| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
ADDRESSING CHILDHOOD OBESITY |
Elizabeth McGarvey and Adrienne Keller are with the Department of Psychiatric Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville. At the time of this study, Mena Forrester was with the Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, VA. Erin Williams, Donna Seward, and David E. Suttle are with the Virginia Department of Health, Richmond.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Elizabeth McGarvey, EdD, PO Box 800623, University of Virginia Health Systems, Charlottesville, VA 22908 (e-mail: rel8s{at}virginia.edu).
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Objectives. This field study tested the feasibility and benefits of a program to promote 6 targeted parental behaviors to prevent obesity in children served by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
Methods. Two WIC sites participated in a nonrandomized, controlled 1-year prospective study to assess parents’ self-reported behavior changes.
Results. Statistical analyses of preintervention and postintervention assessments of parental behavior demonstrated significant changes in 2 behaviors: frequency of offering the child water and frequency of engaging in active play with the child. In both cases, the intervention proved effective in increasing the desired behavior.
Conclusions. The findings demonstrate the feasibility of changing parental behaviors through multidimensional education in a WIC clinic setting.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Parents can be influential in helping to prevent overweight in their children and may benefit from specific education supporting their efforts.5,12,13 Between 5% and 25% of weight variance has been attributed to genetic influences14,15; however, the increasing prevalence of obesity during the past 20 years appears to owe mostly to environmental factors such as home milieu and parental influence. The contribution of these factors can be significant in encouraging healthy eating behaviors and physical activity, both of which may be protective against child overweight.16–19
WIC agencies serve high percentages of low-income children in the United States and are organizationally positioned to teach obesity prevention to parents.20 In 1999, the USDA competitively funded 5 WIC programs in state health departments to work collaboratively to determine the feasibility of developing and implementing model childhood obesity prevention programs. The goal of each state’s model program was to target low-income mothers whose children were between 2 and 4 years of age and to develop a program designed to prevent overweight in these children.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
In the Virginia WIC program, clients attend educational groups once every 2 months and an individual session with a WIC nutritionist every 6 months. The educational groups are led by nutritionists or nutrition assistants. The Fit WIC intervention modified the educational groups’ content and provided activities to reinforce the educational message but did not modify the frequency or duration of the bimonthly and semiannual contacts.
For the Fit WIC intervention, the educational groups were used over a 1-year period to introduce WIC participants to 6 key messages: (1) increase physical activity, (2) monitor mealtime behavior, (3) limit household television viewing, (4) drink water instead of sweetened beverages, (5) consume 5 fruits or vegetables daily, and (6) increase family activities to promote fitness. These messages were presented with a set of "Fit WIC Virginia Guidance Cards." The cards were bound together in a notebook that could be set up between the presenter and the participant so that each saw a different side. The side facing the WIC participant featured an attractive picture and a simple message (e.g., "Active kids are healthy kids. Encourage your child to get moving every day.") in Spanish and English. The side of the notebook facing the presenter contained detailed instructions under the headings "What to Expect," "Discussion Points," "Setting Goals," "Handouts," and "Referrals." WIC parents were encouraged to serve as role models for their children, with the expectation that long-term health behaviors of parents and children could be sustained.
These messages were reinforced by WIC staff members and collaborating organizations in the surrounding community. All clinic staff with client contact received a set of the educational cards. In addition, clinic staff, including support staff, were encouraged to participate in 6 "staff wellness challenges." The staff wellness challenges ran concurrently with the group education classes. The nutrition and physical-activity messages presented to WIC staff mirrored those used in the nutrition education classes so that staff members could understand what challenges the participants were experiencing. WIC staff also were encouraged and reminded to model healthy lifestyle habits to WIC participants through behaviors that clients might witness while waiting in the clinic (e.g., eating homemade lunches).
Every other month, members of the local coalition of community services received from WIC health education materials to share with their clients. These materials were identical to the materials being used in the WIC clinic. Thus, WIC clients who used other community services received the same health message in a variety of venues, reinforcing the Virginia Fit WIC key messages. These venues included recreation centers, Department of Parks and Recreation facilities, the public library, a food bank, parenting classes, and a multicultural center, as well as other venues for family-oriented community services.
Randomized clinical trials provide the most reliable assessments of program effectiveness32; however, such a design for this project was not possible in the local health departments. Because a number of risk-reduction programs implemented in everyday settings have provided useful data for health education and promotion efforts, an evaluation design similar to designs reported in recent studies was selected as the most appropriate method for determining effectiveness.33–37 Two WIC clinics in Northern Virginia participated in a field study with a pretest–posttest, nonequivalent (nonrandomized) control group design38 to evaluate the Virginia Fit WIC. The 2 WIC clinics were chosen by experienced WIC professional staff who had reviewed the current WIC statistics and were familiar with how the clinics operated. The rates of childhood overweight at the 2 clinics were significantly higher than the state average. More than 24% of the children at both sites were overweight, compared with the state average of 17%. The Fit WIC program was implemented in 1 clinic, and the second clinic served as a comparison site. Like the intervention site, the comparison site provided the standard WIC interventions (nutrition education classes once every 2 months and an individual session with a nutritionist once every 6 months) but lacked the intervention’s specific content and the supportive staff and community activities. The sites had similar community resources and were both located in Northern Virginia, but they were sufficiently distant from each other to minimize crossover in the use of community resources. Table 1
shows the racial/ethnic distribution of clients at each site. The primary evaluation research issue was whether it is feasible to implement a parent-focused child obesity prevention program in a WIC clinic. The corresponding hypothesis was that clients (i.e., parents) at the clinic offering the Virginia Fit WIC intervention program would be significantly more likely than clients at the comparison clinic to report 1 or more of the 6 targeted behavioral changes.
|
Participants.
At baseline, 336 WIC parents with 2- to 4-year-old children were consecutively recruited from the WIC clinics by staff during a 2-month period. Of these 336, 185 received services at the site offering the Fit WIC intervention and 151 at the comparison site. An analysis of recruitment patterns showed that among all eligible participants, 10% were not approached by staff members and 5% refused participation, resulting in an 85% participation rate. At the posttest following the 12-month intervention, 65% of the intervention group (n = 121) completed the assessment, compared with 43% of the comparison group (n = 65) (
21 = 4.94; P = .026). The most common reasons for becoming lost to follow-up were that the client was no longer enrolled in WIC, had moved, or had provided incorrect contact information. Parents were more likely to complete the posttest if the target child in the family was female (59% completion vs 50% completion for girls and boys, respectively; 21 = 10.75; P = .005) and if the parent’s preferred language was Spanish (61% completion vs 48% completion for Spanish and English, respectively; 21 = 5.27; P = .014).
Implementation fidelity. A process evaluation was conducted to assess the activities of the implementation protocol to determine its feasibility. In addition to using the guidance cards, staff members documented all contacts with clients in records that are subject to regular quality assurance review. The quality assurance review for the intervention clinic incorporated a documentation check on the presentation of Virginia Fit WIC information to clients. This information was maintained at the clinic to protect client confidentiality and to minimize interference of the process evaluation with standard operating procedures. Parents also completed 2 short assessments of their exposure to other intervention components. The first of these was a checklist of community resources collaborating with the Virginia Fit WIC intervention that parents had used. The second assessment contained 2 open-ended questions to ascertain which health behaviors parents recalled having seen clinic staff members model. Staff focus groups and in-service meetings provided feedback and confirmation of the results of the process evaluation.
Measures
At the time of the study, no published reliable, validated instruments were available for assessment of changes in physical activity in preschool children. It was not possible to use physical-activity monitoring devices with the children owing to budget constraints and concerns about possible liability issues (e.g., a 2-year-old child might chew or swallow the device). Consequently, reports from the parent (usually the mother) on child behaviors observed within time windows of the past 24 hours or 7 days were used to assess the child’s activity level and the frequency of other target behaviors. Items on the questionnaire either were drawn from existing child and adolescent questionnaires adapted for use with preschool-aged children (Virginia state form, WIC–305WC, 596; National Center for Health Statistics Forms, 1989, assessing physical activity) or were grounded in social-cognitive and self-efficacy theory. The frequency of most behaviors—engaging in active play with the child, watching television while eating, offering fruits and vegetables daily, and modeling family activity—was assessed with a 5-point scale (1 = none/very inactive to 5 = always/very active). The frequency of offering the child water to drink instead of sweetened drinks was assessed according to a 6-point scale (1 = none to 6 = 5 or more times per day). Mealtime behavior was assessed with 2 items: a 5-point scale for the frequency of planning meals together (1 = never to 5 = always) and a 2-point scale for the frequency of eating the evening meal together (1 = not usually, 2 = usually). A summary index of togetherness around meals was scored by taking the product of these 2 items.
Data Collection Protocol
Questionnaires were developed in English and Spanish. The Spanish version was prepared (with back-translation) by a nutritionist whose native language is Spanish, in consultation with a graduate student in Spanish literature at the University of Virginia. Parents completed pretest questionnaires onsite at the time of enrollment and posttest assessments at the conclusion of the 12-month intervention period (or by telephone from their homes if they had left the program). Staff helped clients with poor reading skills to complete the instrument.
Statistical Analyses
Baseline differences between sites in demographic characteristics and postintervention scores on the intervention exposure measures were analyzed with multivariate analysis of variance for continuous variables and 2 analysis for discrete variables. The samples being compared were convenience samples rather than randomly assigned samples; as a result, inferential statistics should be viewed as more suggestive than demonstrative of significant differences. Changes in outcome variables were tested with the general linear model analysis of variance for repeated measures. Sample sizes were too small for statistical analysis of a single fully interactive model with all 6 outcome variables. Therefore, for the purposes of the repeated-measures analysis, the primary outcome variables were divided into 2 groups. The 3 variables related to activity level (active play with the child, family activity level, and watching television while eating) were analyzed together, and the 3 variables related to nutrition (water consumption, fruit and vegetable consumption, and mealtime behavior) were analyzed together with full factorial models. All outcome analyses included 2 between-participant factors: site and language. Time (pretest to posttest) was the single within-participants factor. Statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS version 10.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill).
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
summarizes the demographic information for those members of each group who completed both the pretest and the posttest questionnaires.
|
23 = 24.9; P < .001). Table 3 presents the baseline (preintervention) scores for the outcome variables among both groups. Multivariate analyses with 2 factors—site and language—revealed no significant interaction effect of site by language for any outcome variable and no significant direct effect of site for any outcome variable. By contrast, a direct effect of language was found across both sites for 2 variables: viewing television and consuming water. Spanish-speaking participants had significantly lower scores at baseline than did English-speaking participants for frequency of watching television while eating (mean = 2.41 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.18, 2.64] vs mean = 2.94 [95% CI = 2.69, 3.20], respectively) and frequency of offering the child water during the day (mean = 3.60 [95% CI = 3.31, 3.89] vs mean = 4.43 [95% CI = 4.11, 4.75], respectively). Results of the multivariate tests of statistical significance are shown in Table 3. Statistical tests were organized to test for interaction effects with language.
|
Outcome Analyses
Table 4 presents the postintervention mean change in scores for both groups. The interaction effect of site and language was not significant for any of the outcome variables. For the analysis of repeated measures, the multivariate tests for pretest–posttest differences by site (time x site) were statistically significant for 2 behaviors: frequency of engaging in active play with the child (F1,161 = 7.03; P = .009) and frequency of offering the child water (F1,145 = 8; P = .005). At the end of the intervention period, participants in the comparison group reported decreased frequency of active play with the child, whereas participants in the intervention group reported increased frequency (Table 3
). Participants in both groups reported increased frequency of offering the child water; the increase was significantly greater for participants at the intervention site (Table 3). There also was a statistically significant interaction effect for time x language for 1 variable: Spanish-speaking participants reported a greater increase in frequency of offering water instead of sweetened beverages than did English-speaking participants (F1,145 = 9.15; P = .003). Inferential statistics must be interpreted cautiously when evaluation design includes an intervention group and a nonequivalent comparison group with convenience samples instead of participants randomly assigned to groups. The study’s methodological limitations also include differential rates of follow-up at the intervention and comparison sites and reliance on parental self-report measures; however, the differential effectiveness related to the target behaviors suggests that the self-report results do not reflect simply an increase in the adult’s providing the learned, socially desirable answer, because equivalent results were not found for all 6 targeted behaviors. No specific randomization technique was used to determine the order of presentation, nor was any specific seasonal correspondence intended. The 2 behaviors that showed significant change were not presented sequentially; thus, no order effect was in operation. The evaluation design did not permit assessment of the independent contribution of each of the 3 intervention components to the observed effects.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
A longitudinal, randomized clinical trial with change in child BMI as an outcome is needed to confirm the association of health behaviors of parents and preschool child health behaviors and weight status. If such an association is confirmed, interventions similar to WIC Fit may have practical applications in other settings that provide services to low-income mothers with preschool children, such as the Head Start program. More research—with adequate sample sizes and validated outcome measures—is needed to further examine cultural differences in response to preschool child obesity prevention programs. In addition, prevention research is needed to investigate the relative impact of different groups on parental behaviors and the relative appeal of different prevention messages targeting the preschool child. Finally, effective replication of childhood obesity prevention programs across agencies must be assessed within the framework of feasibility, acceptability, and cost analysis studies.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Note. The contents of this article do not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the US Department of Agriculture, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US government.
Human Participant Protection
Because clients in a Special Supplemental Nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) clinic were involved, the study protocol was approved by the Virginia Department of Health. The protocol also complied with the policies of the University of Virginia’s internal review board.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Accepted for publication December 5, 2003.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
2. Ogden CL, Troiano RP, Briefel RR, Kucmarski RJ, Flegal KM, Johnson CL. Prevalence of overweight among preschool children in the United States, 1971 through 1994. Pediatrics. 1997;99:E1.
3. Cole N. The Prevalence of Overweight Among WIC Children. Alexandria, Va: US Dept of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service; 2001. Publication WIC-01-PCOM.
4. Campbell K, Waters E, O’Meara S, Summerbell C. Interventions for preventing obesity in children (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2002. Oxford, England: Update Software.
5. Locard E, Mamelle N, Billette A, Miginiac M, Munoz F, Rey S. Risk factors of obesity in a five year old population. Parental versus environmental factors. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1992;16:721–729.[ISI][Medline]
6. Kleiner SM. Water: an essential but overlooked nutrient. J Am Diet Assoc. 1999;99:200–206.[ISI][Medline]
7. Freedman DS, Dietz WH, Srinivasan SR, Berenson GS. The relation of overweight to cardiovascular risk factors among children and adolescents: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Pediatrics. 1999;103:1179–1181.
8. Gebhardt WA, Maes S. Integrating socialpsychological frameworks for health behavior research. Am J Health Behav. 2001;25:528–536.[ISI][Medline]
9. Visscher TLS, Seidel JC. The public health impact of obesity. Annu Rev Public Health. 2001;22:355–370.[ISI][Medline]
10. Harrell JS, Gansky SA, McMurray RG, Bangdiwala SI, Frauman AC, Bradley CB. School-based interventions improve heart health in children with multiple cardiovascular disease risk factors. Pediatrics. 1998;102:371–380.
11. Office of the Surgeon General. The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity. Rockville, Md: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2001.
12. Basdevant A, Boute D, Borys JM. Who should be educated? Education strategies: could children educate their parents? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999;23(suppl4):S10–S12; discussion S12–S13.
13. Harrell JS, Gansky SA, McMurray RG, Bangdiwala SI, Frauman AC, Bradley CB. School-based interventions improve heart health in children with multiple cardiovascular disease risk factors. Pediatrics. 1998;102:371–380.
14. Bouchard C, Despres J-P, Tremblay A. Genetics of obesity and human energy metabolism. Proc Nutr Soc. 1991;50:139–147.[ISI][Medline]
15. Ravussin E, Swinburn BA. Pathophysiology of obesity. Lancet. 1992;340:404–408.[ISI][Medline]
16. Rosenbloom AL. Increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents: treatment considerations. Paediatr Drugs. 2002;4:209–221.[Medline]
17. Whitaker RC, Wright JA, Pepe MS, Seidel KD, Dietz WH. Predicting obesity in young adulthood from childhood and parental obesity. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:869–873.
18. Gable S, Lutz S. Household, parent, and child contributions to childhood obesity. J Fam Relat. 2000;49:293–300.
19. Trost SG, Kerr LM, Ward DS, Pate RR. Physical activity and determinants of physical activity in obese and non-obese children, Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001;25:822–829.[ISI][Medline]
20. United States Dept of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Study of WIC Participant and Program Characteristics. Cambridge, Mass: Abt Associates Inc; 1998.
21. Bandura A, Jourden FJ. Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social comparison on complex decision-making. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;60:941–951.
22. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in psychobiologic functioning. In: Schwarzer R, ed. Self-Efficacy: Thought Control of Action. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing; 1992:355–394.
23. Clark NM, Becker MH. Theoretical models and strategies for improving adherence and disease management. In: Shumaker SA, Schron EB, Ockene JK, McBee WL, eds. The Handbook of Health Behavioral Change. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co; 1998:16–17.
24. Mullen PD, Evans D, Forster J, et al. Settings as an important dimension in health education/promotion policy, programs, and research. Health Educ Q. 1995;22:329–345.[ISI][Medline]
25. Mullen PD, Zapka JG. Assessing the quality of health promotion and patient education programs. HMO Pract. 1989;3:98–103.[Medline]
26. Hinman AR. Economic aspects of vaccines and immunizations. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences—Serie III, Sciences de la Vie. 1999;322:989–994.
27. Anderson L, Fullilove M, Scrimshaw S, et al. A framework for evidence-based reviews of interventions for supportive social environments. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;896:487–489.
28. Reid WM, Barnette DM, Mahan CS. Local health departments: planning for a changed role in the new health care environment. J Public Health Manag Pract. 1998;4:1–12.
29. Brownson RC, Gurney JG, Land GH. Evidence-based decision making in public health. J Public Health Manag Pract. 1999;5:86–97.[Medline]
30. Biener L, Abrams DB. The Contemplation Ladder: validation of a measure of readiness to consider smoking cessation. Health Psychol. 1991;10:360–365.[ISI][Medline]
31. Green M, Palfrey JS. Bright Futures: Guidelines for Health Supervision of Infants, Children, and Adolescents. 2nd ed. Arlington, Va: National Center for Education in Maternal and Child Health; 2002.
32. Neumark-Sztainer D, Story M, Hannan PJ, Rex J. New Moves: a school-based obesity prevention program for adolescent girls. Prev Med. 2003;37:41–51.[ISI][Medline]
33. Mullen PD, Zapka JG. Assessing the quality of health promotion and patient education programs. HMO Pract. 1989;3:98–103.
34. Pearlman DN, Camberg L, Wallace LJ, Symons P, Finison L. Tapping youth as agents for change: evaluation of a peer leadership HIV/AIDS intervention. J Adolesc Health. 2002;31:31–39.[ISI][Medline]
35. Wesner ML. An evaluation of Think First Saskatchewan: a head and spinal cord injury prevention program. Can J Public Health. 2003;94:115–120.[ISI][Medline]
36. Dake JA, Price JH, Murnan J. Evaluation of a child abuse prevention curriculum for third-grade students: assessment of knowledge and efficacy expectations. J Sch Health. 2003;73:76–82.[ISI][Medline]
37. Zaloshnja E, Miller TR, Galbraith MS, et al. Reducing injuries among Native Americans: five cost-outcome analyses. Accid Anal Prev. 2003;35:631–639.[ISI][Medline]
38. Fitz-Gibbon CT, Morris LL. How to Design a Program Evaluation. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Sage Publications; 1987.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. M. Segal and E. A. Gadola Generation O: Addressing Childhood Overweight before It's Too Late The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, January 1, 2008; 615(1): 195 - 213. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. A. Johnston and R. G. Steele Treatment of Pediatric Overweight: An Examination of Feasibility and Effectiveness in an Applied Clinical Setting J. Pediatr. Psychol., January 1, 2007; 32(1): 106 - 110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. A. Hanks Community Empowerment: A Partnership Approach to Public Health Program Implementation Policy Politics Nursing Practice, November 1, 2006; 7(4): 297 - 306. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
