Evaluating dose delivered of a behavioral intervention for childhood obesity prevention: a secondary analysis

William J Heerman, Evan C Sommer, Ally Qi, Laura E Burgess, Stephanie J Mitchell, Lauren R Samuels, Nina C Martin, Shari L Barkin, William J Heerman, Evan C Sommer, Ally Qi, Laura E Burgess, Stephanie J Mitchell, Lauren R Samuels, Nina C Martin, Shari L Barkin

Abstract

Background: Current recommendations for intensive behavioral interventions for childhood obesity treatment do not account for variable participant attendance, optimal duration of the intervention, mode of delivery (phone vs. face-to-face), or address obesity prevention among young children. A secondary analysis of an active one-year behavioral intervention for childhood obesity prevention was conducted to test how "dose delivered" was associated with body mass index z-score (BMI-Z) across 3 years of follow-up.

Methods: Parent-child pairs were eligible if they qualified for government assistance and spoke English or Spanish. Children were between three and 5 years old and were at risk for but not yet obese (BMI percentiles ≥50th and < 95th). The intended intervention dose was 18 h over 3-months via 12 face-to-face "intensive sessions" (90 min each) and 6.75 h over the next 9 months via 9 "maintenance phone calls" (45 min each). Ordinary least-squares multivariable regression was utilized to test for associations between dose delivered and child BMI-Z immediately after the 1-year intervention, and at 2-, and 3-year follow-up, including participants who were initially randomized to the control group as having "zero" dose.

Results: Among 610 parent-child pairs (intervention n = 304, control n = 306), mean child age was 4.3 (SD = 0.9) years and 51.8% were female. Mean dose delivered was 10.9 (SD = 2.5) of 12 intensive sessions and 7.7 (SD = 2.4) of 9 maintenance calls. Multivariable linear regression models indicated statistically significant associations of intensive face-to-face contacts (B = -0.011; 95% CI [- 0.021, - 0.001]; p = 0.029) and maintenance calls (B = -0.015; 95% CI [- 0.026, - 0.004]; p = 0.006) with lower BMI-Z immediately following the 1-year intervention. Their interaction was also significant (p = 0.04), such that parent-child pairs who received higher numbers of both face-to-face intensive sessions (> 6) and maintenance calls (> 8) were predicted to have lower BMI-Z. Sustained impacts were not statistically significant at 2- or 3-year follow-up.

Conclusions: In a behavioral intervention for childhood obesity prevention, the combination of a modest dose of face-to-face sessions (> 6 h over 3 months) with sustained maintenance calls (> 8 calls over 9 months) was associated with improved BMI-Z at 1-year for underserved preschool aged children, but sustained impacts were not statistically significant at 2 or 3 year follow-up.

Clinical trial registration: The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01316653) on March 16, 2011, which was prior to participant enrollment.

Keywords: Behavioral interventions; Childhood obesity; Dose intensity.

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Heerman is an associate editor for BMC Public Health. Dr. Heerman had no role in the review or editorial decision for the publication of this manuscript. The authors declare that they have no other competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design of the GROW trial, indicating intended dose and data collection time points. At 12-month follow-up, 90.4% (275/304) of participants were retained in the intervention condition and 90.2% (276/306) of participants were retained in the control condition
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Contour plot of model-based estimates of child BMI-Z score immediately following the 1-year intervention. Children with high levels of both intensive face-to-face and maintenance phone calls had the lowest predicted BMI-Z. The data table shows predicted BMI-Z values for representative combinations of intensive and maintenance dose. This model included the main effects of face-to-face dose, maintenance dose, and their interaction, controlling for baseline child BMI-Z, child age, child gender, and parent race/ethnicity. To estimate predicted values, the following covariate profile was selected: males with the mean baseline BMI-Z, mean baseline age, who had parents of Hispanic, Mexican origin. Models using a variety of other covariate profiles generated similar results. Predicted estimates are not shown when beyond the bounds of the dose combinations present in the data (e.g., combinations of many face-to-face sessions and few maintenance phone calls). See Additional file 1 for complete distribution of dose received and additional file 5 for predicted estimates at each specific dose combination
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Contour plot of model-based estimates for the probability of at least a 0.1 decrease in BMI-Z immediately following the 1-year intervention. Children with high levels of both intensive face-to-face and maintenance phone calls had the highest probability of decreasing BMI-Z immediately following the 1-year intervention. The data table shows predicted probabilities for representative combinations of intensive and maintenance dose. This model included the main effects of face-to-face dose, maintenance dose, and their interaction, controlling for baseline child BMI-Z, child age, child gender, and parent race/ethnicity. To estimate predicted values, the following covariate profile was selected: males with the mean baseline BMI-Z, mean baseline age, who had parents of Hispanic, Mexican origin. Models using a variety of other covariate profiles generated similar results. Predicted estimates are not shown when beyond the bounds of the dose combinations present in the data (e.g., combinations of many face-to-face sessions and few maintenance phone calls). See Additional file 1 for complete distribution of dose received and additional file 5 for predicted estimates at each specific dose combination

References

    1. Waters E, de Silva-Sanigorski A, Hall BJ, Brown T, Campbell KJ, Gao Y, Armstrong R, Prosser L, Summerbell CD. Interventions for preventing obesity in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;12:CD001871.
    1. Oude Luttikhuis H, Baur L, Jansen H, Shrewsbury VA, O'Malley C, Stolk RP, Summerbell CD. Interventions for treating obesity in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:CD001872.
    1. Boon CS, Clydesdale FM. A 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 WH. A 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 J. A 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 CN. A 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. 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. O'Connor EA, Evans CV, Burda BU, Walsh ES, Eder M, Lozano P. Screening for obesity and intervention for weight Management in Children and Adolescents: evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task Force. JAMA. 2017;317(23):2427–2444. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.0332.
    1. Heerman WJ, JaKa MM, Berge JM, Trapl ES, Sommer EC, Samuels LR, Jackson N, Haapala JL, Kunin-Batson AS, Olson-Bullis BA, et al. The dose of behavioral interventions to prevent and treat childhood obesity: a systematic review and meta-regression. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):157. doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0615-7.
    1. Legrand K, Bonsergent E, Latarche C, Empereur F, Collin JF, Lecomte E, Aptel E, Thilly N, Briancon S. Intervention dose estimation in health promotion programmes: a framework and a tool. Application to the diet and physical activity promotion PRALIMAP trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:146. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-146.
    1. Tate DF, Lytle LA, Sherwood NE, Haire-Joshu D, Matheson D, Moore SM, Loria CM, Pratt C, Ward DS, Belle SH, 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. Borrelli B, Sepinwall D, Ernst D, Bellg AJ, Czajkowski S, Breger R, DeFrancesco C, Levesque C, Sharp DL, Ogedegbe G, et al. A new tool to assess treatment fidelity and evaluation of treatment fidelity across 10 years of health behavior research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;73(5):852–860. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.5.852.
    1. JaKa MM, Haapala JL, Trapl ES, Kunin-Batson AS, Olson-Bullis BA, Heerman WJ, Berge JM, Moore SM, Matheson D, Sherwood NE. 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. Po'e EK, Heerman WJ, Mistry RS, Barkin SL. Growing right onto wellness (GROW): a family-centered, community-based obesity prevention randomized controlled trial for preschool child-parent pairs. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;36(2):436–449. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2013.08.013.
    1. Barkin SL, Heerman WJ, Sommer EC, Martin NC, Buchowski MS, Schlundt D, Po'e EK, Burgess LE, Escarfuller J, Pratt C, et al. Effect of a behavioral intervention for underserved preschool-age children on change in body mass index: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(5):450–460. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.9128.
    1. Heerman WJ, White RO, Barkin SL. Advancing informed consent for vulnerable populations. Pediatrics. 2015;135(3):e562–e564. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-3041.
    1. Heerman WJ, White RO, Hotop A, Omlung K, Armstrong S, Mathieu I, Sherwood NE, Barkin SL. A Tool Kit to Enhance the Informed Consent Process for Community-Engaged Pediatrics Research. IRB. 2016, 38;(5).
    1. 2000 CDC Growth Charts: United States . National Center for Health Statistics. 2008.
    1. Guenther PM, Casavale KO, Reedy J, Kirkpatrick SI, Hiza HA, Kuczynski KJ, Kahle LL, Krebs-Smith SM. Update of the healthy eating index: HEI-2010. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013;113(4):569–580. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.12.016.
    1. Butte NF, Wong WW, Lee JS, Adolph AL, Puyau MR, Zakeri IF. Prediction of energy expenditure and physical activity in preschoolers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(6):1216–1226. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000209.
    1. Lewinsohn PM, Seeley JR, Roberts RE, Allen NB. Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) as a screening instrument for depression among community-residing older adults. Psychol Aging. 1997;12(2):277–287. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.12.2.277.
    1. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1997;3.
    1. Ramírez MTG, Hernández RL. Factor structure of the perceived stress scale (PSS) in a sample from Mexico. Spanish J Psychol. 2007;10(01):199–206. doi: 10.1017/S1138741600006466.
    1. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24(4):385–396. doi: 10.2307/2136404.
    1. Force UPST. Screening for obesity in children and adolescents: US preventive services task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2017;317(23):2417–2426. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.6803.
    1. Harrell FE. Regression Modeling Strategies. New York: Springer; 2001.
    1. Ogden CL, Kuczmarski RJ, Flegal KM, Mei Z, Guo S, Wei R, Grummer-Strawn LM, Curtin LR, Roche AF, Johnson CL. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000 growth charts for the United States: improvements to the 1977 National Center for Health Statistics version. Pediatrics. 2002;109(1):45–60. doi: 10.1542/peds.109.1.45.
    1. Janicke DM, Steele RG, Gayes LA, Lim CS, Clifford LM, Schneider EM, Carmody JK, Westen S. 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. Wilfley DE, Saelens BE, Stein RI, Best JR, Kolko RP, Schechtman KB, Wallendorf M, Welch RR, Perri MG, Epstein LH. Dose, content, and mediators of family-based treatment for childhood obesity: a multisite randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(12):1151–1159. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.2960.
    1. Bergh IH, Bjelland M, Grydeland M, Lien N, Andersen LF, Klepp KI, Anderssen SA, Ommundsen Y. Mid-way and post-intervention effects on potential determinants of physical activity and sedentary behavior, results of the HEIA study - a multi-component school-based randomized trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:63. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-63.

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera