The dose of behavioral interventions to prevent and treat childhood obesity: a systematic review and meta-regression

William J Heerman, Meghan M JaKa, Jerica M Berge, Erika S Trapl, Evan C Sommer, Lauren R Samuels, Natalie Jackson, Jacob L Haapala, Alicia S Kunin-Batson, Barbara A Olson-Bullis, Heather K Hardin, Nancy E Sherwood, Shari L Barkin, William J Heerman, Meghan M JaKa, Jerica M Berge, Erika S Trapl, Evan C Sommer, Lauren R Samuels, Natalie Jackson, Jacob L Haapala, Alicia S Kunin-Batson, Barbara A Olson-Bullis, Heather K Hardin, Nancy E Sherwood, Shari L Barkin

Abstract

Background: A better understanding of the optimal "dose" of behavioral interventions to affect change in weight-related outcomes is a critical topic for childhood obesity intervention research. The objective of this review was to quantify the relationship between dose and outcome in behavioral trials targeting childhood obesity to guide future intervention development.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-regression included randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and June 2017 that tested a behavioral intervention for obesity among children 2-18 years old. Searches were conducted among PubMed (Web-based), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCO platform), PsycINFO (Ovid platform) and EMBASE (Ovid Platform). Two coders independently reviewed and abstracted each included study. Dose was extracted as intended intervention duration, number of sessions, and length of sessions. Standardized effect sizes were calculated from change in weight-related outcome (e.g., BMI-Z score).

Results: Of the 258 studies identified, 133 had sufficient data to be included in the meta-regression. Average intended total contact (# sessions x length of sessions) was 27.7 (SD 32.2) hours and average duration was 26.0 (SD 23.4) weeks. When controlling for study covariates, a random-effects meta-regression revealed no significant association between contact hours, intended duration or their interaction and effect size.

Conclusions: This systematic review identified wide variation in the dose of behavioral interventions to prevent and treat pediatric obesity, but was unable to detect a clear relationship between dose and weight-related outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to provide quantitative guidance for future intervention development. One limitation of this review was the ability to uniformly quantify dose due to a wide range of reporting strategies. Future trials should report dose intended, delivered, and received to facilitate quantitative evaluation of optimal dose.

Trial registrations: The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (Registration # CRD42016036124 ).

Keywords: Behavioral intervention; Childhood obesity; Dose; Health behavior; Systematic review.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This manuscript represents a systematic review of the literature, and was not human subjects research.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow Diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Assessment of Study Quality using the Delphi Criteria. The percent of studies adhering to the Delphi criteria is shown, comparing studies included in the analytic sample vs. studies excluded from the analytic sample. It is important to note that if a study did not specifically report adherence, then the study would be coded as non-adherent
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Box Plot of Standardized Effect Size by Dose Components. For each category of duration (0–14 weeks, 15–26 weeks, over 26 weeks) the standardized effect sizes are shown for each category of contact hours (

Fig. 4

Funnel Plot of Standardized Effect…

Fig. 4

Funnel Plot of Standardized Effect Sizes. The funnel plot demonstrates minimal visual asymmetry,…

Fig. 4
Funnel Plot of Standardized Effect Sizes. The funnel plot demonstrates minimal visual asymmetry, in the direction of excess small studies that resulted in a “negative” outcome (i.e., weight gain = positive effect size). This is supported by the estimated bias coefficient from the Egger test (bias = 1.6, p = 0.03, shown as red solid line). Dotted lines represent the pseudo-95% confidence interval
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Funnel Plot of Standardized Effect Sizes. The funnel plot demonstrates minimal visual asymmetry, in the direction of excess small studies that resulted in a “negative” outcome (i.e., weight gain = positive effect size). This is supported by the estimated bias coefficient from the Egger test (bias = 1.6, p = 0.03, shown as red solid line). Dotted lines represent the pseudo-95% confidence interval

References

    1. Waters E, de Silva-Sanigorski A, Hall BJ, et al. Interventions for preventing obesity in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;12:CD001871.
    1. Oude Luttikhuis H, Baur L, Jansen H, et al. Interventions for treating obesity in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:CD001872.
    1. Boon CS, Clydesdale FMA. Review of childhood and adolescent obesity interventions. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2005;45(7–8):511–525. doi: 10.1080/10408690590957160.
    1. Young KM, Northern JJ, Lister KM, Drummond JA, O'Brien WHA. Meta-analysis of family-behavioral weight-loss treatments for children. Clin Psychol Rev. 2007;27(2):240–249. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2006.08.003.
    1. Seo DC, Sa JA. Meta-analysis of obesity interventions among U.S. minority children. J Adolesc Health. 2010;46(4):309–323. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.11.202.
    1. Stice E, Shaw H, Marti CNA. Meta-analytic review of obesity prevention programs for children and adolescents: the skinny on interventions that work. Psychol Bull. 2006;132(5):667–691. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.667.
    1. Warren SF, Fey ME, Yoder PJ. Differential treatment intensity research: a missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2007;13(1):70–77. doi: 10.1002/mrdd.20139.
    1. Lin JS, O'Connor E, Evans CV, Senger CA, Rowland MG, Groom HC. Behavioral counseling to promote a healthy lifestyle in persons with cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review for the u.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(8):568–578. doi: 10.7326/M14-0130.
    1. Janicke DM, Steele RG, Gayes LA, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of comprehensive behavioral family lifestyle interventions addressing pediatric obesity. J Pediatr Psychol. 2014;39(8):809–825. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsu023.
    1. Voils CI, Chang Y, Crandell J, Leeman J, Sandelowski M, Maciejewski ML. Informing the dosing of interventions in randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(6):1225–1230. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.07.011.
    1. JaKa MM, Haapala JL, Trapl ES, et al. Reporting of treatment fidelity in behavioural paediatric obesity intervention trials: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2016;17(12):1287–1300. doi: 10.1111/obr.12464.
    1. Bellg AJ, Borrelli B, Resnick B, et al. Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: best practices and recommendations from the NIH behavior change consortium. Health Psychol. 2004;23(5):443–451. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.23.5.443.
    1. Voils CI, King HA, Maciejewski ML, Allen KD, Yancy WS, Jr, Shaffer JA. Approaches for informing optimal dose of behavioral interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2014;48(3):392–401. doi: 10.1007/s12160-014-9618-7.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–341. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007.
    1. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(12):1235–1241. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00131-0.
    1. Cooper HM, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009.
    1. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions. 2011; , Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Accessed 2 Oct 2017.
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–188. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.
    1. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 2001.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
    1. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. [computer program]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017.
    1. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.
    1. Huang TT, Drewnosksi A, Kumanyika S, Glass TA. A systems-oriented multilevel framework for addressing obesity in the 21st century. Prev Chronic Dis. 2009;6(3):A82.
    1. Marshall SJ, Simoes EJ, Eisenberg CM, et al. Weight-related child behavioral interventions in Brazil: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(5):543–549. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.01.017.
    1. Tate DF, Lytle LA, Sherwood NE, et al. Deconstructing interventions: approaches to studying behavior change techniques across obesity interventions. Transl Behav Med. 2016;6(2):236–243. doi: 10.1007/s13142-015-0369-1.
    1. Martin Cantera C, Puigdomenech E, Ballve JL, et al. Effectiveness of multicomponent interventions in primary healthcare settings to promote continuous smoking cessation in adults: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015;5(10):e008807. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008807.
    1. Secades-Villa R, Alonso-Perez F, Garcia-Rodriguez O, Fernandez-Hermida JR. Effectiveness of three intensities of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. Psychol Rep. 2009;105(3 Pt 1):747–758. doi: 10.2466/PR0.105.3.747-758.
    1. Lyles CM, Kay LS, Crepaz N, et al. Best-evidence interventions: findings from a systematic review of HIV behavioral interventions for US populations at high risk, 2000-2004. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(1):133–143. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.076182.
    1. Rotheram-Borus MJ, Lee MB, Murphy DA, et al. Efficacy of a preventive intervention for youths living with HIV. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(3):400–405. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.91.3.400.
    1. Kripalani S, Yao X, Haynes RB. Interventions to enhance medication adherence in chronic medical conditions: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(6):540–550. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.6.540.
    1. Howard MC, Jacobs RR. The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) and the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART): two novel evaluation methods for developing optimal training programs. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2016;37(8):1246-1270.
    1. Gaglio B, Shoup JA, Glasgow RE. The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(6):e38–e46. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301299.
    1. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–1327. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.
    1. Jilcott S, Ammerman A, Sommers J, Glasgow RE. Applying the RE-AIM framework to assess the public health impact of policy change. Ann Behav Med. 2007;34(2):105–114. doi: 10.1007/BF02872666.
    1. Borek AJ, Abraham C, Smith JR, Greaves CJ, Tarrant MA. Checklist to improve reporting of group-based behaviour-change interventions. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:963. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2300-6.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit