ArticleNutrients2021
Using Process Evaluation Results to Compare Peer and Adult Leader Delivery of the PAWS (Peer-Education about Weight Steadiness) Club Program.
Article in Nutrients, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 5 to 11 years old.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To date, there is limited published literature on process evaluation of adolescent health promotion programs. In this paper, we describe the methods and results of PAWS Club process evaluation over 2 years of implementation to compare the effectiveness of delivery by peer and adult leaders. PAWS (Peer-education About Weight Steadiness) Club was a 12-week healthy lifestyle program, delivered to 6th and 7th graders by peer and adult educators, using cluster randomized controlled design. Peer educators were 8th graders in the program schools and adult educators were staff/teachers in the program schools. Trained university students filled out fidelity logs at each session led by peer and adult educators to assess program delivery. The fidelity logs included questions to collect information about the number of participants, duration of the session, percent of activities completed, and if lessons started on time, lesson objectives were clearly stated, lesson objectives were emphasized, demonstrations were visible to participants, all activities were completed, the leader was familiar with lessons, the leader maintained an appropriate pace, the leader kept participants on track, and the leader asked if participants had any questions. Adult educators had a higher mean performance for all questions compared to peer leaders. Significant differences were observed for emphasizing lesson objectives (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.