Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24934246›Full record

SynthesisJournal of pediatric psychology2014

Systematic review and meta-analysis of health promotion interventions for children and adolescents using an ecological framework.

Christopher C Cushing, Erin E Brannon, Kristina I Suorsa, Dawn K Wilson

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of pediatric psychology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Development and Validation of Nutrition and Food Safety Educational Material for Fish Processors in Nigeria.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. How Did Parents View the Impact of the Curriculum-Based HealthLit4Kids Program Beyond the Classroom?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christopher C CushingDepartment of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, and Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina christopher.cushing@okstate.edu.
Erin E BrannonDepartment of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, and Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina.
Kristina I SuorsaDepartment of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, and Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina.
Dawn K WilsonDepartment of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, and Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina.

Funding

Families Improving Together (FIT) For Weight LossR01HD072153 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI WILSON, DAWN K · 2012 to 2016
$2.9M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD072153
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate and quantify the evidence for health promotion interventions in children and adolescents.

method96 independent samples of smoking, physical activity, and diet studies were included. Outcomes included both objective and self-reports of health behavior, as well as proxy measures such as fitness.

resultsThe aggregated effect was significant (g = .20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.08-0.32, n = 96). A significant effect of intervention was observed at approximately 1-year follow-up (g = .07, 95% CI = 0.02-0.14, n = 20). The greatest risk of bias was failure to blind outcome assessment, which occurred in 21% of studies. Most studies lacked sufficient detail to determine the quality of their randomization sequence (58%). Additional concerns about risk of bias for individual studies were minimal. Overall, the quality of this finding was moderate using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria.

conclusionHealth promotion interventions are effective for modifying health behavior; however, effect sizes are small.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHealth PromotionAdolescentChildDietExerciseHumansSmokingSmoking Preventionhealth behaviorhealth promotion and preventionmeta-analysispublic health

Identifiers

PMID24934246
PMCPMC4192049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.