Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29378550›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2018

Tools for a systematic appraisal of integrated community-based approaches to prevent childhood obesity.

K Mantziki, C M Renders, M J Westerman, J Mayer, J M Borys, J C Seidell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Planting the Seeds for Building Research Capacity in Communities: Experiences of a Community-Based Research Network.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

K MantzikiDepartment of Health Sciences, VU University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. k.mantziki@vu.nl.
C M RendersDepartment of Health Sciences, VU University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M J WestermanDepartment of Health Sciences, VU University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J MayerEPODE International Network, 109-111 Rue Royale, 1000, Brussels, Belgium.
J M BorysEPODE International Network, 109-111 Rue Royale, 1000, Brussels, Belgium.
J C SeidellDepartment of Health Sciences, VU University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Seventh Framework Programme 2012 12 18
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvaluation and monitoring methods are often unable to identify crucial elements of success or failure of integrated community-wide approaches aiming to tackle childhood overweight and obesity, yet difficult to determine in complex programmes. Therefore, we aimed to systematically appraise strengths and weaknesses of such programmes and to assess the usefulness of the appraisal tools used.

methodsTo identify strengths and weaknesses of the integrated community-based approaches two tools were used: the Good Practice Appraisal tool for obesity prevention programmes, projects, initiatives and intervention (GPAT), a self-administered questionnaire developed by the WHO; and the OPEN tool, a structured list of questions based on the EPODE theory, to assist face-to-face interviews with the principle programme coordinators. The strengths and weaknesses of these tools were assessed with regard to practicalities, quality of acquired data and the appraisal process, criteria and scoring.

resultsSeveral strengths and weaknesses were identified in all the assessed integrated community-based approaches, different for each of them. The GPAT provided information mostly on intervention elements whereas through the OPEN tool information on both the programme and intervention levels were acquired.

conclusionLarge variability between integrated community-wide approaches preventing childhood obesity in the European region was identified and therefore each of them has different needs. Both tools used in combination seem to facilitate comprehensive assessment of integrated community-wide approaches in a systematic manner, which is rarely conducted. Nonetheless, the tools should be improved in line to their limitations as recommended in this manuscript.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health Care, IntegratedAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolCommunity Health ServicesEuropeHealth PromotionHumansInfantInfant, NewbornPediatric ObesityProgram EvaluationYoung AdultCommunityEpodeEvaluationGood practice appraisal toolObesity preventionProgrammes

Identifiers

PMID29378550
PMCPMC5789618

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.