Cluster randomised controlled feasibility study of HENRY: a community-based intervention aimed at reducing obesity rates in preschool children.
Childhood obesity
Community
Parent programme
Prevention
Public health
Journal
Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Feb 2021
26 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
08
06
2020
accepted:
15
02
2021
entrez:
26
2
2021
pubmed:
27
2
2021
medline:
27
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Community-based obesity prevention interventions are often commissioned despite the limited evidence base. HENRY (Health, Exercise, Nutrition for the Really Young) is a programme delivered to parents of preschool children across the UK. Early evidence suggests that it may be effective, but a robust evaluation has not been conducted. We initiated a systematic evaluation of HENRY by studying the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre definitive trial to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to prevent obesity. Objectives were to assess the feasibility of recruiting local authorities, centres and parents; test processes and time required to train and certify intervention staff; explore HENRY commissioning processes; identify potential sources (and associated impact) of contamination; and consider the feasibility of trial procedures. We conducted a multi-centre, open labelled, two group, prospective, cluster randomised, controlled, feasibility study, with embedded process evaluation and pre-defined criteria for progression to definitive trial. We sought to recruit 120 parents from 12 children's centres, across two UK local authority (government) areas. Within each local authority, we planned to randomise three centres to HENRY and three to 'standard care' control. Our plan was to collect data in family homes at baseline and 12 months, including parent and child height and weight, and parent-reported questionnaires on self-efficacy, feeding, eating habits, quality of life and resource use. Contamination, implementation and study acceptability were explored using parent interviews. We recruited two local authorities and 12 children's centres within eight months. One hundred and seventeen parents were recruited (average 3.9 parents per programme) and follow-up data were collected from 85% of participants. Process data from 20 parents and 24 members of staff indicate that both would benefit from more detail about their involvement as participants, but that methods were acceptable. Contamination was likely, though the impact of this on behaviour was unclear. Our findings indicate that a cluster RCT of HENRY to assess its effect on childhood obesity prevention is feasible. This study has allowed us to design a pragmatic definitive trial with minimal bias, taking account of lessons learnt from conducting evaluation research in public health settings. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03333733 registered 6th November 2017.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Community-based obesity prevention interventions are often commissioned despite the limited evidence base. HENRY (Health, Exercise, Nutrition for the Really Young) is a programme delivered to parents of preschool children across the UK. Early evidence suggests that it may be effective, but a robust evaluation has not been conducted. We initiated a systematic evaluation of HENRY by studying the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre definitive trial to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to prevent obesity. Objectives were to assess the feasibility of recruiting local authorities, centres and parents; test processes and time required to train and certify intervention staff; explore HENRY commissioning processes; identify potential sources (and associated impact) of contamination; and consider the feasibility of trial procedures.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a multi-centre, open labelled, two group, prospective, cluster randomised, controlled, feasibility study, with embedded process evaluation and pre-defined criteria for progression to definitive trial. We sought to recruit 120 parents from 12 children's centres, across two UK local authority (government) areas. Within each local authority, we planned to randomise three centres to HENRY and three to 'standard care' control. Our plan was to collect data in family homes at baseline and 12 months, including parent and child height and weight, and parent-reported questionnaires on self-efficacy, feeding, eating habits, quality of life and resource use. Contamination, implementation and study acceptability were explored using parent interviews.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We recruited two local authorities and 12 children's centres within eight months. One hundred and seventeen parents were recruited (average 3.9 parents per programme) and follow-up data were collected from 85% of participants. Process data from 20 parents and 24 members of staff indicate that both would benefit from more detail about their involvement as participants, but that methods were acceptable. Contamination was likely, though the impact of this on behaviour was unclear.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings indicate that a cluster RCT of HENRY to assess its effect on childhood obesity prevention is feasible. This study has allowed us to design a pragmatic definitive trial with minimal bias, taking account of lessons learnt from conducting evaluation research in public health settings.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03333733 registered 6th November 2017.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33632330
doi: 10.1186/s40814-021-00798-z
pii: 10.1186/s40814-021-00798-z
pmc: PMC7908721
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03333733']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
59Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : CDF-2014-07-052
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Research Trainees Coordinating Centre
ID : CDF-2014-07-052
Références
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Mar 02;5:10
pubmed: 15743523
Res Nurs Health. 2008 Apr;31(2):180-91
pubmed: 18183564
Pediatr Obes. 2014 Oct;9(5):339-50
pubmed: 23818487
BMC Public Health. 2019 Aug 8;19(1):1074
pubmed: 31395041
Matern Child Nutr. 2016 Jan;12(1):24-38
pubmed: 25894857
J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2001 Dec;22(6):391-408
pubmed: 11773804
Child Care Health Dev. 2010 Nov;36(6):850-7
pubmed: 20637028
Res Nurs Health. 2015 Feb;38(1):82-96
pubmed: 25594917
Health Serv Res. 2007 Aug;42(4):1758-72
pubmed: 17286625
J Pediatr. 2017 Sep;188:7-8
pubmed: 28601360
Trials. 2014 Jul 03;15:264
pubmed: 24993581
Child Care Health Dev. 2019 Nov;45(6):850-860
pubmed: 31209923
Health Educ Behav. 2000 Apr;27(2):157-66
pubmed: 10768797
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jul 23;7:CD001871
pubmed: 31332776
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016 Feb 18;2:12
pubmed: 27965832
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019 Nov 9;5:128
pubmed: 31728203
Trials. 2017 Jan 24;18(1):40
pubmed: 28115006
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018 Jun 21;4:118
pubmed: 29977593
BMC Psychol. 2017 Dec 12;5(1):38
pubmed: 29233173
BMJ. 2014 Mar 07;348:g1687
pubmed: 24609605
Int J Obes (Lond). 2006 Apr;30(4):590-4
pubmed: 16570087
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 Sep;27(9):987-1005
pubmed: 12917703
Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2016 Mar 15;9:83-9
pubmed: 27042133
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998 Oct;52(10):771-7
pubmed: 9805227
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018 Nov 26;4:175
pubmed: 30505457
Public Health. 2016 Jul;136:101-8
pubmed: 27184820
BMC Public Health. 2016 Mar 01;16:211
pubmed: 26931491
J Eval Clin Pract. 2004 May;10(2):307-12
pubmed: 15189396
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2005 Apr 04;2(1):2
pubmed: 15807898
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2011 Mar;54(3):259-64
pubmed: 21347757
Obes Rev. 2018 Jun;19(6):839-851
pubmed: 29603583
J Affect Disord. 2015 Feb 1;172:18-23
pubmed: 25451390