity prevention
interventions seek to change behaviour, this type of study design
is compromised due to the carry-over effects of the intervention.
This study remained included in the overall narrative because it
met inclusion criteria, however, it was not included in the metaanalysis.
12
Effects of interventions
A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the impact of included interventions on BMI or zBMI, the most common measures of adiposity reported, as a measure of effectiveness (Analysis
1.1). The meta-analysis revealed significant heterogeneity which
was explored by age group (Figure 4), type of intervention (Figure
5), setting of intervention (Figure 6), duration of intervention (12
13
Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Childhood obesity interventions versus control by age groups 0-5, 612 and 13-18 years, outcome: 1.1 Standardised mean change in Body Mass Index (BMI/zBMI) from baseline to
post intervention.
14
Figure 5. Forest plot of the standardised mean change in body mass index (BMI/zBMI) from baseline to post
intervention for childhood obesity interventions versus control grouped by intervention type (physical activity,
dietary, combined physical activity/dietary)
15
Figure 6. Forest plot of the standardised mean change in body mass index (BMI/zBMI) from baseline to post
intervention for childhood obesity interventions versus control grouped by setting
16
Figure 7. Forest plot of the standardised mean change in body mass index (BMI/zBMI) from baseline to post
intervention for childhood obesity interventions versus control grouped by duration of intervention (short
term and long term)
17
Figure 8. Forest plot of the standardised mean change in body mass index (BMI/zBMI) from baseline to post
intervention for childhood obesity interventions versus control grouped by risk of bias based on randomisation
(high risk=non-randomised; unclear risk=method of randomisation or sequence generation unclear; low
risk=randomisation occurred appropriately)
18
Adiposity
Behaviours
A variety of behavioural measures have been reported in the included studies. The behaviour itself can be measured (minutes
spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity) or an indicator
related to the behaviour can be measured (number of occasions
of organised sports per week). The choice of measure is often determined by cost, equipment requirements, feasibility, acceptability to participants, scale (number of participants), access to participants, and also the objective of the intervention and therefore
evaluation requirements. Behaviours may also be objectively measured (accelerometry, observation) or subjectively measured (selfreport, parent-report). Behavioural data that are reported by parents, children or others are subject to social desirability bias and recall bias. Reliability and accuracy may also be affected by comprehension and literacy skills of children where survey-based methods
are used. This can be partly overcome by a run-in period. The process of data collection can also lead to changes in behaviour (e.g.
increased activity or changed diet) which can produce data that do
not reflect usual patterns of the behaviour. A further source of bias
can be introduced by non-blinding of data collectors who may
inadvertently introduce artificial differences in measurements be-
19
Adiposity
Effectiveness
Of the eight studies targeting young children, two tested the same
intervention design with different target groups (Hip Hop to
Health Jnr (Fitzgibbon 2005; Fitzgibbon 2006).
All but one study (Jouret 2009), provided appropriate BMI or
zBMI data for inclusion in the meta-analysis, which showed an
effect size of -0.26 (-0.53 to 0.00), see Analysis 1.1. This can be
interpreted to mean that children in the intervention group had a
change in BMI/zBMI from pre- to post-intervention that was 0.26
units less than what was observed in the control group. Although
the studies are heterogeneous and the analysis only just failed to
reach statistical significance (P = 0.05), there is a trend towards a
positive intervention effect. With subgroup analysis of those studies that were either home-based or involved a healthcare setting
(Harvey-Berino 2003; Keller 2009), heterogeneity was removed
and a highly significant effect size of -1.08 (-1.39 to -0.77) was
observed (P = 0.0001), although the sample size is small (Intervention: 66, Control: 154). This analysis did not include all interventions set outside the education setting, as the study by Jouret 2009
reported only medians and interquartile ranges and therefore could
not be included in the analysis. Jouret found that after the two-year
intervention period, children in both the basic intervention group
(health-service-based; EPIPOI-1) and the reinforced intervention
group (health-service-based + kindergarten-based; EPIPOI-2) had
significantly lower prevalence of overweight (BMI 90th percentile) than the control group. In this study, subgroup analysis
revealed there were differences in effects if the schools were in
underprivileged areas. Specifically, testing the EPIPOI-1 intervention, median change in zBMI was significantly lower in the intervention group (compared with controls) only in underprivileged
schools (difference in zBMI in intervention group from control
group of -1.0 units), while the median change in zBMI was significantly lower in the EPIPOI-2 intervention group in both underprivileged (difference in zBMI -0.85) and non-underprivileged
Results for outcomes measured in each study for this age group
are presented in Table 2. Of the outcomes measuring adiposity
or prevalence of overweight or obesity, only two studies reported
significant differences between groups immediately post-intervention; these were also the longest studies in this group. Keller 2009
reported a stabilisation of zBMI in the intervention group after the
12-month intervention period, which was significantly different
to the increase observed in the control group. Jouret found that
after the two-year intervention period, children in both the basic
intervention group (health-service-based; EPIPOI-1) and the reinforced intervention group (health-service-based + kindergartenbased; EPIPOI-2) had significantly lower prevalence of overweight
(BMI 90th percentile) than the control group. Subgroup analysis revealed there was only a significant difference between groups
if the schools were in underprivileged areas. The effects of the intervention on zBMI are described above.
Behaviours
20
Physical Activity-related
Three of the eight interventions targeted physical activity related
behaviours only. Of the range of physical activity related measures
captured, the only positive impact was in one study that reported
children in the intervention group had significantly higher performance in movement skills tests than children in the control group
at six-month follow-up (95% CI: 0.3 to 1.3; P = 0.003) after adjustment for sex and baseline performance (Reilly 2006).
Sedentary-related
Dennison 2004 reported that television viewing was significantly
reduced by the 12-week intervention (the number of children
watching more than two hours of television/day was significantly
lower in the intervention group, as was total number of hours
watched), although time spent playing computer games was not
different between groups.
Equity
Maintenance/Sustainability of effects
This review sought to identify studies which had reported on socio-demographic characteristics known to be important from an
equity perspective. For this process, the PROGRESS (Place, Race,
Occupation, Gender, Religion, Education, Socio-economic status (SES), Social status) framework was utilised (Ueffing 2009).
All studies reported the gender of participants at baseline. Four
studies reported the race of participants and the level of education
of parents (Dennison 2004; Fitzgibbon 2005; Fitzgibbon 2006;
Harvey-Berino 2003) and two studies included information about
the employment status of parents at baseline (Dennison 2004;
Harvey-Berino 2003). Mo-Suwan 1998 included information on
SES of participants at baseline based on parental income. Jouret
2009 reported some indicators related to place (the proportion
of participating schools in a rural or urban region) and SES (the
proportion of participating schools in an urban region which were
also in an area considered to be underprivileged). When analysing
data on outcomes, only three studies analysed results by any of
the PROGRESS items. Mo-Suwan 1998 and Reilly 2006 analysed
outcomes by gender and Jouret 2009 analysed outcomes by the
same indicators of place and SES that were collected at baseline
(these data are discussed above).
Of the eight studies targeting this age group, only Jouret 2009
attempted to analyse the outcomes of the intervention by a
PROGRESS category other than gender, showing differential impacts of the intervention in underprivileged schools. The lack of
analysis by a measure of equity or SES limits our ability to assess
the effectiveness of the interventions in reducing health inequities,
21
Resources needed
All studies reported on who delivered the intervention. All interventions were delivered by trained study personnel with the exception of one physical activity intervention which was delivered
by two members of staff from each intervention nursery who had
attended three training sessions with the study personnel (Reilly
2006). Most studies included information about the length of time
Process evaluation
Attempts were made to capture programme reach (i.e. to all the
target population), programme acceptability (to the target population) and programme integrity (i.e. programme implemented as
planned). A comprehensive process evaluation allows variability
22
Effectiveness
Results for outcomes measured in each study for this age group
are presented in Table 3. Of the 39 intervention studies targeted
towards children between the ages of six and 12 years, 27 studies provided appropriate BMI or zBMI data for inclusion in the
meta-analysis. Of those included in the meta-analysis, a statistically significant mean effect size of -0.15 (95% CI: -0.23 to -0.08)
was found (see Analysis 1.1), although the heterogeneity of the
studies, and small sample sizes of several studies are both limitations, meaning inferences should be made with caution. Analysing
only those interventions conducted solely in an education setting
did not reduce heterogeneity and resulted in a similar effect size
as the whole group (-0.17, 95% CI: -0.25 to -0.09; P < 0.001).
Conversely, analysing those studies conducted either in multiple
settings (n = 4 of 27 studies), or outside education settings (e.g.
home, community) (n = 3 of 27 studies) reduced heterogeneity
and resulted in a non-significant mean effect size of -0.07 (-0.24 to
0.10), although the majority of these were small studies. Of those
studies not included in the meta-analysis due to the lack of appropriate data being reported, Sahota 2001 reported a weighted mean
difference in zBMI between groups from baseline to follow-up of
0 (-0.1 to 0.1). The majority of the other studies reported changes
in prevalence of overweight or obesity or percentage body fat and
in some cases a significant intervention effect was observed overall
or in subgroups (Foster 2008; Gortmaker 1999a; Mller 2001;
described below), while non-significant differences were reported
in other studies (Fernandes 2009; Kipping 2008; Warren 2003).
Adiposity
23
24
over time than those in the control group. The significant differences in change in BMI between groups were evident at three
years and at four years. The cumulative incidence of overweight
was also lower in the intervention group than in the control group
at four years.
Vizcaino 2008 reported the Spanish intervention resulted in a
significant reduction in triceps skinfold thickness in intervention
children compared with controls for both boys and girls. There
was also a significant reduction in percentage body fat in girls but
not boys, compared with the comparison group.
The long-term study by Donnelly 2009 reported various results.
Using intention-to-treat analysis showed no intervention effect on
BMI, however analysis of schools (n = 9) with > 75mins of the
PAAC intervention activities delivered per week showed significantly less increase in BMI at three years compared to schools (n
= 5) with < 75min/week. Marcus 2009 reported that the fouryear Swedish intervention was associated with a reduction in the
prevalence of overweight/obesity by 3.2% in intervention schools
compared with an increase of 2.8% in control schools (P < 0.05).
There was also a higher rate of remission of overweight children
to healthy weight in the intervention group (14%) compared with
the control group (7.5%).
Summary: Of the 39 studies that targeted children aged six to
12 years, 18 were effective on some indicator of adiposity. Ten
studies involved long-term intervention periods (> 12 months),
one had an intervention period of 12 months, five had intervention
periods approximately six months, and two involved very shortterm intervention periods. Seven studies were conducted in the
USA, two in Australia, two in France, one in each of New Zealand,
UK, Germany, Sweden, Chile, Brazil and Spain. Of the 21 studies
not effective on any indicator of adiposity, only three studies had
an intervention period greater than 12 months (> one to two years:
Sallis 1993; Warren 2003; > two years: Caballero 2003).
Behaviours
Diet-related
Diet-related factors were significantly positively altered in 20
studies. A variety of indicators have been used, however, nutrition knowledge was increased in four studies (Amaro 2006;
Mller 2001; Sahota 2001; Story 2003a), eating practices were
improved in one study (Robinson 2003), food preparation practices were improved in two studies (Beech 2003; Story 2003a),
higher levels of fruit and vegetable consumption was reported
in five studies (Amaro 2006; Gentile 2009; Gortmaker 1999a;
Physical activity-related
Physical activity-related factors were significantly positively impacted in 21 studies, with a variety of indicators and measures used.
Higher levels of physical activity self-efficacy were reported in four
studies (Caballero 2003; Harrison 2006; Salmon 2008; Simon
2008), better cardiovascular fitness in three studies (Gutin 2008;
Kain 2004; Reed 2008), higher levels of physical activity in nine
studies (Hamelink-Basteen 2008, Harrison 2006; Pangrazi 2003;
Donnelly 2009, Mller 2001; Rodearmel 2006; Salmon 2008;
Spiegel 2006; Taylor 2008), more time spent in organised physical
activity in one study (Simon 2008), and decreased sedentary behaviours (predominantly screen time, and television viewing) were
reported in eight studies (Foster 2008; Gentile 2009; Gortmaker
1999a; Hamelink-Basteen 2008; Mller 2001; Robinson 2003;
Simon 2008; Taylor 2008).
25
Maintenance/Sustainability of effects
Equity
26
measure of equity, reported either no association between the outcomes of the intervention and the PROGRESS measure, or positive impacts for groups of lower SES. The possibility of a bias
towards reporting favourable equity effects cannot be excluded.
Harm-adverse/unintended effects
27
Resources needed
All studies reported who delivered the intervention. Approximately half of the interventions were delivered primarily by trained
study personnel (Baranowski 2003; Beech 2003; Epstein 2001;
James 2004; Kain 2004; Lazaar 2007; Macias-Cervantes 2009;
Mller 2001; Robinson 2003; Rodearmel 2006; Sahota 2001;
Sallis 1993; Salmon 2008; Sanigorski 2008; Sichieri 2009; Simon
2008; Stolley 1997; Story 2003a, Taylor 2008, Vizcaino 2008;
Warren 2003). The remaining interventions were delivered primarily by school-based staff, usually teachers, after receiving training and materials from the study team (Amaro 2006; Caballero
2003; Coleman 2005; Donnelly 2009; Fernandes 2009; Foster
2008; Gentile 2009; Gortmaker 1999a; Gutin 2008; Harrison
2006; Kipping 2008; Marcus 2009; Paineau 2008; Pangrazi 2003;
Reed 2008; Robbins 2006; Spiegel 2006). Sallis 1993 included
two intervention groups, one led by specialists from the study team
and one led by teachers trained by study team.
Twenty-eight of the 39 studies included information about the
resources required to deliver the intervention, however the level
of detail varied considerably. Many studies included information about the length of time required for the face-to-face intervention components, however some studies also included information about time required for staff training in order to deliver the intervention and/or additional support and consultation offered by study team members (Caballero 2003, Donnelly
2009, Foster 2008, Gutin 2008, Kain 2004, Sahota 2001, Sallis
1993, Sanigorski 2008, Sichieri 2009, Story 2003a; Taylor 2008;
Vizcaino 2008). Many studies included descriptions (to varying
levels of detail) of the materials used to deliver the intervention, such as lesson topics, materials used within the classroom
or sent home with children, curricula and planning guides provided to teachers, resources provided for families, as well as items
provided as incentives for participation and achievement (Amaro
2006; Beech 2003; Caballero 2003; Coleman 2005; Epstein
2001; Gortmaker 1999a; Gutin 2008; Harrison 2006; Kain 2004;
Kipping 2008; Paineau 2008; Pangrazi 2003; Reed 2008; Robbins
2006; Robinson 2003; Rodearmel 2006; Sahota 2001; Salmon
2008; Sanigorski 2008; Sichieri 2009; Spiegel 2006; Story 2003a;
Warren 2003). One study estimated the total number of personhours required to implement the intervention (Sanigorski 2008)
and Mller 2001 reported the availability of intervention materials for purchase by education and counselling services.
The Medical College of Georgia Fitkid Project (Gutin 2008) published information not only about the rationale, design and components of their physical activity intervention, but also included
information about contextual factors that the study authors believe may have been important for implementation within their
study setting (Yin 2005). This included assessment of feasibility,
based on the facilities available within schools such as indoor and
outdoor sporting facilities and play areas, and suitably large classrooms within which to hold academic enrichment sessions. Transportation, funded by the research project, was also provided for
study participants, minimising an important barrier to participation in after-school programmes. Action Schools! BC evaluated
an active school model for elementary school-based physical activity promotion (Reed 2008). Reports on this intervention included an implementation model to depict the various intervention components, including materials provided, and support and
liaison roles to implement the programme (Naylor 2006; Naylor
2006a).
While no studies included a formal economic evaluation, Kipping
2008 included the cost of materials and teacher training (110 per
teacher and 2 per pupil), Coleman 2005 included the amount of
funding provided for evaluation, funding for co-ordinators, facility
overhead, copying, incentives, and translation services (USD4.2
million over four years), Vizcaino 2008 reported the cost (28 euros)
per child per month and Sanigorski 2008 included the amount of
funding provided to implement the intervention (AUD100 000
per year for four years). Intervention costs in the studies mentioned
above were not compared with costs in the control groups since
these consisted of either no intervention or maintaining usual curriculum/practice. In the studies authored by Kipping 2008 and
Vizcaino 2008, costs were reported for the purpose of emphasising
feasibility and generalisability with both considering their interventions to be relatively inexpensive and so, from a cost perspective, feasible to scale up.
28
suit the needs of their inner-city population, for example, ensuring the venue was within walking distance for participants. Gutin
2008 implemented a culturally sensitive physical activity intervention to predominantly African American students. Strategies used
to deliver an a culturally appropriate intervention programme included engaging African American teachers/personnel to implement the programme, an emphasis on collective goals, interpersonal rather than individualistic influences, and distinctiveness in
dress and verbal expressions were considered when deciding on
various aspects of the intervention.
Caballero 2003 targeted a combined dietary and physical activity
intervention toward American Indian schoolchildren. Formative
research and approval by tribal health authorities were used to ensure culturally appropriate classroom curriculum. Coleman 2005
translated a school health curriculum that had been tested in a
national trial into community low-income school settings in an
area with a population of predominately Mexican descent, so the
curriculum was designed to reflect this. Robbins 2006 described
the development of an individually tailored physical activity computer-based intervention which enabled the inclusion of culturally sensitive and developmentally appropriate strategies for participants from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Spiegel 2006 administered survey measures that were available in English and Spanish.
The remaining five studies were conducted in areas of social disadvantage (Harrison 2006; Salmon 2008, Kain 2004), or in a rural
setting (Vizcaino 2008, Sanigorski 2008).
Effectiveness
Results for outcomes measured in each study for this age group
are presented in Table 4. Of the eight included studies targeting
adolescents, six provided appropriate BMI or zBMI data for inclusion in the meta-analysis (NeumarkSztainer 2003; Ebbeling 2006;
Haerens 2006; Webber 2008; Singh 2009; Peralta 2009). Of those
included in the meta-analysis a mean standardised difference between change in BMI/zBMI from baseline to post-intervention
between intervention and control groups was -0.09 units (95% CI:
-0.20 to 0.03) (see Analysis 1.1). Although this was not statistically
significant, and the heterogeneity of the studies is a limitation, the
results show there was a trend for intervention children to have
smaller increases in these measures of adiposity over time. The
two studies not included in the meta-analysis (Patrick 2006, Pate
2005) did not report appropriate BMI or zBMI data; however it
was reported that the prevalence of overweight or obesity was not
different between groups post-intervention in the Pate 2005 study,
and it was reported that BMI z scores were not different between
groups post-intervention in the Patrick 2006 study, although the
subgroup of children with a BMI at or above the 95th percentile
tended to have a lower BMI z score (P = 0.10). The small number
of studies and observed heterogeneity of the studies in the metaanalysis limits our ability to determine with confidence the effectiveness of interventions in adolescents, although these results are
promising.
Adiposity
Behaviours
Diet-related
Although a number of dietary behaviours were targeted by all but
two interventions, and a range of measures of dietary intake were
utilised, significant positive dietary changes were reported in only
three studies. The two-year Belgium study of Haerens 2006 reported a significantly lower intake of fat and percentage of energy from fat in intervention children compared with the control
group. Ebbeling 2006 reported a significantly greater decrease in
energy intake from sugar-sweetened beverages along with an increase in noncaloric beverage intake in intervention participants
29
compared with control participants. Singh 2009 also reported significant positive impacts of the intervention on consumption of
sugar-sweetened beverages, soft drinks, and fruit juices. These
positive intervention impacts were sustained at the 12-month follow-up assessment (four months post-intervention), but had dissipated at the 20-month follow-up assessment. Patrick 2006, while
not finding an overall intervention effect, did observe that more
females in the intervention group met the guideline for maximum
percentage of daily calories from saturated fat at 12 months.
Physical Activity-related
Physical activity-related behaviours were measured in all studies,
and five studies report at least one indicator of significant positive
intervention impacts on physical activity. After one full academic
year of the LEAP (Lifestyle Education for Activity programme) intervention, Pate 2005 report that 45% of girls in the intervention
schools and 36% of girls in the control schools reported vigorous physical activity during an average of one or more 30-minute
time blocks per day over a three-day period (P = 0.05). When
missing data at follow-up were imputed by applying a regression
method, this prevalence difference increased in statistical significance (P < 0.05). This rigorous study reported that a school-based
intervention can increase regular participation in vigorous physical activity among high-school girls however the short time frame
(< 12 months) may have limited the impact of this intervention
given the approach taken (socio-ecological model). The study by
Haerens 2006 reported that in males, the intervention significantly
increased school-related physical activity, reduced the decrease in
light intensity physical activity and stabilised time in moderate-tovigorous physical activity compared with changes in the control
group (Haerens 2006). In females, the intervention reduced the
decrease in light intensity physical activity. Peralta 2009 found
that after the six-month intervention period, intervention males
had significantly less weekend vigorous physical activity than comparison males. Patrick 2006 found that boys in the intervention
group increased their number of active days per week compared
with boys in the control group, however this effect was not observed in girls. During a three-year intervention in girls, Webber
2008 found no intervention impacts on physical activity at two
years, however at three years, girls in intervention schools had 10.9
more MET-weighted minutes of moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) than those in control schools. The same study also
found a smaller decrease in physical activity from 6th grade to 8th
grade in girls from intervention schools compared with those from
control schools. There was a differential effect by ethnicity in this
study, with higher physical activity levels reported for white girls
compared with African American girls or Hispanic girls at both
two years and three years.
Sedentary-related
Only one study reported positive intervention impacts on sedentary behaviours, with Patrick 2006 observing a change in sedentary behaviours in favour of the intervention group compared with
control (changes from baseline to endpoint: 4.3 3.4 to 3.4 2.6
h/d vs 4.2 3.4 to 4.4 3.7 h/d for girls, [P =. 001]; 4.2 3.7
to 3.2 2.6 h/d versus 4.2 2.8 to 4.3 3.5 h/d for boys, [P =
. 001]). This corresponds to a percentage change for intervention
versus control of -21% versus + 4.8% in girls and -24% versus +
2.4% in boys To measure this, participants completed a self-report measure of recent school day and non-school day time spent
watching television, playing computer/video games, sitting talking on the telephone, and sitting listening to music. A composite
score of sedentary behaviour was calculated from a weighted sum
of the school day and non-school day responses.
30
Equity
All studies reported at least one item from the PROGRESS framework at baseline. Most studies reported gender (Ebbeling 2006;
Haerens 2006; NeumarkSztainer 2003; Peralta 2009; Singh 2009)
and/or race (Ebbeling 2006; Pate 2005; NeumarkSztainer 2003;
Patrick 2006; Singh 2009; Webber 2008) of participants. Two
studies included information about the socio-economic status of
participants (Ebbeling 2006; Haerens 2006), and one study included information about the highest household education level
(Patrick 2006). When analysing outcome data, only four of the
eight studies analysed results by any of the PROGRESS items.
Four studies analysed results by gender (Ebbeling 2006; Haerens
2006; Patrick 2006; Singh 2009; for results refer to section on
gender above) and two studies by race (Pate 2005; Webber 2008).
Webber 2008 found a differential effect by race, with higher physical activity levels reported for white girls compared with African
American girls or Hispanic girls at both two years and three years
after baseline. Singh 2009 analysed results by both gender (results
reported above) and race and, although the data for race was not
provided, it was reported that there was no group by ethnicity
interaction (Singh 2009). The lack of analysis by a measure of equity or socio-economic status limits our ability to assess the effectiveness of the interventions in reducing health inequities, however it should be noted that most of the studies targeted settings
or families of low socio-economic status. The studies in this age
group were conducted in four different countries (USA (five studies), Belgium, Netherlands and Australia) allowing us to assess the
utility of the approaches in a variety of contexts.
Harm-adverse/unintended effects
31
However, the unexplained heterogeneity of effects observed, potential attrition bias in many studies, and the likelihood of small
study bias may have inflated our estimate of effect, so these findings should be interpreted with caution. The majority of the included studies targeted children aged six to12 years, with interventions predominantly based on behaviour change theories and
implemented in education settings. Further, analysis by age group
indicates the strongest evidence of effectiveness is in six to 12 year
olds (primarily due to the larger number of studies in this age
group), with promising findings also in 0-5 year olds, particularly
for interventions conducted in home or healthcare settings. The
interventions were developed to prevent obesity through strategies
aimed at altering dietary or physical activity related factors, or both
combined. These types of interventions represent only some of
the factors that are important in tackling childhood obesity and
should be considered as part of a suite of interventions including population and targeted measures with action across a range
of areas that may include advertising, obesogenic environments
and government and school policy (Foresight 2007). The variety
of approaches used in the interventions in this review, combined
with heterogeneous measures used to assess intervention impacts,
limits our ability to draw firm conclusions about the best interventions for effective behaviour change. Further, although a variety of
positive intervention impacts were reported on behavioural measures, only a limited number of studies reported post-intervention
follow-up, which makes it difficult for us to have confidence that
the outcomes of often short-term interventions are sustained over
the longer term. Despite this, the interventions which report on
potential adverse effects and outcomes by indicators of equity provide evidence that childhood obesity prevention interventions can
be both safe and equitable.
DISCUSSION
Summary of main results
This updated review now includes 55 studies of programmes
aimed at preventing obesity in children aged 0 to 18 years, and
across the age range we present evidence indicating that childhood obesity prevention may be effective at reducing adiposity in
children. The best estimate of effect on BMI was of a 0.15kg/
m2 reduction which would correspond to a small but clinically
important shift in population BMI if sustained over several years.
Effectiveness
Our review includes a meta-analysis of 37 studies with a combined
sample of 27,946 children. This analysis reveals these interventions may be effective in reducing the magnitude of the change in
BMI/zBMI from pre- to post-intervention by -0.15 units, relative
to the change in the control group. Subgroup analysis by age group
revealed that the effectiveness of interventions in young children
and adolescents is less clear, and more studies in these age groups
are needed. The analysis in children age six to 12 years includes
the majority of the studies and provides the clearest indication
that obesity prevention interventions can be effective at reducing
adiposity.
In an attempt to examine the clinical significance of the effect size
seen, we have applied these to the BMI of an average Australian
child of preschool, elementary school and secondary school age.
For a preschool child aged 3.7 years with a BMI 16.3 kg/m2 , an
effect size of -0.26 would represent reducing average BMI by 1.6%.
For a child aged 9.5 years with a BMI 18.2 kg/m2 , an effect size
of -0.15 would represent reducing average BMI by 0.8%. For a
32
child aged 14 years with a BMI 16.3 kg/m2 , an effect size of -0.09
would represent reducing average BMI by 0.4%.
While these effect sizes may appear small they represent important
reductions at a population level if sustained over several years.
A study of Australian adults shows that a 1.4kg/m2 increase in
BMI in men and 2.1 kg/m2 increase in BMI in women over a 20
year period (1980-2000; average increase of 0.07-0.105 kg/m2 per
year) was associated with a doubling of the population prevalence
of obesity, and a four-fold increase in the prevalence of obesity
class III (BMI40 kg/m2 ) Walls 2009. The effect sizes seen in
the meta-analysis across all groups are comparable (-0.09) or larger
(-0.15 and -0.26) then the increases which were associated with
these substantial increases in obesity prevalence.
In addition, it should be noted that these effect sizes were demonstrated with predominantly non-overweight children, and in trials
of prevention interventions-rather than treatment interventions,
and with children, over mainly short (12 months) intervention
periods. As such we would expect small effect sizes.
Although the sample size for the meta-analysis is large, 18 studies
were not able to be included. This was due to a lack of appropriate BMI data reported, and is a limitation given the intended
purpose of the review to reflect the findings on effectiveness across
the evidence base. Of those not included in the meta-analysis, six
studies reported significant intervention impacts on the incidence,
remission or prevalence of overweight or obesity (Coleman 2005;
Gortmaker 1999a; Jouret 2009; Mller 2001; Rodearmel 2006;
Salmon 2008). The other studies did not report significant intervention impacts on any indicator of adiposity. When reviewing
the evidence, it is apparent that many individual studies are underpowered to detect small differences between groups, particularly on adiposity outcomes. We did not exclude studies from the
meta-analysis for any other reason apart from the data not being
available. Some may view this as a limitation since studies of varying quality were inevitably included. However, given the heterogeneity in the designs of included studies as well as the variability
in reporting, it was not feasible to define a clear quality threshold
for studies to meet in order to be included. Including all studies
that reported BMI data was determined to be the most transparent
way to present the findings of this review. Further, the funnel plot
suggests there is evidence of the under-reporting of small studies
with negative findings in the published literature, which may inflate our assessments of effectiveness.
gies to target socio-economic and/or cultural diversity or disadvantage. One such study was conducted outside of the high-income country setting, in Chile, an upper-middle-income country.
Of the remaining eighteen studies, seven studies conducted in the
USA were of interventions targeting African American children
and their communities and another two studies targeted Native
American communities. Other studies targeted participants of low
socio-economic status, or were implemented in areas of social disadvantage. By far the most common setting for interventions included in this review were schools (43 studies). Other interventions were (or included) home-based (14 studies), communitybased (six studies), or were set in a health service (two studies) or
care setting (two studies). Eleven studies incorporated interventions across multiple settings. Most interventions took a combined
dietary and physical activity approach to obesity prevention (31
studies). As a single strategy, targeting physical activity alone was
more popular (17 studies) than targeting diet alone (seven studies).
The predominant theoretical basis for interventions in this review
was behaviour change theory. Other theories represented include
environmental change strategies, the socio-ecological framework,
social learning theory, health promotion theory, transtheoretical
models, and youth development and resiliency based approaches.
The theoretical basis for interventions was explicitly reported in
approximately half of the included studies.
33
pant flow through the study, describing the extent of missing data,
with some studies attempting to analyse the potential impact of
missing data on their outcomes and providing information about
the characteristics of participants that did not complete post-intervention assessments. Importantly, many papers provided insufficient information to make an informed judgement about the
risk of bias, highlighting the need for more careful reporting of
research methods. Informed decisions based on research evidence
rely on comprehensive and transparent reporting. Publishing complete study protocols will increase the level of comprehensive reporting in obesity prevention research. This will make it easier for
readers to assess whether a study has measured and reported all
outcomes as intended in the study protocol, which is an important
consideration in assessing the risk of bias of a study.
ture reviews should now also determine the effectiveness of environmental and population level interventions, such as those which
target changes in infrastructure and policies, to develop a clearer
picture of the best possible portfolio of interventions with which
to address this public health issue at a population level.
AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS
Implications for practice
The body of evidence in this review provides some support for the
hypothesis that obesity prevention interventions in children can
be effective, and where examined, have not caused adverse outcomes or increased health inequalities. To this end, the direction of
research and evaluation must move into how to implement effectively to scale, sustain the impacts over time and ensure equitable
outcomes. In addition, interventions need to be developed that
can be embedded into ongoing practice and operating systems,
rather than implementing interventions that are resource intensive
and cannot be maintained long-term.
This review also highlights that although we may now have a good
sense of the range of interventions feasible for use in reducing the
risk of childhood obesity, we lack the knowledge of which specific
intervention components are most effective and what is affordable
and cost-effective. Being able to answer these question is of critical
importance to decision makers, and economic evaluations must
feature in future obesity prevention research if we are to enable
well informed decisions about which interventions warrant population-wide implementation.
Also of particular interest is the safety of obesity prevention efforts
in children. Although measured in only a minority of studies and
using a variety of indicators, the studies which measured adverse
outcomes or harms reported no adverse intervention effects, even
with the intensely individual focus of most of the interventions.
However, significant impacts on adiposity reported from shortterm interventions do raise concerns and we recommend that all
studies monitor the potential occurrence of unhealthy practices.
In relation to equity and the incorporation of PROGRESS (Place,
Race, Occupation, Gender, Religion, Education, Socio-economic
status, Social status), only a minority of studies reported outcomes
by any such indicators, and of those that did, the majority focused
on SES, followed by race. The review however provides evidence
of significant positive outcomes for the more disadvantaged, and
thus those of higher morbidity. There was no evidence for a widening of health inequalities as a result of obesity prevention interventions. In addition, the relatively large numbers of studies either of
interventions targeting disadvantaged population groups, or conducted in low- to middle- income countries, also provide useful information about the implementation strategies needed for obesity
34
To enable systematic reviewers to undertake meta-analyses, reporting the mean and standard deviation for each outcome, as well
as the number of participants assessed at each time point in each
group are needed. Process data should also be measured and reported, including data on appropriateness, implementation, feasibility, acceptability, sustainability and context. Economic data
are urgently needed and costs relating to conducting the intervention should be measured and reported, with formal economic
evaluations undertaken where possible. In relation to nutritionand activity-related behaviours, using valid and reliable measures
is always the best practice.
Trial designs continue to be compromised by non-random allocation, and investigators should randomise wherever possible. However, randomisation and allocation concealment may not always
be possible, and blinded analysis of outcomes should be used as a
means of minimising bias. In future, we recommend larger, longer
term studies powered to detect the small changes that are likely
to be found, with assessments of potential harm, equity impacts,
implementation factors and sustainability, to enable translation of
research findings into effective public health approaches for preventing childhood obesity.
Key points
Obesity prevention interventions show beneficial effects on
BMI in a meta-analysis but substantial unexplained heterogeneity
of effects and the likelihood of publication bias exist.
Testing short-term, behaviourally focused school-based
interventions for 6-12 year old children may no longer be
warranted
More evidence is needed to determine effective
interventions in young children, particularly those aged 0-3
years, and adolescents
There is a continued need to strengthen trial design,
measurement approaches of physical activity and diet-related
behaviours, and reporting of process, impact and outcomes
Future trials should be larger, longer term and include
assessments of costs, harm, equity impacts, implementation
factors and sustainability
Translational research is required to embed effective
interventions into standard practice across childrens settings
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Review Advisory Group: Liz
Bickerdike (Cochrane Heart Group, Bristol, UK), Margaret Burke
(Cochrane Heart Group, Bristol, UK), Tim Lobstein (International Obesity Taskforce, UK), Kellie-Ann Jolley (Director of Active Communities and Healthy Eating Unit, VicHealth), The Par-
35
REFERENCES
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Additional references
Adelman 2001
Adelman R, Restaino I, Alon U, Blowey D. Proteinuria
and focal segmental glomerulosclerosis in severely obese
adolescents. Journal of Pediatrics 2001;138:4815.
Alderson 2005
Alderson P, Green S, Higgins JPT, editors. Assessment of
study quality. Cochrane Reviewers Handbook 4.2.2 [updated
December 2003]; Section 6. The Cochrane Library, Issue 1
2005. Chichester: John Wiley and sons Ltd, 2005.
Armstrong 2007
Armstrong R, Waters E. Health Promotion and
Public Health Systematic Review Handbook. http:
//www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/cochrane/welcome/
HPPH%20systematic%20review%20handbook.pdf
(Accessed 2007) 2007.
Arslanian 2002
Arslanian S. Type 2 diabetes in children: Clinical aspects
and risk factors. Hormone Research 2002;57(suppl 1):
1928.
Chan 2009
Chan G, Chen C. Musculoskeletal effects of obesity.
Current Opinion in Pediatrics 2009;21:6570.
Cochrane EPOC 2009
Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care
Group. Risk of bias for studies with a separate control group
(RCTs, CCTs, CBAs). Accessed http://epoc.cochrane.org/
epoc-resources-review-authors on 29 March 2010. 2009.
Cole 2000
Cole TJ, Bellizzi MC, Flegal KM, Dietz WH. Establishing
a standard definition for child overweight and obesity
worldwide: international survey. BMJ 2000;320:124053.
Cole 2007
Cole TJ, Flegal KM, Nicholls D, Jackson AA. Body mass
index cut offs to define thinness in children and adolescents:
international survey. BMJ 2007; Vol. 335, issue 7612:194.
de Onis 2004
de Onis M, Garza C, Victora CG, Onyango AW, Frongillo
EA, Martines J. The WHO Multicentre Growth Reference
Study: planning, study design, and methodology. Food
Nutr Bull. 2004/04/09 2004; Vol. 25, issue 1 Suppl:
S1526. [03795721: (Print)]
de Onis 2007
de Onis M, Garza C, Onyango AW, Borghi E. Comparison
of the WHO child growth standards and the CDC 2000
growth charts. Journal of Nutrition. 2006/12/22 2007;
Vol. 137, issue 1:1448. [00223166: (Print)]
Deeks 2008
Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG on behalf of the
Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Chapter 9: Analysing
data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT,
Green S editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews
of Interventions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.
Doak 2009
Doak C, Heitmann BL, Summerbell C, Lissner L.
Prevention of childhood obesity - what type of evidence
should we consider relevant?. Obesity Reviews: An Official
Journal Of The International Association For The Study Of
Obesity 2009; Vol. 10, issue 3:3506. [: 1467789X]
Ebbeling 2002
Ebbeling CB, Pawlak DB, Ludwig DS. Childhood obesity:
public-health crisis, common sense cure. Lancet 2002;360:
47382.
Fagot-Campagna 2000
Fagot-Campagna A, Pettitt D, Engelgau MM, Burrows NR,
Geiss LS, Valdez R, et al. Type 2 diabetes among North
American children and adolescents: an epidemiologic
review and a public health perspective. Journal of Pediatrics
2000;136(5):66472.
Figueroa-Muoz 2001
Figueroa-Muoz J, Chinn S, Rona R. Association between
obesity and asthma in 4-11 year old children in the UK.
Thorax 2001;56:1337.
Foresight 2007
Butland B, Jebb S, Kopelman P, McPherson K, Thomas
S, Mardell J, et al. Foresight. Tackling Obesities: Future
Choices - Project report. Department of Innovation
Universities and Skills. www.dius.gov.ukDIUS/PUB 8654/
2K/12/07/AR 2007.
Freedman 1999
Freedman DS, Dietz WH, Srinavisian SR, Berenson GS.
The relation of overweight to cardiovascular risk factors
among children and adolescents: the Bogalusa Heart Study.
Pediatrics 1999;103:117582.
Gortmaker 2011
Gortmaker SL, Swinburn BA, Levy D, Carter R, Mabry
PL, Finegood DT, et al. Changing the future of obesity:
science, policy, and action. Lancet 2011;378:83847.
Heath 2002
Heath EM, Coleman KJ. Evaluation of the
institutionalization of the Coordinated Approach to Child
Health (CATCH) in a US/Mexico border community.
Health Education and Behavior 2002;29:44460.
Higgins 2008
Higgins JPT, Altman DG on behalf of the Cochrane
Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods
Group. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies.
45
Olds 2010
Olds TS, Tomkinson GR, Ferrar KE, Maher CA. Trends
in the prevalence of childhood overweight and obesity in
Australia between 1985 and 2008. International Journal of
Obesity 2010;34(1):5766.
Popkin 2004
Popkin BM, Gordon-Larsen P. The nutrition transition:
worldwide obesity dynamics and their determinants.
International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic
Disorders. 2004/11/16 2004; Vol. 28 Suppl 3:S29.
[03070565: (Print)]
Power 1997
Power C, Lake JK, Cole TJ. Measurement and long term
health risks of child and adolescent fatness. International
Journal of Obesity 1997;21:50726.
Rokholm 2010
Rokholm B, Baker JL, Srensen TIA. The levelling off of the
obesity epidemic since the year 1999 - a review of evidence
and perspectives. Obesity Reviews 2010;11:83546.
Monteiro 2004
Monteiro CA, Conde WL, Lu B, Popkin BM. Obesity and
inequities in health in the developing world.. International
Journal of Obesity 2004;28:11816.
Simmons 2008
Simmons A, Sanigorski AM, Cuttler R, Brennan M, Kremer
P, Mathews L, et al. Nutrition and physical activity in
children and adolescents. Barwon-South Western Region.
Sentinel Site Series. Report 6: Lessons learned from Colacs
Be Active Eat Well project (2002-6). Department of Human
Services (Victoria) http://www.goforyourlife.vic.gov.au/hav/
admin.nsf/Images/ssop6report6baewfinal.pdf/$File/
ssop6report6baewfinal.pdf 2008.
Must 1992
Must A, Jacques PF, Dallal GE, Bajema CJ, Dietz
WH. Long-term morbidity and mortality of overweight
adolescents: a follow-up of the Havard Growth Study of
1922 to 1935. New England Journal of Medicine 1992;327:
13505. [MEDLINE: 93024760]
Singh 2008
Singh AS, Mulder C, Twisk JW, Van Mechelen W,
Chinapaw MJ. Tracking of childhood overweight into
adulthood: a systematic review of the literature. Obesity
Reviews. 2008/03/12 2008; Vol. 9, issue 5:47488.
[1467789X: (Electronic)]
Must 1999
Must A, Strauss RS. Risks and consequences of childhood
and adolescent obesity. International Journal of Obesity
1999;23(Suppl2):S2S11. [: ISBN 03070565]
Strauss 2000
Strauss R, Barlow S, Dietz W. Prevalence of abnormal
serum aminotransferase values in overweight and obese
adolescents. Journal of Pediatrics 2000;136:72733.
Naylor 2006
Naylor P, Macdonald H, Reed K, McKay HA. Action
Schools BC: a socio-ecological approach to modifying
disease risk factors in elementary school children. Preventing
Chronic Disease 2006;3(2):A6017A6019.
Naylor 2006a
Naylor P, Macdonald HM, Zebedee JA, Reed KE, McKay
HA. Lessons learned from Action Schools BC: an active
schools model to promote physical activity in elementary
schools. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 2006;9(5):
4139.
Nichols 2011
Nichols MS, Silva-Sanigorski A, Cleary JE, Goldfeld SR,
Colahan A, Swinburn BA. Decreasing trends in overweight
and obesity among an Australian population of preschool
children. International Journal of Obesity March 22, 2011;
Epub 2011/03:24.
Strauss 2000a
Strauss R. Childhood obesity and self-esteem. Pediatrics
2000;105:e15.
Stunkard 1983
Stunkard A, Sorenson T, Schulsinger F in Kety S, Rowland
L, Sidman R, Matthysse S, eds. Genetics of Neurological and
Psychiatric Disorders. New York: Raven Press, 1983.
Thomas 2003
Thomas H. Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies.
Effective Public Health Practice Project. McMaster University,
Hamilton, Canada, 2003.
Tsiros 2009
Tsiros MD, Olds T, Buckley JD, Grimshaw P, Brennan
L, Walkley J, et al. Health-related quality of life in obese
children and adolescents. International Journal of Obesity
2009;33:387-400.
46
Tugwell 2010
Tugwell P, Petticrew M, Kristjansson E, Welch V, Ueffing
E, Waters E, et al. Assessing equity in systematic reviews:
realising the recommendations of the Commission on Social
Determinants of Health. BMJ. 2010/09/15 2010; Vol.
341:c4739. [14685833: (Electronic)]
Ueffing 2009
Ueffing E, Tugwell P, Welch V, Petticrew M, Kristjansson
E for the Cochrane Health Equity Field. C1, C2 Equity
Checklist for Systematic Review Authors. Version 200905-28.. Accessed at www.equity.cochrane.org/files/
equitychecklist.pdf 2009.
Walls 2009
Walls HL, Wolfe R, Haby MM, Magliano DJ, de Courten
M, Reid CM, et al. Trends in BMI of urban Australian
adults, 1980-2000. Public Health Nutrition 2009; Vol. 13,
issue 5:6318. [14752727: (Electronic)]
Wang 2001
Wang Y. Cross-national comparison of childhood obesity:
the epidemic and the relationship between obesity
and socioeconomic status. International Journal of
Epidemiology 2001; Vol. 30, issue 5:112936.
Whitaker 1997
Whitaker RC, Wright JA, Pepe MS, Seidel KD, Dietz WH.
Predicting obesity in young adulthood from childhood and
parental obesity. New England Journal of Medicine 1997;
337(13):86973. [MEDLINE: 97433004]
Yin 2005
Yin Z, Hanes J Jr, Moore JB, Humbles P, Barbeau P, Gutin
B. An after-school physical activity program for obesity
prevention in children: The Medical College of Georgia
FitKid Project. Evaluation and the Health Professions 2005;
28:6789.
Yin 2005a
Yin Z, Gutin B, Johnson MH, Hanes J Jr, Moore JB,
Cavnar M, et al. An environmental approach to obesity
prevention in children: Medical College of Georgia FitKid
Project year 1 results. Obesity Research 2005;13:215361.
Yin 2005b
Yin Z, Moore JB, Johnson MH, Barbeau P, Cavnar M,
Thornburg J, et al. The Medical College of Georgia FitKid
Project: the relations between program attendance and
changes in outcomes in year 1. International Journal of
Obesity 2005;29:S40S45.
Wang 2006
Wang S, Moss JR, Hiller JE. Applicability and transferability
of interventions in evidence-based public health. Health
Promot International. 2005/10/27 2006; Vol. 21, issue 1:
7683. [09574824: (Print)]
Campbell 2001
Campbell K, Waters E, OMeara S, Summerbell C.
Interventions for preventing obesity in childhood. A
systematic review. Obesity Reviews 2001;2(3):14957.
Wang 2006a
Wang Y, Lobstein T. Worldwide trends in childhood
overweight and obesity. International Journal of Pediatric
Obesity 2006; Vol. 1, issue 1:1125.
Campbell K 2002
Campbell K, Waters E, OMeara S, Kelly S, Summerbell C.
Interventions for preventing obesity in children. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 2. [DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD001871]
Waters 2011
Waters E, Hall BJ, Armstrong R, Doyle J, Pettman TL,
de Silva-Sanigorski A. Essential components of public
health evidence reviews:capturing intervention complexity,
implementation,economics and equity. Journal of Public
Health 2011;33:4625.
Summerbell 2005
Summerbell C, Waters E, Edmunds L, Kelly S, Brown
T, Campbell K. Interventions for preventing obesity in
children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005,
Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001871.pub2]
47
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
Height, weight
Physical activity
Nutrition knowledge
Dietary Intake
Process evaluation: Not reported
48
Amaro 2006
(Continued)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Low risk
Unclear risk
Other bias
Low risk
Baranowski 2003
Methods
Participants
N (controls baseline) = 16
N (controls follow-up) = 14
N (interventions baseline) = 19
N (interventions follow-up) = 17
Recruitment: all consenting 8-year old, African American girls = 50th percentile for age
and gender BMI, with a parent willing to be involved. Set in Texas, US
Proportion of eligibles participating: Not stated, but children needed access to Internet
Mean Age: Intervention: 8.3 (SD 0.3); Controls: 8.4 (SD 0.3) years.
Sex: girls only.
Interventions
Set in summer camps and homes, the intervention was delivered by trained personnel
in camp and researchers via a website. The intervention was designed to prevent obesity
and aimed to increase fruit, vegetable and water consumption, and enhance physical
activity. Intervention continued via a website with weekly visits. The pilot also evaluated
49
Baranowski 2003
(Continued)
BMI
Waist circumference
Physical maturation
Dual X-Ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) for % Body fat
Physical activity: CSA accelerometer,
a modification of the Self-Administered Physical Activity Checklist (SAPAC),
GEMS Activity Questionnaire (GAQ) computerised
Dietary intake measured by two 24 hour recalls using Nutrition Data System computer
programme (NDS-R)
Monitoring website usage.
Process Evaluation: Reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
High risk
Did not report % body fat at follow-up despite noting this as a measure and recording
50
Baranowski 2003
(Continued)
at baseline
Other bias
High risk
Beech 2003
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
Authors judgement
Beech 2003
(Continued)
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Low risk
High risk
Did not report % body fat at endpoint despite noting this as a measure and recording
at baseline
Other bias
Low risk
Caballero 2003
Methods
Participants
52
Caballero 2003
(Continued)
Interventions
School-based multi-component trial utilising school curriculum and existing staff resources trained by licensed SPARK (Sports, Play and active Recreation for Kids, see
Sallis et al. 1993) instructors and Pathways personnel who also acted as mentors. The
intervention aimed to attenuate obesity and reduce percentage body fat.
Four components included improved physical activity, food service, class-room curriculum and family involvement programme.
Control programme not reported, presumably usual curriculum
Combined effects of dietary interventions and physical activity interventions versus
control
Outcomes
BMI
Triceps and subscapular Skinfolds.
Bioelectrical impedance.
Physical activity: TriTrac R3D accelerometer, and checklist standardised from pilot work
was used as a 24-recall questionnaire.
Knowledge attitudes and beliefs: self report questionnaires developed in pilot.
Dietary intake measured by modified 24-hour recall
Observations of school meals.
Analysis of school menus for energy, protein, carbohydrate, fat, sodium and fibre using
the Nutrition Data System computer programme
Process Evaluation: Reported
Theoretical basis: Social learning theory and principles of American Indian culture and
practice
Resources for intervention implementation (e.g. funding needed or staff hours required)
: Reported
Who delivered the intervention: Reported
PROGRESS categories assessed at baseline: Reported (Gender)
PROGRESS categories analysed at outcome: Reported (Gender)
Outcomes relating to harms/unintended effects: Not Reported
Intervention included strategies to address diversity or disadvantage: Reported
Economic evaluation: Not Reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
53
Caballero 2003
(Continued)
Low risk
Unclear risk
Other bias
Low risk
Coleman 2005
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Intervention schools: received money ($3500 in first year, $2500 in second year, $1500
for third year and $1000 for fourth year) for purchasing equipment and paying substitutes
so that PE teachers and food service staff could attend training, and for promotion of
CATCH programme at each school. Classroom materials were also subsidised (CATCH
PE guidebook, PE activity box for grades 3 through 5, curriculum material for grades 3
through 5 and the EATSMART manual)
Control schools: did not receive any of the El Paso CATCH programme materials and
did not attend any training for the programme. Received $1000 at the start of each
school year to encourage participation
Also received some data i.e. at start of 4th grade, the 3rd grade summary results were
provided to both intervention and control schools
Combined effects of dietary interventions and physical activity interventions versus
control
54
Coleman 2005
(Continued)
Outcomes
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Unclear risk
Low risk
High risk
55
Coleman 2005
(Continued)
Other bias
Low risk
Dennison 2004
Methods
Participants
N (controls baseline) = 83
N (controls follow-up) = 73
N (interventions baseline) = 93
N (interventions follow-up) = 90
Setting: School (8 intervention and 8 control)
Geographic Region: New York State, US
Proportion of eligibles participating: Not stated
Mean Age: 4.0 years
Sex: both sexes included but no figures given
Interventions
Preschool and day care centre based intervention delivered by one early childhood teacher
and a music teacher. This was part of larger Brocodile the Crocodile health promotion
programme which lasted for 39 weeks for 1 hour each week including 32 sessions on
healthy eating. Seven educational sessions assessed intervention to encourage reduction
of TV viewing for both parents and children.
Controls received materials and activities about health and safety
Physical activity interventions versus control
Outcomes
BMI
Triceps Skinfolds
Parental estimates of childs sedentary activity in previous week in hours, and to estimate
number of hours usually spent in these activities for each weekend day and each week
day
Alternate activities as a result of reduced TV viewing were not stated/measured
Process Evaluation: Not Reported
56
Dennison 2004
(Continued)
Authors judgement
Low risk
Not blinded
Low risk
Unclear risk
Other bias
High risk
Donnelly 2009
Methods
Participants
57
Donnelly 2009
(Continued)
Mean Age:
Grade 2: Female (C: 7.8, 0.4; I: 7.7, 0.3); Male (C: 7.8, 0.3; I: 7.7, 0.4)
Grade 3: Female (C: 8.7, 0.4; I: 8.7, 0.4); Male (C: 8.8, 0.4; I: 8.7, 0.3)
Sex: Both Males and Females
Interventions
Outcomes
BMI
Accelerometry (sub-sample only)
Learning outcomes
Process evaluation: Reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
58
Donnelly 2009
(Continued)
Low risk
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Low risk
Ebbeling 2006
Methods
Participants
N (controls baseline) = 50
N (controls follow-up) = 50
N (interventions baseline) = 53
N (interventions follow-up) = 53
Setting [and number by trial group]: Home (intervention n = 53; control n = 50)
Recruitment: Local high school provided mailing lists. Adolescents ages 13-18 years who
reported consuming at least one serving per day of sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) and
lived predominately in one household were eligible
Geographic Region: USA
Percentage of eligible population enrolled: 77%
Mean Age:
Control: 15.8 1.1 years
Intervention: 16.0 1.1 years
Sex:
Control: 54% female
Intervention: 55% female
Interventions
Intervention
Weekly home deliveries of noncaloric beverages for 25 weeks: the target number
of individual beverage servings (i.e., 360 mL or 12 fl oz per referent serving) delivered
to each home was based on household size: 4 servings per day for the subject and 2
servings per day for each additional member of the household. Beverage preferences
selected from a wide variety of options (e.g., bottled water and diet beverages
including soft drinks, iced teas, lemonades, and punches). A regional supermarket
delivery service filled the orders and delivered the beverages, with research staff
coordinating and monitoring the process
Monthly telephone calls to reinforce instructions, provide education and
counselling, etc
Refrigerator magnets with messages under the theme of Think Before You Drink
59
Ebbeling 2006
(Continued)
BMI
Energy intake from sugar-sweetened beverages
Noncaloric beverage intake (ml)
Physical activity (MET)
Television viewing (hours)
Total media time (hours)
Process Evaluation: Reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Low risk
Interviewer for dietary and PA recall interviews was masked to group assignment. Not clear whether people conducting BMI measures (primary endpoint) were
60
Ebbeling 2006
(Continued)
Low risk
Unclear risk
Other bias
Low risk
Epstein 2001
Methods
Participants
For percentage of overweight (height and weight measured but not reported)
N (controls baseline) = 13 (low fat/sugar)
N (controls follow-up) =13
N (interventions baseline) =13 (fruit and veg)
N (interventions follow-up) = 13
Two interventions, 13 children in each intervention group. 30 started but only 26
children provided baseline data
Geographic region: New York State, US.
Proportion of eligibles participating: Not stated
Mean Age: 8.8 (1.8) (low fat/sugar); 8.6 (1.9) (fruit/veg)
Sex: both sexes included (boys/girls 6/7 (low fat/sugar); 3/10 (fruit/veg))
Interventions
Families with obese parents and non-obese children were randomized to groups in
which parents were provided a comprehensive behavioural weight-control programme
and were encouraged to increase fruit and vegetable intake.
Comparison groups were encouraged to decrease intake of high fat/high sugar
foods
Dietary interventions versus control
Outcomes
Percentage of overweight
Servings per day of fruits and vegetables
Servings per day of high fat/high sugar foods
Process Evaluation: Not Reported
61
Epstein 2001
(Continued)
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Low risk
Unclear risk
Other bias
Low risk
Fernandes 2009
Methods
Participants
N (controls baseline) = 80
N (controls follow-up) = 80
N (interventions baseline) = 55
N (interventions follow-up) = 55
Setting [and number by trial group]: 9 classes within 2 schools (n = 4 classes, intervention;
n = 5 classes control)
Recruitment: All schoolchildren enrolled in the 2nd grade at the 2 schools whose parents
gave consent and who attended on both data collection days
62
Fernandes 2009
(Continued)
Outcomes
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
High risk
Low risk
Unclear risk
No BMI/zBMI presented
63
Fernandes 2009
Other bias
(Continued)
High risk
Fitzgibbon 2005
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Child intervention:
14 weeks (three times weekly) of a diet/physical activity intervention delivered by
trained early childhood educators.
Each session included:
20min nutrition activity reflecting the food pyramid
20min aerobic activity based on overall moderate/vigorous movement
Parent intervention:
Received weekly newsletters that mirrored the childrens curriculum
64
Fitzgibbon 2005
(Continued)
Primary: Change in BMI from baseline to Year 1 post-intervention and Year 2 postintervention
Secondary:
Dietary intake
Physical activity
Television viewing
Process evaluation: Reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
65
Fitzgibbon 2005
(Continued)
Low risk
Performed adjusted analysis using two different approaches for imputation of missing data and reported both results
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Low risk
Fitzgibbon 2006
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Child intervention:
14 weeks (three times weekly) of a diet/physical activity intervention delivered by
trained early childhood educators.
Each session included:
20min nutrition activity reflecting the food pyramid
20min aerobic activity based on overall moderate/vigorous movement
Curriculum was linguistically and culturally appropriate and delivered in both
Spanish and English
66
Fitzgibbon 2006
(Continued)
Parent intervention:
Received weekly newsletters that mirrored the childrens curriculum
Accompanying homework assignments (n=12) designed to be an interactive
activity between children and parents. Parents received a small monetary incentive for
completing and returning homework.
Control intervention:
14 week (one time weekly) curriculum that taught general health concepts such as
seat belt safety, immunisation and dental health.
Parents received weekly newsletters that mirrored the curriculum, but no
homework assignments
Combined effects of dietary interventions and physical activity interventions versus
control
Outcomes
Primary: Change in BMI from baseline to Year 1 post-intervention and Year 2 postintervention
Secondary:
Dietary intake
Physical activity
Television viewing
Process evaluation: Reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
67
Fitzgibbon 2006
(Continued)
Low risk
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Low risk
Foster 2008
Methods
Participants
Interventions
68
Foster 2008
(Continued)
nutrition policy
All food sold and served in the schools was changed to meet the nutritional
standards-based on DG for Americans
social marketing
Several techniques-raffle tickets; slogan and character development
Family/parent outreach
Home and school association meetings, report card nights, parent education
meetings,weekly nutrition workshops. Parent challenges re PA and HE.
Schools encouraged parents to send healthy foods and discouraged unhealthy
foods
Staff training
all school staff offered ~10 hours/yr of training in nutrition education to receive
curricula and supporting materials e.g. Planet Health and Know your body, and
curriculum lesson packets etc
Combined effects of dietary interventions and physical activity interventions versus
control
Outcomes
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
69
Foster 2008
(Continued)
Low risk
Unclear risk
Other bias
Low risk
Gentile 2009
Methods
Participants
Interventions
70
Gentile 2009
(Continued)
Height and weight, Screen time, fruit and vegetable intake, physical activity (steps)
Process evaluation: Not reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Low risk
71
Gortmaker 1999a
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
72
Gortmaker 1999a
(Continued)
Authors judgement
Low risk
Low risk
Unclear risk
Other bias
Low risk
Gutin 2008
Methods
Participants
73
Gutin 2008
(Continued)
2-hour after-school intervention sessions were offered 5 days/wk on school days for 3
school years, however students did not have to attend every day to continue in the
programme. The programme included:
40 min of academic enrichment activities, during which healthy snacks were
provided (healthy snacks could be construed as a modest dietary intervention) followed
by:
80 min of moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), which a variety of activities
designed to improve sport skills, aerobic fitness, strength, and flexibility and 40 min
were devoted to vigorous PA. The activities were designed to be mastery-oriented
rather than competitive.
Control group received regular health screenings and diet/PA information
Physical activity interventions versus control
Outcomes
Percent body fat (%BF), bone density, fat mass, fat-free soft tissue (FFST), BMI, waist circumference, cardiovascular (CV) fitness, CV risk factors (total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, resting blood pressure), self-reported free-living PA, PA enjoyment, motivation for
PA, perceived competence, goal orientation
For reported outcomes at 1 year and 3 years, participants who stayed in the same schools
for the intervention period and who returned for all measurements were included. Of
these, control participants were compared with intervention participants who had an
adequate exposure to the intervention, as indicated by ?40% attendance at the after
school sessions (N for analysis reported above)
Process evaluation: Reported
Notes
74
Gutin 2008
(Continued)
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
High risk
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
High risk
Haerens 2006
Methods
Participants
75
Haerens 2006
(Continued)
Outcomes
BMI z-scores
Physical activity (questionnaire and accelerometry for a subset of students)
Diet (fat intake, fruit, water and soft drinks; questionnaire)
Process evaluation: Reported
Notes
76
Haerens 2006
(Continued)
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
High risk
Unclear risk
Other bias
High risk
Hamelink-Basteen 2008
Methods
Participants
N (controls baseline) = 80
N (controls follow-up) = 77
N (interventions baseline) = 393
N (interventions follow-up) = 349
Setting: School (Intervention: 8 , Control:1)
Recruitment: Primary school children from Rhenen (intervention schools) and Elst (control school)
Geographic Region: Netherlands
Percentage of eligible population enrolled: Intervention: 89%, Control: 96%
Mean Age: children aged 5-6 years (class group 2-3) and aged 9-10 years (class group 67)
Sex: Both males and females
77
Hamelink-Basteen 2008
(Continued)
Interventions
Outcomes
Height, Weight
Nutrition knowledge, diet, behaviours and lifestyle
Process evaluation: Not Reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
High risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
78
Hamelink-Basteen 2008
(Continued)
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Harrison 2006
Methods
Participants
Interventions
10 (30 minute) teacher-led lessons on how children may spend their leisure time
and realistic alternatives to TV viewing & computer games usage
emphasised self-monitoring, budgeting of time and selective viewing
Points system for activity and viewing time.
Teacher resources, pupil workbooks and diaries provided, teachers supported by
visits every two weeks and parents encouraged in writing to support children
Physical activity interventions versus control
Outcomes
Height, weight
Physical activity and Screen time (measured using a one-day Previous Day Physical
Activity Recall (PDPAR)
Physical activity self-efficacy
Aerobic fitness (20m shuttle test)
Process evaluation: Reported
79
Harrison 2006
(Continued)
Authors judgement
High risk
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Low risk
Other bias
Low risk
Harvey-Berino 2003
Methods
Participants
80
Harvey-Berino 2003
(Continued)
Interventions
Home visiting programme delivered by an indigenous peer educator who was extensively
trained. The intervention was an adaptation of the Active Parenting Curriculum where
11 parenting topics were covered in 16 weeks. The focus for the treatment group was
exclusively on how to improve parenting skills to develop appropriate eating and exercise
behaviours to prevent obesity.
Controls received the usual parenting support programme
Combined effects of dietary interventions and physical activity interventions versus
control
Outcomes
Maternal BMI
N classified >85th and 95th weight for height z (WHZ) centile scores
Diet: 3 day food records analysed for total calorie and fat intake using Nutritionist IV
computer programme.
Physical activity:
Tritrac R3D accelerometer (mother and child)
Psychological variables:
Outcomes Expectations
Self-efficacy
Intentions
Child Feeding Questionnaire
Process Evaluation: Not Reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
81
Harvey-Berino 2003
(Continued)
Low risk
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Low risk
James 2004
Methods
Participants
Interventions
School-based educational intervention aiming to prevent obesity by reducing consumption of carbonated drinks, delivered by the author and supported by existing staff. Three
sessions, one per term, promoted drinking water and a reduction of carbonated drinks.
Control programme not reported, presumably usual school curriculum
Dietary intervention versus controls
Outcomes
82
James 2004
(Continued)
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Low risk
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Unclear risk
Other bias
Low risk
Jouret 2009
Methods
Participants
83
Jouret 2009
(Continued)
This study involved two levels of intervention EPIPOI-1 Basic strategy only; EPIPOI-2
Basic plus Education-based reinforcement
Basic strategy
Children were assessed (anthropometric measurements) by a physician to identify
overweight (BMI 90th percentile) and at risk for overweight (BMI between 75th and
90th percentile) children.
Parents of overweight and at risk children were advised to take their children to
the family physician for treatment.
Physicians of these children were notified to encourage follow-up care and
training for obesity treatment was offered to physicians
Parents were provided with resources on the consequences of overweight
Study physician and a dietician provided information session at participating
kindergartens
Posters were placed in all participating kindergartens to reinforce the message
Reinforced strategy (provided to intervention group 2; EPIPOI-2)
An additional education programme focused on promoting healthy nutrition
habits and physical activity and on reducing television watching.
A dietician and an education aide conducted ten 20-min sessions of learning
activity and games (5 sessions per year) in the classrooms of participating kindergartens.
Families were given resources to reinforce the messages and assist with achieving
behaviour change
Combined effects of dietary interventions and physical activity interventions versus
control
Outcomes
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Jouret 2009
(Continued)
High risk
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Low risk
Kain 2004
Methods
Participants
Interventions
85
Kain 2004
(Continued)
Outcomes
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
High risk
Not blinded
Low risk
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
High risk
86
Keller 2009
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
Height, weight
Diet
Process evaluation: N/A
Notes
87
Keller 2009
(Continued)
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Kipping 2008
Methods
Participants
88
Kipping 2008
(Continued)
Interventions
The programme was adapted from the Eat Well Keep Moving programme implemented
in the US
16 lessons on healthy eating, increasing PA and reducing TV viewing
Changes from original programme included shortening the lesson plans, change
US phrasing or references and change pyramid structure of food groups to the balance
of good health. The pilot also did not include two staff meetings.
Two teachers provided a training session for 10 teachers who would be delivering
the sessions.
Materials provided to the schools, including lesson plans for 9 PA lessons, 6
nutrition lessons and one screen viewing sessio
Combined effects of dietary interventions and physical activity interventions versus
control
Outcomes
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Low risk
89
Kipping 2008
(Continued)
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Low risk
Lazaar 2007
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Control: All children took part in scheduled school physical education (SPE) classes:
Two 1-hour sessions each week held within the school timetable
Aimed at providing children with a rational basis for their activity programmes
90
Lazaar 2007
(Continued)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Low risk
91
Lazaar 2007
(Continued)
Cannot be determined
Low risk
Unclear risk
No protocol available
Other bias
High risk
Macias-Cervantes 2009
Methods
Participants
N (controls baseline) = 38
N (controls follow-up) = 30
N (interventions baseline) = 38
N (interventions follow-up) =32
Setting: Home
Recruitment: Children aged 6-9 years attending public schools in four neighbourhoods
in Len, Guanajuato, Mexico
Geographic Region: Mexico
Percentage of eligible population enrolled: Not Reported
Median Age: Control: 7.5 (6.9-8.4); Intervention: 8 (6.1-9.1)
Sex: Both Males and Females
Interventions
Outcomes
92
Macias-Cervantes 2009
(Continued)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Low risk
Unclear risk
Other bias
High risk
Cannot be determined
93
Marcus 2009
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
Prevalence overweight/obese
Physical Activity, accelerometer
Eating habits
Process evaluation: Reported
94
Marcus 2009
(Continued)
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Low risk
Mo-Suwan 1998
Methods
Participants
Follow-up at 6 months:
N (intervention baseline) = 158
N (intervention follow-up) = 147
N (control baseline) =152
N (control follow-up) = 145
N of classes: 10
Outcome data collected for:
94% of baseline N followed up
75% of eligible population enrolled = 310
Geographic setting: Thailand.
95
Mo-Suwan 1998
(Continued)
Outcomes
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Low risk
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Low risk
96
Mller 2001
Methods
Participants
Interventions
School-based intervention which included an 8 hour course of nutrition education including active breaks was given by a skilled nutritionist and a trained teacher. The course
included the following messages: eat fruit and vegetables each day, reduce intake of
high fat foods, keep active at least 1 hour each day, decrease TV consumption to less
than 1 hour per day.
(In addition a family-based intervention plus a structured sports programme were offered
to families with overweight or obese children and to families with normal weight children
but obese parents).
The controls received usual schooling during this time period but will cross-over every
alternate year
Combined effects of dietary interventions and physical activity interventions versus
control
Outcomes
97
Mller 2001
(Continued)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
High risk
Cannot be determined
High risk
Low completion rate for family intervention (25%) with no reasons given or exploration of differences between completers
and non-completers
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
High risk
98
NeumarkSztainer 2003
Methods
Participants
N (intervention baseline) = 89
N (intervention follow-up) = 84
(3 high schools)
N (control baseline) = 112
N (control follow-up) = 106
(3 high schools)
Outcome data collected for all those enrolled i.e. 100% follow-up
% of eligible population enrolled = 86.8% of intervention school, 83.6% of control
school
Geographical setting;
Minnesota, US.
Mean Age: Intervention: 14.9 (SD0.9) years: Controls: 15.8 (SD1.1).
Sex: girls only
Interventions
High-school based girls only, intervention with priority given to girls with BMI at or
above 75th percentile and who did less than 30 minutes per day 3 times per week
physical activity (eating disorders excluded). Delivery was by school staff and research
team, with local guest instructors. Intervention addressed socio-environmental, personal
and behavioural factors, with physical activity four times per week, nutrition and social
support session every other week for total of 16 weeks with an 8 week maintenance
component of lunch time meetings.
Control programme not reported, presumably usual school curriculum
Combined effects of dietary interventions and physical activity interventions versus
control
Outcomes
99
NeumarkSztainer 2003
(Continued)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
High risk
Cannot be determined
Low risk
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
High risk
100
Paineau 2008
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Intervention group A received advice on how to reduce dietary fats (<35% of total
energy intake) and how to increase complex carbohydrates (>50% of total energy intake)
;Intervention group B received advice on how to reduce both dietary fats (<35% of total
energy intake) and sugars (-25% of initial crude intake) and how to increase complex
carbohydrates (>50% of total energy intake)
Computer based interventions: through the ELPAS website, participant families
can access to self-administered questionnaires (diet, PA, meal preparation, and quality
of life) along with updated information, an individual and interactive agenda, an email
address, and various other functions. They also performed 3-day dietary records
Monthly telephone counselling and internet-based monitoring to families (30
min/month) by a trained dietician for 8 months. The telephone calls were dedicated to
analyzing food habits and providing advice on reaching their specific dietary targets
Monthly newsletters, to both children and parents
Series of events (e.g., conferences, museum visits), and 3 school-based lessons on
nutritional education were programmed in participating schools
Dietary interventions versus control
Outcomes
Dietary intake: total energy intake, fats, sugars, complex carbohydrates; Anthropometric
measures: height, weight, BMI, z BMI, chest, waist, hip and knee circumferences, blood
pressure, heart rate, fat mass, fat free mass, overall physical activity: daily screen viewing
101
Paineau 2008
(Continued)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Low risk
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
No protocol available
Other bias
High risk
102
Pangrazi 2003
Methods
Participants
N at baseline 606
N of controls and treatment group not reported
Recruitment: all consenting 4th grade children in 35 schools in Arizona, New Mexico,
US
Proportion of eligibles participating: Not stated, but restricted to 4th graders (9 to10
years) as they would not know about PLAY
Mean Age: 9.8 (SD 0.6) years
Sex: both sexes included (Controls: 57% girls; Intervention: 50.5% girls)
Interventions
School based intervention aimed at increased physical activity with a secondary intention
of preventing obesity and delivered by school staff who were specially trained. There were
three conditions and a control: 1) PLAY (9 schools); 2) PLAY and PE (10 schools); 3)
PE only (10 schools). The intervention has three elements: to promote play behaviour,
followed by teacher directed activities and then self-directed activity was encouraged.
This was achieved by incorporating 15 minutes of daily activity in the school day and
encouraging 30 minutes of out of school play by the end of the intervention.
Controls attended schools (N = 6) with no PE provision
Physical activity interventions versus control
Outcomes
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
103
Pangrazi 2003
(Continued)
Not randomised
Cannot be determined
High risk
Not blinded
Unclear risk
High risk
Other bias
High risk
Pate 2005
Methods
Participants
104
Pate 2005
(Continued)
Mean Age:
Intervention: 13.60.6 years
Control: 13.60.6 years
Sex: 100% female
Interventions
Outcomes
Theoretical basis: Reported (Socio-ecological model drawn from Social Cognitive Theory)
Resources for intervention implementation (e.g. funding needed or staff hours required)
: Not Reported
Who delivered the intervention: Reported
PROGRESS categories assessed at baseline: Reported (Race)
PROGRESS categories analysed at outcome: Reported (Race)
Outcomes relating to harms/unintended effects: Not Reported
Intervention included strategies to address diversity or disadvantage: Not Reported
Economic evaluation: Not Reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
105
Pate 2005
(Continued)
Cannot be determined
Low risk
Unclear risk
Other bias
Low risk
Patrick 2006
Methods
Participants
Interventions
106
Patrick 2006
(Continued)
Primary outcomes
Minutes per week of moderate plus vigorous physical activity measured by selfreport and accelerometer
self-report of days per week of physical activity and sedentary behaviours
percentage of energy from fat and servings per day of fruits and vegetables (24-hr
diet recalls)
Secondary outcomes
BMI
Process Evaluation: Not Reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Unclear risk
Participants were not blinded. Not reported whether or not outcome assessors
were blinded
Low risk
Unclear risk
Other bias
Low risk
107
Peralta 2009
Methods
Participants
N (controls baseline) = 17
N (controls follow-up) = 16
N (interventions baseline) =16
N (interventions follow-up) = 16
Setting [and number by trial group]: Secondary school (n = 1)
Recruitment: 7th Graders completing less than 49 laps using Multistage Fitness Test
Geographic Region: Australia
Percentage of eligible population enrolled: 58%
Mean Age: 12.5 0.4 years
Sex: Males only
Interventions
Curriculum component: 1 x 60-min minute curriculum session and two2x 20minminute lunchtime physical activity sessions per week, and for 16 programme weeks;
Each 60-min curriculum session included practical and/or theoretical components
Practical component: comprised of modified games and activities.
Theoretical components: focused on promoting physical activity through
increasing physical self-esteem and, self-efficacy, reducing time spent in small screen
recreation at weekends, decreasing sweetened beverage consumption, and increasing
fruit consumption and the, acquisition and practice of self-regulatory behaviours such
as goal setting, time management, and identifying and overcoming barriers.
Behaviour modification techniques (e.g. group goals converting time spent in
physical activity to kilometres to reach a specified destination, and the use of incentives
such as small footballs) were used throughout the programme behaviours.
Practical components: modified games and activities.
School staff, PE teacher,Facilitated by researcher but included programme
champion who also chose peer facilitators (11th graders), one 20-min training session)
and 6x newsletters sent to parents were also involved except for researchers.
[Combined effects of dietary interventions and physical activity interventions versus
control]
Outcomes
Height and weight, Waist circumference, percentage body fat, cardiorespiratory fitness,
physical activity using accelerometry, time spent using small screen recreation and sweetened beverage and fruit consumption
Process evaluation: Reported
108
Peralta 2009
(Continued)
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Assessors blinded
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Other bias
Low risk
Reed 2008
Methods
Participants
N (controls baseline) = 90
N (controls follow-up) = 81
N (interventions baseline) = 178
N (interventions follow-up) = 156
Setting: 10 participating schools randomised, 3 assigned to usual practice and 7 assigned
to intervention. Of the 10 schools, 2 from the usual practice group and 6 from the
intervention group took part in cardiovascular assessment
109
Reed 2008
(Continued)
The goal of the programme (Action Schools! BC) was to provide 150 min of
physical activity per week (2x40 min PE classes and 15x5 min/day of extra physical
activity in class throughout the day)
The model emphasised a whole-school approach that targeted 6 Action Zones: i)
school environment, ii) scheduled physical education, iii) extra-curricular activities, iv)
school spirit, v) family and community, and vi) classroom action.
Classroom Action was the only prescriptive component and required teachers in
the intervention group to deliver 15 min of moderate to intensive physical activity daily
to achieve the 75 min of extra physical activity per week in addition to the PE classes.
An intervention facilitator worked with the school Action Team (comprised of the
school principal and/or teachers) to design a programme that included activities across
all 6 Action Zones.
A Support Team conducted a 1-day training workshop for teachers in the
intervention group to support their action plan. Intervention teachers were also
provided a Classroom Action Bin with resources to support their Action Plan.
Teachers in both intervention and usual practice (control) groups were asked to
record the minutes of physical activity per day in Activity Logs.
Physical activity interventions versus control
Outcomes
Outcome measures: Cardiovascular fitness (measured by 20-m shuttle run test), blood
pressure (systolic and diastolic), BMI, total cholesterol, HDL, LDL, Apo B, C-reactive
protein and fibrinogen at the end of the intervention period
Process evaluation: Not Reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
110
Reed 2008
(Continued)
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Low risk
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
High risk
Reilly 2006
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Nursery element:
Enhanced physical activity programme consisting of three 30 minute sessions of
PA each week over 24 weeks.
Two members of staff from each intervention nursery attended 3 training sessions
to deliver the intervention
For 6 weeks during the intervention, each intervention nursery displayed posters
focusing on increasing PA through walking and play
111
Reilly 2006
(Continued)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Low risk
Researchers who made the outcome measures were blinded to nursery allocation
with the exception of the statistician who
carried out the allocation and the contact
between the research team and the nurseries. Nurseries were made aware of their
allocation status
112
Reilly 2006
(Continued)
Low risk
Participant flow provided and similar proportion of missing data from both groups
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Low risk
Robbins 2006
Methods
Participants
N (controls baseline) = 32
N (controls follow-up) = 32
N (interventions baseline) = 45
N (interventions follow-up) = 45
Setting: School (n=2, Intervention: 3 grades; Control: 3 grades)
Recruitment: Girls who were inactive most days of the week and had no health condition
limiting physical activity in grades 6, 7 and 8 from two middle schools in low socioeconomic areas in the Midwest
Geographic Region: United States of America
Percentage of eligible population enrolled: 100% of eligible
Mean Age:
Intervention Grade 6: 11.45 (0.80), Grade 7: 12.37 (0.50), Grade 8: 13.00 (0.00)
Control Grade 6: 11.25 (0.46), Grade 7: 12.27 (0.59), Grade 8: 13.44 (0.53)
Sex: Girls only
Interventions
Outcomes
Height, Weight
Physical activity frequency, intensity, duration, and readiness
Physical activity determinants: interpersonal influences, activity-related affect (physical
activity enjoyment), self efficacy, and perceived benefits and barriers of physical activity
Process evaluation: Reported
113
Robbins 2006
(Continued)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Low risk
Low risk
High risk
Other bias
High risk
Cannot be determined
114
Robinson 2003
Methods
Participants
N (controls- baseline) = 33
N (controls- follow-up) = 33
N (interventions- baseline) = 28
N (interventions-follow-up) = 26
Recruitment: all consenting 8-10 year old, African American girls with BMI >=50th
percentile for age and gender, and a parent with a BMI = 25. Set in Oakland and Palo
Alto, California, US
Proportion of eligibles participating: Not stated, but criteria kept broad. Intended to
recruit 50 and 61 were enrolled
Mean Age: Intervention: 9.5 (SD 0.8) years; Controls: 9.5 (SD 0.9)
Sex: girls only.
Interventions
After school dance classes set in community centers designed to improve physical activity, reduce sedentary behaviours and enhance diet. The intervention called START
(sisters taking action to reduce television) was delivered by trained university based dance
instructors and a female African American intervention specialist. The programme consisted daily dance classes during school weeks and reducing television was covered in five
home based lessons. Four community lectures were also provided.
Controls received newsletters and health education lectures
Combined effects of dietary interventions and physical activity interventions versus
control
Outcomes
,
GEMS Activity Questionnaire(GAQ) computerised
Dietary intake measured by two 24 hour recalls using Nutrition Data System
computer programme (NDS-R)
Process evaluation: Reported
Implementation related factors
115
Robinson 2003
(Continued)
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Low risk
High risk
Did not report % body fat at endpoint despite noting this as a measure and recording
at baseline
Other bias
Low risk
Rodearmel 2006
Methods
Participants
N (controls baseline):
Families n=23
Target girls n = 14; Target boys n = 11
Other girls n = 9; Other boys n = 10
N (controls follow-up): Families n = 19; Target girls n = 12; Target boys n = 8; Other
116
Rodearmel 2006
(Continued)
Outcomes
Intervention group:
Families asked to maintain their usual eating and step patterns for the first week
of the study to establish baseline, then asked to make two small lifestyle changes
consisting of:
increasing their daily walking by 2000 steps/day above baseline levels and
consuming 2 servings/day of ready-to-eat cereal, one at breakfast and one for
a snack.
Provided with a step counter and a group-specific step and cereal log and free
cereal
Control group:
Asked to maintain their usual eating and step patterns throughout the study.
Provided with a step counter and a group-specific step and cereal log
Both groups:
All family members asked to record their daily steps and cereal servings consumed
Attended three group meetings throughout study period for measurement and
data collection
Given magnets and stickers with written reminders to record daily data. Also
provided with calculators
Combined effects of dietary interventions and physical activity interventions versus
control
Steps
Cereal servings consumed
Food intake
Body weight/adiposity
117
Rodearmel 2006
(Continued)
For adults:
Body weight
BMI
% body fat
For children:
% BMI-for-age
% body fat
Process evaluation: Reported
Implementation related factors
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Higher proportion of drop outs in intervention group. Not clear how this may have
affected results
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
High risk
118
Sahota 2001
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
119
Sahota 2001
(Continued)
Authors judgement
Schools were recruited, then all were randomised at the same time at the start of the
study and interventions were implemented
throughout participating schools
Low risk
Low risk
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Low risk
Sallis 1993
Methods
Participants
120
Sallis 1993
(Continued)
School-based intervention. Followed the (Sports, Play and Active Recreation for Kids)
SPARK intervention, incorporating physical education and self-management into the
school curriculum. Two intervention schools, led by either 1) certified physical education
specialists or 2) classroom teachers evaluated against a control.
Controls received usual PE curriculum.
Physical activity interventions versus control
Outcomes
Weight Status: BMI presented at fall 1990, spring 1991, fall 1991 and spring 1992
Process evaluation: Not Reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
High risk
Unclear risk
121
Sallis 1993
Other bias
(Continued)
High risk
Salmon 2008
Methods
Participants
N (controls baseline) = 62
N (controls 12 month follow-up) = 55
N (behavioural modification (BM) intervention baseline) = 66
N (BM 12 month follow-up) = 60
N (fundamental motor skills (FMS) intervention baseline) = 74
N (FMS 12 month follow-up) = 69
N (BM/FMS baseline) = 93
N (BM/FMS 12 month follow-up) = 84
Setting [and number by trial group]: 17 classes across 3 schools. Number of classes in
each trial group not reported
Recruitment: All Grade 5 students within 3 selected government schools located across
4 campuses in low SES areas
Geographic Region: Melbourne, Australia
Percentage of eligible population enrolled: 78%
Mean Age:
Male 10 years 8 months 5 months
Female 10 years 8 months 4 months
Sex: 51% female
Interventions
122
Salmon 2008
(Continued)
BMI
Overweight/Obesity
Objectively assessed physical activity (accelerometer) - physical activity measured
for 8 days during waking hours, except when bathing or swimming
Self-reported screen behaviours
Self-reported enjoyment of physical activity (five-point Likert scale)
Mastery of fundamental movement skills
Body Image (five-point Likert scale) - rate their satisfaction with their body
weight and body shape
Food intake: Children were asked to complete a 22 item food-frequency
questionnaire to determine the energy density of their diet
Process evaluation: Reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Low risk
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
123
Salmon 2008
(Continued)
Other bias
Low risk
Sanigorski 2008
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Nutrition strategies
School-appointed dietitian for support
School nutrition policies
Training for canteen staff
Canteen menu changes
Lunch pack
Professional development for teachers about healthy eating curriculum
One-off class sessions conducted by dietitians
Fresh taste programme (Melbourne Markets) and Healthy breakfast days
Interactive, childrens newsletters/teacher fliers
Promotional materials
Happy healthy families programme (small groups, 6 weeks)
Parent tips sheets (set of 10)
Healthy lunchbox tip sheets
Community garden
Choice chips programme (7 hot chip outlets in Colac)
Fruit shop displays (3 shops involved)
Physical activity strategies
124
Sanigorski 2008
(Continued)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Sanigorski 2008
(Continued)
Not randomised
Not randomised
High risk
Low risk
Low risk
Other bias
Low risk
Sichieri 2009
Methods
Participants
Interventions
126
Sichieri 2009
(Continued)
Outcome measures:
Primary outcome: change in BMI, carbonated SSB and juice intake
Secondary outcomes: overweight and obesity
Process evaluation: Not reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Low risk
Cannot be determined
Low risk
Unclear risk
Other bias
Low risk
127
Simon 2008
Methods
Participants
Interventions
programme began during first school year and ran until end of fourth school year
Educational component focusing on physical activity and sedentary behaviours
New opportunities for PA offered in lunchtime, breaks and after school hours
taking account of barriers to PA
Activities organised by formal physical educators, no competitive aspect
Enjoyment highlighted to help less confident children
Sporting events and cycling to school days
Parents and educators encouraged to support PA through regular meetings
[Physical activity interventions versus control]
Outcomes
128
Simon 2008
(Continued)
Notes
Study rationale, research design, intervention programme and process evaluation described in additional papers (Simon et al. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2004; 28 (Suppl
3):S96-S103; Simon et al. Diabetes Metab 2006;32:41-49)
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Low risk
Cannot be determined
Low risk
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Low risk
129
Singh 2009
Methods
Participants
Interventions
130
Singh 2009
(Continued)
Environmental changes
Social encouragement
Social support
Information regarding behaviour
Personalised messages
Combined effects of dietary interventions and physical activity interventions versus
control
Outcomes
Outcome measures
Primary Outcome:
Changes in body composition (i.e. waist circumference, skinfold thickness
and BMI)
Secondary Outcomes:
Changes in dietary and physical activity behaviour (EBRBs)
Consumption of sugar-containing beverages (i.e. consumption of soft drinks
and fruit juices)
Consumption of high-energy snacks (i.e., consumption of savoury snacks
and sweet snacks)
Screen-viewing behaviour (i.e., time spent on television viewing and
computer use)
Active commuting to school
Process evaluation: Reported
Theoretical basis: Reported (Intervention mapping protocol, behaviour change and environmental frameworks)
Resources for intervention implementation (e.g. funding needed or staff hours required)
: Reported
Who delivered the intervention: Reported
PROGRESS categories assessed at baseline: Reported (Gender, Race)
PROGRESS categories analysed at outcome: Reported (Gender, Race)
Outcomes relating to harms/unintended effects: Not Reported
Intervention included strategies to address diversity or disadvantage: Reported
Economic evaluation: Not Reported
Notes
Protocol published separately. Refer to: Singh et al. BMC Public Health 2006, 6:304 doi:
10.1186/1471-2458-6-304
This also includes 8-month outcome data published in Singh et al. Arch Pediatr Adolesc
Med 2007;161:565-571
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Low risk
Singh 2009
(Continued)
Low risk
Low risk
Other bias
Low risk
Spiegel 2006
Methods
Participants
Interventions
132
Spiegel 2006
(Continued)
Height, Weight
Diet (survey)
Physical activity levels (survey)
Process evaluation: Reported
Notes
Risk of bias
133
Spiegel 2006
(Continued)
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Low risk
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
High risk
Stolley 1997
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Set up within a community based tutoring programme this intervention examined the
effectiveness of a culturally specific obesity prevention programme for low-income, innercity African American, preadolescent girls and their mothers.
Programme focused on adopting a low-fat, low-calorie diet and increased activity.
Controls were offered a general health programme.
Combined effects of dietary interventions and physical activity interventions versus
control
134
Stolley 1997
(Continued)
Outcomes
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
High risk
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Low risk
135
Story 2003a
Methods
Participants
N (controls baseline) = 27
N (controls follow-up) = 27
N (intervention baseline) = 26
N (intervention follow-up) = 26
Proportion of eligibles participating: Not stated, but criteria kept broad. Intended to
recruit 50 and 61 were enrolled
Geographical setting: Minnesota, US.
Mean Age: Intervention 9.4 (SD 0.9); Controls 9.1 (SD 0.8) years
Sex: girls only.
Interventions
After school classes set in schools designed to improve skill building and practice
in support of health behaviour messages in the programme.
Included drinking water, eating more fruit, vegetables and low fat foods,
increasing physical activity reducing TV watching and enhancing self-esteem.
The intervention was delivered by African American GEMS staff. Family contact
and activities supported the intervention.
Controls received a 12 week programme unrelated to nutrition and physical
activity (enhancing self-esteem and cultural enrichment).
Combined effects of dietary interventions and physical activity interventions versus
control
Outcomes
Theoretical basis: Social cognitive theory, youth development, and resiliency based approach
Resources for intervention implementation (e.g. funding needed or staff hours required)
: Reported
Who delivered the intervention: Reported
136
Story 2003a
(Continued)
Authors judgement
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Low risk
High risk
Did not report % body fat at endpoint despite noting this as a measure and recording
at baseline
Other bias
Low risk
Taylor 2008
Methods
Participants
137
Taylor 2008
(Continued)
Outcomes
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Not Randomised
Not Randomised
Unclear risk
138
Taylor 2008
(Continued)
Cannot be determined
Low risk
Reasons given for missing data and demographic characteristics of those lost to follow-up were similar to those remaining in
the study
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Vizcaino 2008
Methods
Participants
Interventions
139
Vizcaino 2008
(Continued)
Physical activity sessions planned by two qualified physical education teachers and
supervised by sports instructors
Sessions included sports with alternative equipment (pogo sticks, Frisbees,
jumping balls, parachutes, etc, cooperative games, dance and recreational athletics
Sports instructors had 2-day training programme and written plan of activities for
each session was developed for standardisation
Standard physical education curriculum continued in both intervention and
control schools.
Further details at www.movidavida.org
Physical activity intervention versus control
Outcomes
BMI
Triceps skin-fold thickness
Percentage body fat
Blood pressure
12 hour fasting blood samples to measure: total cholesterol, triglycerides, apo A
and apo B
Process evaluation: Reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Low risk
Vizcaino 2008
(Continued)
Low risk
Unclear risk
Other bias
Low risk
Warren 2003
Methods
RCT
Intervention period: Fourteen moths
Follow-up (post-intervention): Nil
Differences in baseline characteristics: Reported.
Reliable outcomes: Reported
Protection against contamination: Not reported.
Unit of allocation: Child
Unit of analysis: Child.
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
141
Warren 2003
(Continued)
Authors judgement
Cannot be determined
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Low risk
Unclear risk
Cannot be determined
Other bias
Low risk
Webber 2008
Methods
Trial design: Repeated cross-sectional design (cluster randomisation to determine intervention allocation)
Intervention period: 2 year staff-directed intervention followed by 1 year Programme
Champion component
Follow-up period (post-intervention): Nil
Differences in baseline characteristics: Reported
Reliable outcomes: Reported
Protection against contamination: Reported
Unit of allocation: School
Unit of analysis: Individual with group randomisation and the nesting of students within
schools, sites and conditions taken into account
Participants
142
Webber 2008
(Continued)
Setting [and number by trial group]: School (intervention n = 18; control n = 18)
Recruitment: Public middle schools in which a majority of students lived in the surrounding community, with enrolment of at least 90 8th-grade girls at least one semester
of PE in each grade were eligible to participate. Student and parental consent obtained
prior to each measurement period during which cross-sectional, random samples of girls
were recruited for measurement
Geographic Region: Louisiana and South Carolina, USA
Percentage of eligible population sampled at baseline: 79.7%
Mean Age:
Intervention = 11.9 years
Control: boys = 12.0 years
Sex: 100% female
Interventions
Outcomes
Theoretical basis:
Operant learning theory
social cognitive theory
organisational theory
diffusion of innovation theory
socio-ecological framework
Resources for intervention implementation (e.g. funding needed or staff hours required)
: Reported
Who delivered the intervention: Reported
PROGRESS categories assessed at baseline: Reported (Race)
PROGRESS categories analysed at outcome: Reported (Race)
Outcomes relating to harms/unintended effects: Not Reported
Intervention included strategies to address diversity or disadvantage: Not Reported
Economic evaluation: Not Reported
Notes
143
Webber 2008
(Continued)
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
Low risk
Blinding not reported. Separate intervention and measurement staff were employed,
however it is not clear whether measurement staff were blinded
Low risk
Unclear risk
Other bias
Low risk
Glossary
BMI, Body Mass Index
CSA accelerometer, COmputer Sciences Applicvations accelerometer
GEMS, Acronym for Girlsl health Enrichment Multi site Studies
SD, standard deviation
TSF, Triceps Skinfold
WHCU weight/height cubed.
Study
Al-Nakeeb 2007
Alves 2008
Ara 2006
144
(Continued)
Arbeit 1992
Ask 2006
Berry 2007
Bollela 1999a
Bollela 1999b
Borys 2000
Burke 1998
Cairella 1998
Carrel 2005
Intervention recruited only overweight or obese participants so considered treatment for the purposes of
this review
Casazza 2006
Chomitz 2003
Cullen 1996
DAgostino 1999
Daley 2006
Danielzik 2005
Dixon 2000
Donnelly 1996
Economos 2007
Flodmark 1993
Florea 2005
Flores 1995
Fonseca 2007
Gately 2005
145
(Continued)
Goldfield 2006
Goldfield 2007
Gortmaker 1999b
Study did not report to be measuring any of the primary outcomes of the review
Harrell 1998
Harrell 1999
He 2004
Hopper 1996
Horodynski 2004
Howard 1996
Ildiko 2007
Jago 2006
Jiang 2006
Jurg 2006
Study did not report to be measuring any of the primary outcomes of the review
Koblinsky 1992
Lagstrom 1997
Lionis 1991
Aim of the trial was to assess the effects of a health education intervention aimed at reducing risk for CVD
and cancer
Luepker 1996
Lytle 2006
Manios 1998
Manios 1999
McCallum 2007
McGarvey 2004
McMurray 2002
146
(Continued)
Melnyk 2007
Niinikoski 1997
Obarzanek 1997
Oehrig 2001
Rask-Nissila 2000
Reinehr 2007
Resnicow 2005
Robinson 1999
Sadowsky 1999
Simonetti 1986
This trial was conducted before 1990 and so had been excluded from this review
Spark 1998
Stenevi-Lundgren 2009
Stephens 1998
Stewart 1995
Stock 2007
Talvia 2004
Tamir 1990
Taylor 2005
Tershakovec 1998
Treuth 2007
Trudeau 2000
Vandongen 1995
Williams 1998
147
(Continued)
Williamson 2006
Intervention recruited only overweight or obese participants so considered treatment for the purposes of
this review
Williamson 2007
Birmingham Healthy Eating and Active Lifestyle for Children Study (BEACHES)
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Intervention still in development phase. Baseline data is being analysed along with reviewing evidence base
and receiving expert input. Baseline data consisted of focus groups undertaken with a range of stakeholders to
gauge views of childhood obesity and potential prevention interventions explored. Baseline measurements were
also taken from participants including: height, weight, waist circumference, skinfolds, BIA, Blood Pressure,
Physical Activity assessment, Dietary Assessment, HRQoL, Self concept, Body Image, Demographics (each
involved follow-up measures)
Outcomes
Starting date
TBC
Contact information
Notes
Communication with the lead author (Adab) has confirmed that no outcomes from this study have been
published yet
ISRCTN51016370
Adams 2009
Trial name or title
Methods
Controlled before and after study evaluating a one-year intervention conducted during 2006-2007 in 18
preschools (matched with 13 control preschools)
Participants
Recruited from preschools in NSW, Australia. Those in towns with a high proportion of disadvantaged
populations were prioritised
Interventions
Intervention strategies included skills development and awareness-raising for parents, staff and children, and
social support for parents to foster behaviour changes in their children through feedback and reinforcement.
Included healthy eating and physical activity strategies
148
Adams 2009
(Continued)
Outcomes
Primary outcome measures were BMI and waist circumference. Intermediary impact indicators include FMS
proficiency, access to and consumption of fruits and vegetables, EDNP food and sweet drinks, time spent in
screen-based activities and outdoors. Outcome measures assessed at baseline and 10 months
Starting date
2007
Contact information
Notes
Barlow 2008
Trial name or title
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Feasibility RCT of the effectiveness of an intervention aimed at empowering mothers to prevent obesity at
weaning
Outcomes
Starting date
Contact information
Jane Barlow, Professor of Public Health in the Early Years, University of Warwick, Conventary.
[email protected]
Notes
Campbell 2008
Trial name or title
The Infant Food Activity and Nutrition Trial (INFANT) an early intervention to prevent childhood obesity:
cluster-randomised controlled trial
Methods
Cluster RCT (with first-time parent groups as the unit of randomisation) to be conducted with a sample of
600 first-time parents and their newborn children who attend the first-time parents group at Maternal and
Child Health Centres in Victoria, Australia. Groups randomly allocated to intervention or control groups
Participants
First-time parents and their new born children who attend first-time parents groups
Interventions
The INFANT project will employ an anticipatory guidance approach to support first-time parents in skilled
approaches to their infants emerging dietary, physical activity and sedentary behaviours. The intervention
will be delivered by an experienced dietician during infants first 18 months of life at first-time parents groups
within Maternal and Chid Health (MCH) centers
149
Campbell 2008
(Continued)
Outcomes
Early health promotion programme delivered to first-time parents in their existing social groups promotes
healthy eating, physical activity and reduced sedentary behaviour
Starting date
TBC
Contact information
Dr Karen Campbell
[email protected]
Notes
ISRCTN81847050
Daniels 2008
Trial name or title
Positive feeding practices and food preferences in very early childhood: an innovative approach to obesity
prevention
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Will provide anticipatory guidance via 2 x 12 week parent education and peer support modules (6x1.5 hours
sessions), each followed by 6 x monthly maintenance contact (choice support phone/email) The modules
will commence at ages 4-7m and 13-16m to coincide with establishment of solid feeding and development
of autonomy and independence
Outcomes
assessed at baseline (age 4-7m), 9 m (age 13-16 m) and 18 m (final, age 2y)
Starting date
Contact information
Professor Lynn Daniels, Institute of Healthand Biomedical Innovation (IHBI), School of Public Health (SPH)
, Queensland University of Technology [email protected]
Notes
Haby 2009
Trial name or title
Go for your life Health Promoting Communities: Being Active Eating Well
HPC: BAEW
Methods
Participants
Inclusion criteria: Each project has a primary and secondary target group, with comparison groups selected to
match primary targets. Target groups include children 0-12, adolescents 12-18, young people newly arrived
to Australia, families, carers, working adults, older adults, seniors and an indigenous community
Exclusion criteria: None
Age minimum: 0 No limit
150
Haby 2009
(Continued)
Intervention groups: multiple strategies in schools, workplaces and community organisations to promote
healthy eating and physical activity. Examples of strategies include school and workplace food policies, community kitchens and gardens, walking groups, parent education programs, social marketing, training of local
professionals and promoting active transport. The duration of the trial is approximately 4 years
Outcomes
Starting date
2006
Contact information
Notes
ACTRN12609000892213
Jansen 2008
Trial name or title
Lekker Fit!
Methods
Participants
Children aged 6-12 years in grades 3 through to 8 within primary schools in Rotterdam with large populations
of foreign ethnicity
Interventions
Main components of the intervention are the re-establishment of a professional physical education teacher;
three (instead of two) PE classes per week; additional sport and play activities outside school hours; fitness
testing; classroom education on health nutrition, active living and healthy lifestyle choices; and the involvement
of parents
Outcomes
Primary outcome measures are BMI, waist circumference and fitness. Secondary outcomes are assessed in
a subgroup of grade 6-8 pupils and consist of nutrition and physical activity behaviours and behavioural
determinants
Starting date
Contact information
Notes
ISRCTN84383524
151
Jones 2007
Trial name or title
The HIKCUPS trial: a multi-site ramdomised controlled trial of a combined physical activity skill-development and dietary modification programme in overweight and obese children
Methods
Multi-site randomised controlled trial in overweight/obese children comparing the efficacy of three interventions: 1) a parent-centered dietary modification programme; 2) a child-centered physical activity skilldevelopment programme; and 3) a programme combining both 1 and 2 above
Participants
Overweight/obese 5-9 year old children. Approximately 200 families are being recruited, three cohorts during
2005 and one cohort during 2006 from the Hunter and Illawarra regions of New South Wales, Australia
Interventions
Each intervention consists of three components: i) 10-weekly face-to-face group sessions; ii) a weekly homework component, completed between each face-to-face session and iii) three telephone calls at monthly intervals following completion of the 10-week programme
Outcomes
The primary outcome measures are BMI z-score and waist circumference. The secondary outcomes include:
metabolic profile, dietary intake, Child Feeding Questionnaire, fundamental movement skill proficiency and
perceived competence, objectively measured physical activity, time spent in sedentary activities, proficiency
in performing an activity of daily living, and health-related quality of life. Outcome measures are assessed at
baseline and at 6-, 12- and 24-months
Starting date
Contact information
Notes
Maddison 2009
Trial name or title
Methods
Standard 2-arm parallel RCT. 330 participants will be randomised to receive either an active video game
upgrade package or to a control group
Participants
Children aged 10-14 years living in the greater metropolitan Auckland area, who are overweight and play>=
two hours of video games per week
Interventions
Intervention involves an upgrade of childrens existing gaming technology to enable them to play active video
games at home
Outcomes
Starting date
Contact information
152
Maddison 2009
(Continued)
Notes
Mastersson 2006
Trial name or title
Methods
Controlled before and after study evaluating a five-year intervention conducted during 2006-2010 in 18
preschools, 27 schools and 20 additional community settings (matched with similar numbers of comparison
settings by non-random allocation)
Participants
Recruited from preschools, schools and community settings in two geographically distinct communities in
SA, Australia. All communities were more socio-economic disadvantaged than the State average
Interventions
Intervention strategies included workforce development and peer education for staff, healthy eating and
physical activity policy, infrastructure (such as drinking water facilities and canteen improvements), resources
and programs, local marketing and promotion of key messages (fruit and vegetables, water, active play and
breastfeeding), and community development via the establishment of local stakeholder action groups
Outcomes
Primary outcome measures included BMI of preschool children, and BMI and waist circumference of primary
school children. Impact indicators included primary school childrens behaviours, attitudes and knowledge;
and environments of preschools, primary school and high schools via staff surveys of policy, access, attitudes
and knowledge relating to healthy eating, breastfeeding, physical activity and sedentary time. Evaluation
measures assessed at baseline and 5 years
Starting date
2005
Contact information
Notes
Intervention implementation concluded June 2010. Final evaluation report released February 2011. http://
www.health.sa.gov.au/pehs/branches/health-promotion/ewba/publications.htm
Niederer 2009
Trial name or title
Methods
Cluster RCT conducted in preschools to test a multidisciplinary lifestyle intervention versus control
Participants
Twenty preschool classes in the German and another 20 in the French part of Switzerland (areas with a high
migrant population) were selected to participate
Interventions
The multidisciplinary lifestyle intervention aimed to increase physical activity and sleep duration, to reinforce
healthy nutrition and eating behaviour and to reduce media use. It included children, their parents and the
teachers. The intervention included physical activity lessons, adaptation of the built infrastructure, promotion
of regional extracurricular physical activity, as well as lessons about nutrition, media use and sleep. It lasted
one school year
153
Niederer 2009
(Continued)
Outcomes
Primary outcomes: BMI and aerobic fitness. Secondary outcomes: total and central body fat, motor abilities,
physical activity and sleep duration, nutritional behaviour and food intake, media use, quality of life and signs
of hyperactivity, attention and spatial working memory ability
Starting date
Contact information
Notes
NCT00674544
Roberts 2008
Trial name or title
Healthy Youths, Healthy Communities; A community based obesity prevention study in secondary school
students
Methods
A 3-year study in secondary school children of a multi-strategy, community intervention promoting healthy
eating and physical activity compared to no specific interventions on changes in body size and composition
Participants
Inclusion criteria: Inclusion for measurement: male and female students in Forms 3-6 in selected schools in
intervention and comparison areas. Minimum age: 12 years, maximum age: 19 years. Inclusion Criteria of
schools and community: sample size and ethnic composition, convenience and relevance of location
Exclusion criteria: Age of student (between 13 years to 19 years)
Age minimum: 13 Years
Age maximum: 19 Years
Gender: Both males and females
Interventions
Interventions are multiple strategies over 3 years within secondary schools and the community to build the
communitys capacity to promote healthy eating and physical activity. Examples include school food policies,
improving school food service, within school and after school physical activity programs, training of teachers,
students and community leaders as coordinators, curriculum on healthy eating and physical activities, social
marketing, incorporating programs into local government strategic plans
Outcomes
Starting date
2005
Contact information
Notes
ACTRN12608000345381
154
Roberts 2008a
Trial name or title
Maalahi Youth Project; The effects of a community based intervention promoting healthy eating and physical
activity in secondary school students on changes in body size and composition
Methods
A 3-year study in secondary school children of a multi-strategy, community driven intervention promoting
healthy eating and physical activity compared to no specific interventions on changes in body size and
composition
Participants
Inclusion criteria: Inclusion for measurement: male and female students in Forms 1-6 in selected schools in
intervention and comparison areas. Inclusion Criteria for schools and communities: Sample size of students
and convenience and relevance of location
Exclusion criteria: Age of student (between 12 years to 19 years)
Age minimum: 11 Years
Age maximum: 19 Years
Gender: Both males and females
Interventions
Interventions are multiple strategies over 3 years within the communities and selected schools to build
the communitys capacity to promote healthy eating and physical activity. The promotional strategies are
implemented by the Obesity Prevention In Community (OPIC) Intervention Officers and National Health
Promotion Officers from the Ministry of Health. Promotional materials used are social marketing (e.g.
Billboards, radio programmes, Radio and TV spots), community based sports competition, leaflet distribution
on importance / composition of healthy breakfast, helping in the set up of vegetable gardens through seedling
distribution and implementing the National Canteen Guidelines in school canteens. Aerobics sessions and
competitions are also promoted both in schools and village communities
Outcomes
Primary: Percent body fatSecondary: BMI measured by BMI z-score.Prevalence of overweight and obesity
assessed by waist circumference.Quality of life measured using the modified AQol tool
Starting date
2005
Contact information
Notes
ACTRN12608000346370
Shrewsbury 2009
Trial name or title
Methods
RCT with two arms. One arm receives the Loozit group weight management programme and the other arm
received the same Loozit group weight management programme plus additional therapeutic contact
Participants
Aim is to recruit 168 overweight and obese 13-16 year olds in Sydney, Australia. Recruitment via schools,
media coverage, health professionals and several community organisations
Interventions
The group weight management programme consists of two phases. Phase 1 involved seven weekly group
session held separately for adolescents and their parents. Phase 2 involves a further seven group sessions held
regularly, for adolescents only, until two years follow-up. Additional therapeutic contact is provided to one of
the study groups approximately once per fortnight during phase 2 only
155
Shrewsbury 2009
(Continued)
Outcomes
Assessed at 2, 12, and 24 months. BMI z-score, waist z-score, metabolic profile indicators, physical activity,
sedentary behaviour, eating patterns and psychosocial well being
Starting date
Contact information
Notes
Swinburn 2007
Trial name or title
Its Your Move! A community-based obesity prevention study in secondary school children
Methods
A 3-year study in secondary school children of a multi-strategy, community intervention promoting healthy
eating and physical activity compared to no specific interventions on changes in body size and composition
Participants
Inclusion criteria: Students in Years 7-11 in selected schools in intervention and comparison areas
Exclusion criteria: Nil
Age minimum: 12 Years
Age maximum: 19 Years
Gender: Both males and females
Interventions
Interventions are multiple strategies over 3 years within secondary schools and the community to build
the communitys capacity to promote healthy eating and physical activity. Examples include school food
policies, improving school food service, within school and after school physical activity programs, training
for coordinators and student ambassadors, curriculum on healthy eating and healthy bodies, activities around
avoiding fad diets and creating body size acceptance, social marketing, incorporating programs into local
government strategic plans
Outcomes
Starting date
2005
Contact information
Notes
ACTRN12607000257460
Swinburn 2007a
Trial name or title
Romp & Chomp: A community-based intervention programme to promote healthy eating and physical
activity in under 5s in the City of Greater Geelong
Methods
A study in pre-school children of multiple strategies to increase the communitys capacity to promote healthy
eating and physical activity compared to no specific interventions on the prevalence of overweight and obesity
156
Swinburn 2007a
(Continued)
Participants
Inclusion criteria: Inclusion for anthropometry: All children attending Maternal and Child Health (MCH)
Key Age and Stages visits for 2 and 3.5 years Inclusion for behaviours: Parents attending MCH 2 and 3.5
year Age and Stage visits within the data collection time period. Inclusions for Settings audits: Kindergartens,
long daycare, family daycare settings in the intervention and comparison areas
Exclusion criteria: Exclusion for anthropometry: participants with missing data and outlying data indicating
data entry errors. Exclusions for audits: nil
Age minimum: 2 Years
Age maximum: 4 Years
Gender: Both males and females
Interventions
Intervention: Multiple strategies over 3 years (2005-2008) to increase community capacity to increase healthy
eating and physical activity in pre-school children. Examples of strategies include food policies in child care
settings, active play programs, social marketing, promotion of water, training of early childhood professionals,
and parent education
Outcomes
Primary: Change in the prevalence of overweight and obesity calculated from measured height and weight
from routinely collected anthropometry in 2 and 3.5 year olds
Starting date
2005
Contact information
Notes
ACTRN12607000374460
Veldhuis 2009
Trial name or title
Methods
Cluster RCT to assess a prevention protocol developed within Youth Health Care in 2005
Participants
5-year-old children included by 44 Youth Health Care teams randomised within 9 Municipal Health Services
in The Netherlands
Interventions
When a child in the intervention group is detected with overweight according to BMI cut-offs, the prevention
protocol is applied. According to the protocol, parents of overweight children are invited for up to three
counselling session during which they receive personal advice about a healthy lifestyle, and are assisted with
behavioural change
Outcomes
Primary outcomes are BMI and waist circumference of the children. Parents complete questionnaires to assess
secondary outcome measures: levels of overweight inducing/reducing behaviours, parenting styles/practices/
attitudes, health-related quality of life of children, possible adverse effects. Data collected at baseline, 12 and
24 months follow-up. Process and cost-effectiveness evaluation will also be conducted
Starting date
Contact information
157
Veldhuis 2009
(Continued)
Notes
ISRCTN04965410
Waters 2007
Trial name or title
Methods
Participants
Primary School Children in 24 Schools in Moreland, an inner city suburb of Melbourne, Australia
Interventions
Intervention is a facilitated approach to supporting school to implement an evidence based approach with
interventions based on priorities within the school, ensuring focus on diet, physical activity and child health
and well being
Outcomes
Starting date
2004-2010
Contact information
http://www.mchs.org.au/
Notes
Wen 2008
Trial name or title
Early intervention of multiple home visits to prevent childhood obesity in a disadvantaged population: a
home-based randomised controlled trial (Healthy Beginnings Trial)
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Comprises of eight home visits from a specially trained community nurse over two years and pro-active
telephone support between the visits
Outcomes
a) duration of breastfeeding measured at 6-12 months b) introduction of solids measured at 4 and 6 months
c) nutrition, physical activity and television viewing measured at 24 months, and d) overweight/obesity status
at age 2 and 5 years
Starting date
TBC
Contact information
Notes
158
Williamson 2008
Trial name or title
Methods
Three treatment arms will be compared in a cluster RCT design. A fourth treatment arm will serve as a
nonrandomised control condition
Participants
23 school systems in Louisiana, USA were invited to participate and students were recruited from participating
schools
Interventions
Primary Prevention: based on Social Learning Theory with an emphasis on modification of environmental
cues, enhancement of social support and promotion of self-efficacy for health behaviour change
Secondary Prevention: relies in intentional efforts to change behaviour as opposed to latering the environment
to prompt behaviour change. Designed to increase healthy eating habits, increase physical activity and decrease
sedentary behaviour
Outcomes
Primary outcomes are BMI z-scores and percentile. Secondary outcomes: successful weight gain prevention,
body fat, food selections and food intake, physical activity, questionnaires to assess dietary social support,
physical activity social support, mood, eating attitudes
Starting date
Contact information
Notes
159
Comparison 1. Childhood obesity interventions versus control by age groups 0-5, 6-12 and 13-18 years
No. of
studies
No. of
participants
Statistical method
Effect size
37
27946
7
24
6
1815
18983
7148
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Childhood obesity interventions versus control by age groups 0-5, 6-12 and 1318 years, Outcome 1 Standardised mean change in Body Mass Index (BMI/zBMI) from baseline to
postintervention.
Review:
Comparison: 1 Childhood obesity interventions versus control by age groups 0-5, 6-12 and 13-18 years
Outcome: 1 Standardised mean change in Body Mass Index (BMI/zBMI) from baseline to postintervention
Study or subgroup
Experimental
Std.
Mean
Difference
Control
Weight
IV,Random,95% CI
Std.
Mean
Difference
Mean(SD)
Mean(SD)
IV,Random,95% CI
65
-0.67 (0.85)
57
-0.39 (0.99)
1.5 %
82
-0.33 (1.23)
88
-0.44 (1.06)
1.8 %
17
-0.27 (0.52)
20
0.31 (0.7)
0.6 %
Dennison 2004
43
-0.24 (1.64)
34
0.12 (1.75)
1.1 %
Fitzgibbon 2005
179
0.05 (0.67)
183
0.14 (0.68)
2.3 %
Reilly 2006
231
0.07 (0.45)
250
0.02 (0.46)
2.5 %
Fitzgibbon 2006
196
0.11 (1.54)
187
0.13 (1.5)
2.3 %
49
-0.15 (0.23)
134
0.11 (0.23)
1.5 %
13.7 %
1 0-5 years
Keller 2009
862
953
-1
-0.5
Favours experimental
0.5
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
160
(. . .
Study or subgroup
Experimental
N
Heterogeneity:
Tau2
= 0.12;
Chi2
Std.
Mean
Difference
Control
Mean(SD)
= 47.90, df = 7 (P<0.00001);
N
I2
Mean(SD)
Weight
IV,Random,95% CI
Continued)
Std.
Mean
Difference
IV,Random,95% CI
=85%
28
0.5 (2.43)
33
0.71 (2.47)
1.0 %
Caballero 2003
727
3 (2.05)
682
3.1 (2.05)
2.9 %
21
-1.2 (6.58)
2.1 (4.85)
0.5 %
21
-1.2 (6.58)
2.1 (4.85)
0.5 %
26
-0.2 (5)
27
2 (2.41)
0.9 %
17
3.2 (3.53)
14
-2.2 (6.93)
0.5 %
996
0.3 (1.72)
454
0.2 (1.7)
2.9 %
1145
0 (1.62)
491
0.3 (1.44)
2.9 %
James 2004
297
0.7 (0.2)
277
0.8 (0.3)
2.6 %
Spiegel 2006
534
0.16 (0.89)
479
0.52 (1.02)
2.8 %
Harrison 2006
175
-0.2 (1.3)
118
0.1 (2)
2.1 %
Amaro 2006
153
0.13 (0.68)
88
0.26 (0.64)
2.0 %
69
-0.1 (0.54)
94
0.2 (0.49)
1.7 %
30
-0.1 (1.13)
21
0.3 (0.92)
0.8 %
30
-0.2 (1.4)
21
0.4 (0.97)
0.8 %
69
-0.1 (0.54)
94
0.3 (0.52)
1.7 %
Reed 2008
156
0.4 (2.42)
81
0.3 (2.92)
1.9 %
234
0.4 (1.64)
280
0.4 (1.52)
2.5 %
Hamelink-Basteen 2008
349
0.83 (1.03)
77
0.95 (0.73)
2.1 %
280
0.05 (0.94)
197
0.12 (0.91)
2.5 %
Simon 2008
479
2.38 (2.2)
475
2.42 (2.14)
2.8 %
Sanigorski 2008
833
-0.09 (0.42)
974
-0.02 (0.39)
3.0 %
Foster 2008
479
1.99 (1.9)
364
2.1 (1.9)
2.7 %
Taylor 2008
201
0.8 (1.32)
188
1.4 (1.77)
2.3 %
274
0.1 (1.1)
197
0.12 (0.91)
2.5 %
231
0.2 (1.61)
299
0.3 (1.61)
2.5 %
Gutin 2008
182
0.1 (2.1)
265
0.3 (1.99)
2.4 %
Donnelly 2009
792
2 (1.9)
698
2 (1.9)
2.9 %
-1
-0.5
Favours experimental
0.5
Favours control
(Continued . . . )
161
(. . .
Study or subgroup
Experimental
Std.
Mean
Difference
Control
Weight
Std.
Mean
Difference
Mean(SD)
Mean(SD)
Marcus 2009
591
-0.01 (0.73)
430
0.3 (0.73)
2.8 %
Gentile 2009
582
0.6 (2.9)
619
0.5 (2.8)
2.9 %
Sichieri 2009
434
0.32 (1.43)
493
0.22 (1.08)
2.8 %
10435
IV,Random,95% CI
Continued)
IV,Random,95% CI
8548
53
0.07 (1.02)
50
0.21 (1.06)
1.4 %
84
-0.96 (3.22)
106
0.75 (2.59)
1.8 %
611
1.48 (1.55)
120
1.22 (1.29)
2.4 %
381
1.11 (1.74)
176
1.66 (1.61)
2.5 %
590
1.31 (1.63)
119
1.22 (1.29)
2.4 %
118
1.42 (1.62)
176
1.66 (1.61)
2.1 %
1751
2 (2.05)
1751
2 (2.05)
3.1 %
312
0.5 (1.37)
208
0.5 (1.55)
2.5 %
276
0.4 (1.22)
234
0.4 (1.3)
2.5 %
16
0.3 (1.86)
16
0.6 (1.83)
0.6 %
21.2 %
Webber 2008
4192
2956
15489
12457
-1
-0.5
Favours experimental
0.5
Favours control
162
(1) Females
(2) Males
(3) Weight-for-height z score
(4) Females only
(5) Child-targeted intervention (females only)
(6) Parent-targeted intervention (females only)
(7) Females only
(8) Females only
(9) Females
(10) Males
(11) Non-obese males
(12) Obese males
(13) Obese females
(14) Non-obese females
(15) Males
(16) Intervention A vs Control
(17) Intervention B vs Control
(18) Females
(19) Females only
(20) Intervention only; males
(21) Intervention + Parents; females
(22) Intervention + Parents; males
(23) Intervention only; females
(24) Females
(25) Males
(26) Males only
163
ADDITIONAL TABLES
Table 1. Study Design
Study
Type
Dennison
2004
PA
USA
Education
ComHealth munity
Service
Home 0-5
years
6-12
years
13-18
years
Intervention period
12
>1
weeks- year-2
1 year years
NRX
behaviour
change
Diet
USA
Fitzgib& PA
bon
com2005
bined
SCT
Diet
USA
Fitzgib& PA
bon
com2006
bined
SCT
Harvey-
NRbehaviour
change
Diet
USA
& PA
comBerino bined
2003
Jouret
2009
Diet
NR& PA France becomhaviour
bined
change
theory
Keller
2009
Diet
Ger& PA many
combined
NRbehaviour
change
Mo-
PA
NRenvironmen-
Suwan
1998
Thailand
>2
years
164
(Continued)
tal
change
Reilly
2006
Amaro
2006
PA
Scotland
NRX
environmental
change
& behavioural
Diet
Italy
NR
Bara- Diet
USA
nowski & PA
2003 combined
SCT
and
family systems
theory
X
(summer
camp)
Beech
2003
Diet
USA
& PA
combined
SCT
and
family systems
theory
Diet
USA
Caballero & PA
2003 combined
Social
learning
theory
&
principles
of
American
Indian
culture
and
practice
NR
Coleman
2005
Diet
USA
& PA
com-
165
(Continued)
bined
Donnelly
2009
PA
USA
NRenvironmental
model
Epstein
2001
Diet
USA
NR
Fernandes
2009
Diet
Brazil
Learning
through
play
Foster
2008
Diet
USA
& PA
combined
Gentile
2009
Settings
based,
CDC
guidelines
to
promote
lifelong
HE
and
PA
Diet
USA
& PA
combined
Socioecological
theory
Gortmaker
1999a
Diet
USA
& PA
combined
SCT
Gutin
2008
PA
Environmental
change
USA
166
(Continued)
Diet
NR
Hamelink& PA Nethercom- lands
Basbined
teen
2008
Harrison
2006
PA
Ireland
SCT
James
2004
Diet
UK
NR
Kain
2004
Diet
Chile
& PA
combined
NR
Kipping
2008
Diet
UK
& PA
combined
SCT
& behavioural
choice
NR
Lazaar PA
2007
France
MaciasCervantes
2009
PA
Mexico
NR
Marcus
2009
Diet
Swe& PA den
combined
NR
Diet
GerMller
& PA many
2001
combined
NR
Diet
NR
Behavioural
Paineau
2008
Pangrazi
2003
France
PA
Mexico
167
(Continued)
Reed
2008
PA
socioCanada ecological
model
Robbins
2006
PA
USA
The
Health
Promotion
Model
and
the
Transtheoretical
Model
Diet
USA
Robin& PA
son
com2003
bined
Social
cognitive
theory
Diet
USA
Rodearmel
& PA
2006
combined
NR
Sahota
2001
Diet
UK
& PA
combined
Multicomponent
health
promotion
programme,
based
on the
Health
Promoting
Schools
concept
168
Sallis
1993
Salmon
2008
Sanigorski
2008
Sichieri
2009
PA
USA
Behaviour
change
and
selfmanagement
PA
Australia
SCT
and
behavioural
choice
theory
Diet
Aus& PA tralia
combined
Socioecological
model
Diet
NR
Simon PA
2008
Brazil
BeFrance haviour
change
and
socioecological
model
Diet
USA
Spiegel
& PA
2006
combined
Stolley
1997
(Continued)
Diet
USA
& PA
combined
Theory
of reasoned
action,
constructivism
NR
169
Story
2003a
Diet
USA
& PA
combined
(Continued)
SCT,
youth
development,
and
resiliency
Taylor Diet
New
NR
2008 & PA Zealand
combined
Vizcaino
2008
PA
NR
Warren
2003
Diet
Eng& PA land
combined
Social
learning
theory
Ebbel- Diet
ing
2006
Spain
USA
NR
Diet
BelHaerens
& PA gium
2006
combined
Theory of
planned
behaviours
&
transtheoretical
model
NeumarkSztainer
2003
Diet
USA
& PA
combined
SCT
Pate
2005
PA
Socioecological
model
&
USA
170
(Continued)
SCT
Diet
USA
Patrick
& PA
2006
combined
Behavioural
determinants
model,
SCT
&
transtheoretical
model
Peralta
2009
Diet
Aus& PA tralia
combined
SCT
Singh
2009
Diet
and
PA
combined
Webber
2008
PA
TOTALS
USA
Socioecological
framework
2
43
14
39
40
171
Study ID
Primary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes
Dennison 2004
Fitzgibbon 2005
MEASURES: BMI
OUTCOMES:
Immediately post-intervention, changes in BMI and
BMI z score were not significantly different between
intervention and control children
Intervention children had significantly smaller increases in BMI compared with control children at 1year follow-up (0.06 vs 0.59 kg/m2; difference -0.53
kg/m2 (95%CI: -0.91 to -0.14), P = 0.01), and at
2-year follow-up (0.54 vs 1.08 kg/m2; difference -0.
54 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.98 to -0.10), P = 0.02), with
adjustment for baseline age and BMI
Fitzgibbon 2006
MEASURES: BMI
OUTCOMES: Post-intervention changes in BMI
and BMI z score were not significantly different between intervention and control children
Harvey-Berino 2003
172
(Continued)
Jouret 2009
Keller 2009
and control.
2. Physical activity: CSA accelerometer,
OUTCOME: No differences between intervention
and control.
3. Psychological variables: Outcomes Expectations
Self-efficacy
Intentions
Child Feeding Questionnaire
OUTCOME: No differences between intervention
and control.
173
(Continued)
vention group was detected. The percentage of protein intake was particularly remarkable, amounting to
363% fulfilment of demand at the beginning of the
study and 274% at the end
Mo-Suwan 1998
174
(Continued)
trol 12.1.
It is not known (information not available) if the
changes at 29.6 weeks plus 6 months are statistically
significant . But small changes are unlikely to be clinically significant
Reilly 2006
MEASURES: BMI
MEASURES: physical activity and sedentary beOUTCOMES: No significant differences between in- haviour by accelerometry
tervention and control groups
OUTCOxMES: No significant differences between
intervention and control groups
MEASURES: fundamental movement skills
OUTCOMES: Children in the intervention group
had significantly higher performance in movement
skills tests than control children at 6 month follow-up
(i.e. immediately post-intervention) after adjustment
for sex and baseline performance
Study ID
Primary Outcomes
Amaro 2006
Secondary Outcomes
175
(Continued)
1. Psychological variables:
Body silhouettes McKnight Risk Factor
Survey, and Stunkard et al. 1983.
OUTCOME: No differences between intervention and control
2. Over concern with weight or shape:
OUTCOME: Intervention significantly
better than control.
3. Parental food preparation practices
OUTCOME: Intervention significantly
better than control.
4. Self-Perception Profile for Children
OUTCOME: No differences between in4. Physical activity: accelerometer CSA,
OUTCOME: No differences between in- tervention and control
5. Healthy Growth Study for physical actervention and control.
5. a modification of the Self-Administered tivity expectations, and a self-efficacy measure.
Physical Activity Checklist (SAPAC),
176
(Continued)
1. Lunch Programme:
OUTCOME:
Intervention
schools
lunches had significantly less energy from
fat (4%), P = 0.005. 24 hour dietary records
showed significant reduction in energy P =
0.003 and total fat P = 0.001.
2. Physical Activity
OUTCOME: Tri Trac R3D accelerometer showed no significant differences, but
trends were in the desired direction. 24
hour recalls were significantly higher in I P
= 0.001.
3. Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs:
OUTCOME: significant improvements
were found in I, especially in the 3rd grade
(8-9 years), but Self efficacy to be physically
active was higher in I schools but choosing
healthy foods was not.
4. Family Programme
OUTCOME: families attending events
was 58%.
Coleman 2005
MEASURE: PE outcomes
OUTCOME: For part of the 3rd and
4th grades, intervention schools had higher
MVPA than control schools. By the end of
the 4th grade, control schools had reached
similar values to intervention schools, with
a similar pattern for the 5th grade
Intervention schools has higher vigorous physical activity (VPA) than control
schools in the fall of 4th grade and for both
5th grade semesters
MEASURE: Cafeteria outcomes
OUTCOME: At the beginning and end
177
(Continued)
Donnelly 2009
MEASURES: BMI
OUTCOMES: No significant differences
for change in BMI or BMI percentile (baseline to 3 year) for intervention vs control
(not influenced by gender)
Schools (n = 9) with 75min of PAAC/wk
showed significantly less increase in BMI at
3 years compared to schools (n = 5) with <
75min (1.8 1.8 vs 2.4 2.0; P = 0.02)
Epstein 2001
178
(Continued)
take significantly decreased across all children independent of group. Children also
showed trends toward greater increases in
fruit and vegetable intake for the Increase
Fruit and Vegetable group through the one
year study
Fernandes 2009
Foster 2008
179
(Continued)
Gentile 2009
180
(Continued)
at 6 months follow-up
MEASURES: Screen time
OUTCOMES: Child report (hours/week)
: No significant difference between groups
post-intervention or at 6 months follow-up
Parent report (hours/week) Significantly
lower in intervention group post-intervention (I: 22.8(0.7), C: 24.6(0.3), P <0.05)
and at 6 months follow-up (I: 23.7(0.5), C:
25.7(0.5), P <0.05) ) compared with control group
MEASURES: Fruit and vegetable consumption
OUTCOMES: Child report (servings/
week): Significantly lower in intervention
group post-intervention (I: 4.4(0.2), C: 4.
2(0.1), P < 0.05) and at 6 months followup (I: 4.1(0.2), C: 4.0(0.1), P < 0.05) compared with control group
Parent report (servings/week) Significantly
lower in intervention group post-intervention (I: 24.9(0.7), C: 22.6(0.4), P < 0.05)
and at 6 months follow-up (I: 22.5(0.7),
C: 21.3(0.3), P < 0.05) ) compared with
control group
MEASURES: Physical activity (steps/day)
OUTCOMES: No significant difference
on pedometer measures of physical activity
Gortmaker 1999a
Gutin 2008
(see Notes in Included Studies table)
181
(Continued)
1 year: %BF decreased in intervention participants with no change in control participants (adjusted change: -0.76 [-1.42, -0.
09]; P = 0.027). No significant differences
between groups for ITT analysis
Significant relationship between level of
programme attendance and change in %BF
in intervention group, with greater decreases in %BF observed with higher programme attendance (P = 0.0004)
3 year: Significant group by time interaction (P < 0.05). Intervention group reduced
their body fat during school months and
this returned to levels similar to those of
the control group after the summer months
(school vacation)
OUTCOMES:
1 year: Compared with control, intervention participants showed significantly
greater gains in BMD (adjusted change: 0.
008 [0.001, 0.015]; P = 0.023)
In intervention group greater increases in
BMD were observed with higher programme attendance (P = 0.029)
3 year: Significant group by time interaction in favour of intervention participants
(P < 0.01)
MEASURES: Fat mass
OUTCOMES:
1 year: No significant differences between
groups post-intervention
In intervention group greater decreases in
fat mass were observed with higher programme attendance (P = 0.0004)
3 year: No significant differences between groups post-intervention (data not
reported)
MEASURES: Fat-free soft tissue (FFST)
OUTCOMES:
1 year: No significant differences between
groups post-intervention
3 year: Significant group by time interaction in favour of intervention participants
(P < 0.01)
MEASURES: cardiovascular fitness (CVF)
OUTCOMES:
1 year: Compared with control, intervention participants showed significantly
greater gains in CVF (adjusted change: -4.
4 [-8.2 to -0.6]; P = 0.025)
In intervention group greater increases
in CVF were observed with higher programme attendance (P = 0.029)
3 year: Significant group by time interactions in favour of intervention participants
(P < 0.01). The intervention group improved in fitness during school months and
this returned to levels similar to those of the
control group after the summer months
MEASURES: BMI
OUTCOMES:
1 year: No significant differences between
groups post-intervention
3 year: Significant group by time interac-
182
(Continued)
Harrison 2006
James 2004
MEASURE: BMI at 1 year (end of intervention) and 3 years post-baseline (or 2year follow-up)
OUTCOME: No differences between intervention and control in the change in
BMI from baseline
MEASURE: Proportion of children over-
(Continued)
Kipping 2008
MEASURES: BMI
OUTCOMES: No statistically significant
differences between intervention and control groups
MEASURES: Obesity (BMI > 95th percentile)
OUTCOMES: No statistically significant
differences between intervention and control groups. However, subgroup analysis by
gender showed that the odds of being overweight post-intervention were higher in females (1.52; 95%CI: 0.37 to 6.25) than
males (0.28; 95% CI: 0.06 to 1.33)
MEASURES: Walks/cycles to and from
school
OUTCOMES: No statistically significant
184
(Continued)
MEASURES: BMI
OUTCOMES: Average BMI remained unchanged over time in both groups overall
In girls, there was a significant group*time
interaction (P < 0.01) and a significant effect of PA intervention between intervention and control in obese (-1.4% vs 0.9%;
P < 0.05) and non obese (-0.2% vs 2.1%;
P < 0.001) girls
MEASURES: BMI z-score
OUTCOMES: In boys, BMI z-score declined significantly over time only in the intervention group and was significantly different compared with controls (P < 0.001)
. In boys, there was also a significant difference between intervention and control
groups in both obese (-2.8% vs 1.5%; P <
0.05) and non obese boys (-2.4% vs 2.6%;
P < 0.01)
In girls, BMI z-score declined significantly
in all groups except for obese controls.
The decrease was higher in the intervention groups compared with control groups
for both obese (-6.8% vs -2.4%; P < 0.001)
and non obese (-3.1% vs -1.8%; P < 0.01)
girls. Changes were greater in obese compared with non obese girls (P < 0.001)
MEASURES: Waist circumference
OUTCOMES: In girls, waist circumference was affected over time, decreasing in
the intervention group and increasing in
the control group (-3.3% vs 2.8%; P < 0.
001)
In boys, waist circumference was not significantly affected over time
MEASURES: Skinfold thickness
OUTCOMES: In girls, the sum of skinfolds was significantly decreased over time
in the intervention groups in both obese (4.4%, P < 0.05) and non obese (-3.2%, P
< 0.001) girls, with a significant difference
between obese and non obese girls (P < 0.
05) and no significant changes in controls
In boys, the sum of skinfolds was not significantly altered over time
185
(Continued)
Marcus 2009
Mller 2001
(Continued)
1. Nutrition knowledge
OUTCOME: significant increase from
48% to 60% of the children.
2. Daily physical activities
OUTCOME: significant increase from 58
to 65% of the children.
3. Daily fruit and vegetable consumption
OUTCOME: significant increase from 40
to 60% of the children.
4. Daily intake of low fat food
OUTCOME: significant increase in frequency of daily intake of low fat food from
20 to 50%.
5. Decrease in TV watching
OUTCOME: significant decrease from 1.
9 to 1.6 h/day.
187
(Continued)
group (P = 0.01)
Pangrazi 2003
Reed 2008
Robbins 2006
Robinson 2003
188
(Continued)
189
(Continued)
1. Nutrition knowledge:OUTCOME: Focus groups indicated higher levels of selfreported behaviour change, understanding
and knowledge
190
(Continued)
OUTCOME: small increase in global selfworth for obese children in the intervention
schools
Sallis 1993
Salmon 2008
MEASURES: BMI
OUTCOMES: Significant reduction in
BMI post-intervention in the BM/FMS
group compared with control (average -1.
88 BMI units less than control; P < 0.01)
. This was maintained at 6 and 12 month
follow-up
MEASURES: Weight status
OUTCOMES: On average, those in the
BM/FMS group were over 60% less likely
to be overweight or obese compared with
control (P < 0.05). This was maintained at
6 and 12 month follow-up
191
(Continued)
MEASURES: BMI
OUTCOMES: No significant difference
between intervention and comparison populations (P = 0.20)
MEASURES: waist/height ratio
OUTCOMES: Children in intervention
population showed lower increases in
waist/height ratio than in the comparison
population (-0.02 [-0.03, -0.004], P = 0.
01)
MEASURES: Prevalence and incidence of
ow/ob
OUTCOMES: Prevalence of overweight/
obesity increased in both groups, and the
incidence of overweight/obesity was not
significantly different between groups
Sichieri 2009
192
(Continued)
MEASURES: BMI
OUTCOMES: intervention students
showed a lower increase in BMI (P = 0.01)
over time than control students. The differences across groups of the adjusted (by
baseline weight status) BMI changes were
-0.33 (-0.55 to -0.12) at 3 years and -0.36
(-0.60 to -0.11) at 4 years
Cumulative incidence of overweight was
lower in the intervention group than in the
control group (4.2% vs 9.8% at 4 years; P
< 0.01)
Sensitvity analyses conducted using intention to treat population to compare this
with analysis using data from only those
participants who completed the study and
similar results were observed
193
(Continued)
194
(Continued)
1. Dietary Intake:
OUTCOME:
Significant
reductions found in intervention mothers daily
saturated fat intakes and percentage of energy from fat when compared to controls.
Also intervention girls had statistically significant reductions for percentage energy
from fat when compared to controls
Story 2003a
Psychological variables:
1. Over concern with weight or shape:
OUTCOME: Intervention significantly
better than control.
(Continued)
tions:
OUTCOME: Intervention significantly
better than control.
3. Self-Efficacy for Healthy Eating
OUTCOME: No differences between intervention and control.
4. Physical activity: CSA accelerometer,
4. Diet knowledge:
OUTCOME: No differences between in- OUTCOME: Intervention significantly
tervention and control.
better than control.
5. a modification of the Self-Administered
Physical Activity Checklist (SAPAC),
5. Physical Activity Outcomes ExpectaOUTCOME: Not reported.
tions, and a self-efficacy measure.
6. GEMS Activity Questionnaire(GAQ) OUTCOME: No differences between incomputerised
tervention and control (except physical acOUTCOME: No differences between in- tivity preference).
tervention and control.
6. Parental reported diet
7. Dietary intake measured by two 24 hour OUTCOME: Significant differences with
recalls using Nutrition Data System com- intervention better than control: % energy
from fat and low fat food practices.
puter programme (NDS-R).
OUTCOME: No differences between in- 7. Parental reported physical activity:
OUTCOME: No differences between intervention and control.
tervention and control.
Taylor 2008
196
(Continued)
MEASURE: BMI
OUTCOMES: No significant differences
between intervention and control groups
MEASURES: Triceps skin-fold thickness
(TST)
OUTCOMES: Significant reduction in
TST in intervention children compared
with controls for both boys (-1.14mm;
95%CI: -1.71, -0.57; p<0.001) and girls (1.55mm; 95%CI: -2.38, -0.73; p<0.001)
MEASURES: Percentage body fat
OUTCOMES: Significant reduction in %
body fat in girls (-0.58%; 95%CI: -1.04,
-0.11; p=0.02). No significant differences
between intervention and control for boys
Warren 2003
1. Nutrition knowledge:
OUTCOME: all conditions improved
their knowledge, I vs C not reported. No
gender differences.
2. Diet:
OUTCOME: significant increase in vegetable consumption (P<0.05) and fruit
(P<0.01). However, 24h recall showed no
significant differences between the groups
or genders at base line or at follow-up.
3. Physical activity:
OUTCOME: No intervention effect was
found in either the childrens or parents
197
(Continued)
questionnaires
Table 4. Results 13-18 years
Study ID
Primary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes
Ebbeling 2006
MEASURE: BMI
OUTCOME: Change in BMI was not significantly
different between groups (mean SE: 0.07 0.14
kg/m2 for intervention group and 0.21 0.15 kg/m
2
for control group). This varied according to baseline BMI, with the intervention effect significant in
those subjects with baseline BMI > 30 kg/m2 and
a significant difference between BMI change in intervention and control subjects among those in the
upper baseline-BMI tertile (-0.63 -0.23 kg/m2 vs
+0.12 0.26 kg/m2 ).
MEASURES: BMI
OUTCOMES:
Prevalence of overweight was not different between
groups (baseline:18.5 38.8 and post-intervention:
18.6 38.9)
MALES: No significant positive intervention effects
on BMI were found
FEMALES: After 1 year of intervention, there was
a trend for a significant lower increase in BMI in
the intervention group with parental support when
compared with the control group (F = 3.04, P < 0.08)
. After 2 years of intervention, there was a significant
lower increase in BMI (F = 12.52, P < 0.05) and BMI
z-score (F = 8.61, P < 0.05) in the intervention with
parental support group compared with the control
group. There was also a significantly lower increase in
BMI z-score (F = 2.68, P = 0.05) in the intervention
with parental support group compared with in the
intervention-alone group
198
(Continued)
The primary outcomes were the feasibility i.e. sustainability and satisfaction of the intervention as assessed by a various satisfaction, behaviour change,
personal change and socio-environmental support
variables. All did not achieve significance except:
1. Change in Physical Activity Stage:
OUTCOME: Intervention significantly greater
than controls at 8 month follow-up only
Pate 2005
MEASURES: % of girls who reported participating MEASURES: % overweight or at-risk for overweight
in vigorous physical activity during an average of 1 OUTCOMES: No significant differences between
or more 30-minute blocks per day during the 3-day intervention and control schools at follow-up
reporting period
OUTCOMES: At follow-up, the prevalence of vigorous physical activity was greater in the LEAP intervention schools than in control schools (45% vs
36% P = 0.05) after adjusting for baseline differences. When missing data at follow-up were imputed
by applying a regression method, this prevalence difference increased in statistical significance (P < 0.05)
Patrick 2006
1. BMI
2. Diet and physical activity related behaviours
OUTCOME: No differences between intervention
and control.
199
(Continued)
from saturated fat at 12 months. Both groups increased their daily fruit and vegetable intake with no
differences between groups
Peralta 2009
MEASURE: BMI
OUTCOME: No significant differences between intervention and control groups
MEASURE: Hip and waist circumference
OUTCOME: After 8 months, there were significant differences in hip circumference for intervention compared with control (mean difference in of
0.53 cm; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.98) in females. In males,
the intervention resulted in a significant difference
in waist circumference (mean difference, -0.57 cm;
95% CI, -1.10 to -0.05)
At the 20 month follow-up assessment, waist circumference in boys was significantly lower in the control
Webber 2008
(Continued)
201
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Search strategies 2010
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
45. 22 and 44
46. 45 and em 200502-
210
44. or/36-43
45. exp Complementary Therapies/
46. (alternative medicine or complementary therap$ or complementary medicine).af.
47. (hypnotism or hypnosis or hypnotherapy).af.
48. (acupuncture or homeopathy or homoeopathy).af.
49. (chinese medicine or indian medicine or herbal medicine or ayurvedic).af.
50. or/45-49
51. ((diet or dieting or slim$) adj (club$ or organi?ation)).af.
52. (weightwatcher$ or weight watcher$).af.
53. (correspondence adj (course$ or program$)).af.
54. (fat camp$ or diet$ camp$).af.
55. or/51-54
56. exp Health Promotion/
57. exp Health Education/
58. (health promotion or health education).af.
59. (media intervention$ or community intervention$).af.
60. health promoting school$.af.
61. ((school or community) adj2 program$).af.
62. ((school or community) adj2 intervention$).af.
63. (family intervention$ or parent$ intervention).af.
64. (parent$ adj2 (behavio?r or involve$ or control$ or attitude$ or educat$)).af.
65. or/56-64
66. exp Health Policy/
67. exp Nutrition Policy/
68. (health polic$ or school polic$ or food polic$ or nutrition polic$).af.
69. or/66-68
70. exp OBESITY/pc [Prevention & Control]
71. exp Primary Prevention/
72. (primary prevention or secondary prevention).af.
73. (preventive measure$ or preventative measure$).af.
74. (preventive care or preventative care).af.
75. (obesity adj2 (prevent$ or treat$)).af.
76. or/70-75
77. randomized controlled trial.pt.
78. controlled clinical trial.pt.
79. exp Controlled Clinical Trials/
80. exp Random Allocation/
81. exp Double-Blind Method/
82. exp Single-Blind Method/
83. exp Placebos/
84. *Research Design/
85. exp Intervention studies/
86. exp Evaluation studies/
87. exp Comparative Study/
88. exp Follow-Up Studies/
89. exp Prospective Studies/
90. exp Cross-over Studies/
91. clinical trial.tw.
92. clinical trial.pt.
93. latin square.tw.
94. (time adj series).tw.
95. (before adj2 after adj3 (stud$ or trial$ or design$)).tw.
96. ((singl$ or doubl$ or trebl$ or tripl$) adj5 (blind$ or mask)).tw.
Interventions for preventing obesity in children (Review)
Copyright 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
211
97. placebo$.tw.
98. random$.tw.
99. (matched communities or matched schools or matched populations).tw.
100. control$.tw.
101. (comparison group$ or control group$).tw.
102. matched pairs.tw.
103. (outcome study or outcome studies).tw.
104. (quasiexperimental or quasi experimental or pseudo experimental).tw.
105. (nonrandomi?ed or non randomi?ed or pseudo randomi?sed or quasi randomi?ed).tw.
106. prospectiv$.tw.
107. volunteer$.tw.
108. or/77-107
109. 21 or 35 or 44 or 50 or 55 or 65 or 69 or 76
110. 9 and 109 and 108
111. Animals/
112. exp CHILD/
113. exp CHILD, PRESCHOOL/ or CHILD/
114. exp INFANT/
115. (child$ or adolescen$ or infant$).af.
116. (teenage$ or young people or young person or young adult$).af.
117. (schoolchildren or school children).af.
118. (pediatr$ or paediatr$).af.
119. (boys or girls or youth or youths).af.
120. or/112-119
121. 110 not 111
122. 121 and 120
212
213
214
215
55. or/51-54
56. exp Health Promotion/
57. exp Health Education/
58. (health promotion or health education).af.
59. (media intervention$ or community intervention$).af.
60. health promoting school$.af.
61. ((school or community) adj2 program$).af.
62. ((school or community) adj2 intervention$).af.
63. (family intervention$ or parent$ intervention).af.
64. (parent$ adj2 (behavio?r or involve$ or control$ or attitude$ or educat$)).af.
65. or/56-64
66. exp Health Policy/
67. exp Nutrition Policy/
68. (health polic$ or school polic$ or food polic$ or nutrition polic$).af.
69. or/66-68
70. exp OBESITY/pc [Prevention & Control]
71. exp Primary Prevention/
72. (primary prevention or secondary prevention).af.
73. (preventive measure$ or preventative measure$).af.
74. (preventive care or preventative care).af.
75. (obesity adj2 (prevent$ or treat$)).af.
76. or/70-75
77. exp Clinical Trial/
78. exp Randomized Controlled Trial/
79. exp Randomization/
80. exp Double-Blind procedure/
81. exp Single-Blind procedure/
82. exp Crossover procedure/
83. clinical trial.tw.
84. ((singl$ or doubl$ or treble$ or tripl$) and (mask$ or blind$)).tw.
85. latin square.tw.
86. exp PLACEBO/
87. placebo$.tw.
88. random$.tw.
89. Comparative Study/
90. exp Evaluation/
91. clinical trial.tw.
92. clinical trial.pt.
93. latin square.tw.
94. (before adj2 after adj3 (stud$ or trial$ or design$)).tw.
95. ((singl$ or doubl$ or trebl$ or tripl$) adj5 (blind$ or mask)).tw.
96. placebo$.tw.
97. random$.tw.
98. (matched communities or matched schools or matched populations).tw.
99. control$.tw.
100. (comparison group$ or control group$).tw.
101. matched pairs.tw.
102. (outcome study or outcome studies).tw.
103. (quasiexperimental or quasi experimental or pseudo experimental).tw.
104. (nonrandomi?ed or non randomi?ed or pseudo randomi?sed or quasi randomi?ed).tw.
105. prospectiv$.tw.
106. volunteer$.tw.
107. or/77-107
Interventions for preventing obesity in children (Review)
Copyright 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
216
108. 21 or 35 or 44 or 50 or 55 or 65 or 69 or 76
109. 9 and 108 and 107
110. Animals/
111. exp CHILD/
112. exp ADOLESCENT/
113. exp CHILD, PRESCHOOL/ or CHILD/
114. exp INFANT/
115. (child$ or adolescen$ or infant$).af.
116. (teenage$ or young people or young person or young adult$).af.
117. (schoolchildren or school children).af.
118. (pediatr$ or paediatr$).af.
119. (boys or girls or youth or youths).af.
120. or/111-119
121. 109 not 110
122. 121 and 120
123. limit 122 to yr=1990-2005
217
218
219
220
104. Animals/
105. exp CHILD/
106. exp ADOLESCENT/
107. exp CHILD, PRESCHOOL/ or CHILD/
108. exp INFANT/
109. (child$ or adolescen$ or infant$).af.
110. (teenage$ or young people or young person or young adult$).af.
111. (schoolchildren or school children).af.
112. (pediatr$ or paediatr$).af.
113. (boys or girls or youth or youths).af.
114. or/105-113
115. 9 and 103
116. 115 and 102 and 114
117. 116 not 104
WHATS NEW
Last assessed as up-to-date: 22 September 2010.
Date
Event
Description
1 August 2013
Amended
Republished under new editorial group (from Heart to Public Health Group), with no changes to the
text of the review
HISTORY
Protocol first published: Issue 4, 1999
Review first published: Issue 1, 2001
Date
Event
Description
27 May 2011
New citation required but conclusions have not changed In this update, we reran the search for studies up to March
2010 and 36 additional new studies have now been included (the previous version of this review included 22
studies, however three of the original 22 studies have now
been moved to excluded studies). A meta-analysis has
been conducted and demonstrates marked heterogeneity,
but with estimates of effects that are unlikely to be due to
chance. Data extraction has been expanded in this review
update to include a variety of implementation factors
to aid contextualisation and utilisation of findings.
3 July 2008
Amended
221
(Continued)
1 July 2005
1 April 2002
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS
Elizabeth Waters lead the review process, provided the overall structure and process, provided advice with data extraction, meta-analysis
and data synthesis decisions, helped to write the review text and contributed to previous versions of this review.
Andrea de Silva-Sanigorski lead the review process, extracted data, performed the meta-analysis, performed data synthesis, and wrote
the review text.
Belinda Hall extracted data, helped with the meta-analysis, performed data synthesis and wrote the review text.
Tamara Brown helped with data extraction, commented on the final review and contributed to previous versions of this review.
Karen Campbell helped with data extraction, commented on the final review and contributed to previous versions of this review.
Gemma Gao helped with data extraction and commented on the final review.
Rebecca Armstrong worked on the amended protocol, provided searching advice, helped to develop the extraction template and
commented on the final review.
Lauren Prosser helped with searching, data extraction and commented on the final review.
Carolyn Summerbell commented on the final review and contributed to previous versions of this review
222
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There are no conflicts of interest to report.
SOURCES OF SUPPORT
Internal sources
External sources
Department of Health, UK.
World Health Organisation, Switzerland.
Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), Victoria, Australia.
Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, Australia.
National Health and Medical Research Council Capacity Building Grant, Australia.
The Jack Brockhoff Foundation, Australia.
Karen Campbell is supported by a VicHealth Fellowship, Australia.
Andrea de Silva Sanigorski is funded by an NHMRC Capacity Building Program for Child and Adolescent Obesity Prevention,
Australia.
223
INDEX TERMS
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
Adiposity [physiology]; Life Style; Obesity [ prevention & control; psychology]; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment
Outcome
224