Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25294895›Full record

Trial reportJournal of epidemiology and community health2015

After the RCT: who comes to a family-based intervention for childhood overweight or obesity when it is implemented at scale in the community?

James Fagg, Tim J Cole, Steven Cummins, Harvey Goldstein, Stephen Morris, Duncan Radley, Paul Sacher, Catherine Law

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

8 authors.

James FaggCentre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
Tim J ColeCentre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
Steven CumminsDepartment of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Harvey GoldsteinCentre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Stephen MorrisDepartment of Applied Health Research, UCL, London, UK.
Duncan RadleyCarnegie Faculty, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK.
Paul SacherChildhood Nutrition Research Centre, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
Catherine LawCentre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 09/3005/05Department of Health SRF-2010-03-05Medical Research Council G0 400 546Medical Research Council G0400546Medical Research Council MR/J004839/1Medical Research Council MR/M012069/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen implemented at scale, the impact on health and health inequalities of public health interventions depends on who receives them in addition to intervention effectiveness.

methodsThe MEND 7-13 (Mind, Exercise, Nutrition…Do it!) programme is a family-based weight management intervention for childhood overweight and obesity implemented at scale in the community. We compare the characteristics of children referred to the MEND programme (N=18 289 referred to 1940 programmes) with those of the population eligible for the intervention, and assess what predicts completion of the intervention.

resultsCompared to the MEND-eligible population, proportionally more children who started MEND were: obese rather than overweight excluding obese; girls; Asian; from families with a lone parent; living in less favourable socioeconomic circumstances; and living in urban rather than rural or suburban areas. Having started the programme, children were relatively less likely to complete it if they: reported 'abnormal' compared to 'normal' levels of psychological distress; were boys; were from lone parent families; lived in less favourable socioeconomic circumstances; and had participated in a relatively large MEND programme group; or where managers had run more programmes.

conclusionsThe provision and/or uptake of MEND did not appear to compromise and, if anything, promoted participation of those from disadvantaged circumstances and ethnic minority groups. However, this tendency was diminished because programme completion was less likely for those living in less favourable socioeconomic circumstances. Further research should explore how completion rates of this intervention could be improved for particular groups.

Indexed as

Social ClassAdolescentChildEnglandFamilyFemaleHumansMalePediatric ObesityPoisson DistributionProgram EvaluationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSex DistributionWeight Reduction ProgramsCHILD HEALTHHEALTH BEHAVIOURINEQUALITIESOBESITYOutcome Research Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID25294895
PMCPMC4316870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.