Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35616994›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2022

Telephone and Web-Based Delivery of Healthy Eating and Active Living Interventions for Parents of Children Aged 2 to 6 Years: Mixed Methods Process Evaluation of the Time for Healthy Habits Translation Trial.

Megan L Hammersley, Rebecca J Wyse, Rachel A Jones, Anthony D Okely, Luke Wolfenden, Simon Eckermann, Joe Xu, Amanda Green, Fiona Stacey, Sze Lin Yoong and 4 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Characterisation of At-Scale Community Health Interventions Aimed to Improve Healthy Eating Behaviour in Australia: A Rapid Review.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

14 authors.

Megan L HammersleyEarly Start, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4326-480X
Rebecca J WyseSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4872-2112
Rachel A JonesEarly Start, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5384-1941
Anthony D OkelyEarly Start, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1626-8170
Luke WolfendenSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6178-3868
Simon EckermannIllawarra Health and Medical Research Institute, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1629-394X
Joe XuCentre for Population Health, New South Wales Ministry of Health, St Leonards, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6034-4118
Amanda GreenCentre for Population Health, New South Wales Ministry of Health, St Leonards, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1192-6533
Fiona StaceySchool of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7041-5020
Sze Lin YoongSchool of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0836-017X
Jacklyn JacksonSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7633-0418
Christine Innes-HughesCentre for Population Health, New South Wales Ministry of Health, St Leonards, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2555-5988
Vincy LiHealth Consult, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4035-4973
Chris RisselCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Darwin, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2156-8581

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew translational trials have provided detailed reports of process evaluation results.

objectiveThis study reported on findings from a mixed methods process evaluation of a large translational trial comparing 2 remotely delivered healthy eating and active living interventions with an active control, targeting parents of young children.

methodsMixed methods process evaluation data were collected as part of a 3-arm, partially randomized preference trial targeting parents of children aged 2 to 6 years from New South Wales, Australia. Recruitment strategies were assessed through the participant baseline questionnaire and a questionnaire completed by the health promotion staff involved in recruitment. Data on participants' intervention preferences were collected at baseline and after the intervention. Intervention acceptability and demographic data were collected via a postintervention questionnaire (approximately 3 months after baseline), which was supplemented by qualitative participant interviews. Implementation data on intervention fidelity and withdrawal were also recorded. Differences in intervention acceptability, fidelity, and withdrawal rates between telephone and web-based interventions and between randomized and nonrandomized participants were analyzed. The significance level was set at P<.05 for all tests. The interview content was analyzed, key themes were drawn from participant responses, and findings were described narratively.

resultsData were collected from 458 participants in the baseline survey and 144 (31.4%) participants in the 3-month postintervention survey. A total of 30 participants completed the qualitative interviews. A total of 6 health promotion staff members participated in the survey on recruitment strategies. Most participants were recruited from Early Childhood Education and Care services. There was a broad reach of the study; however, better take-up rates were observed in regional and rural areas compared with metropolitan areas. Parents with a university education were overrepresented. Most participants preferred the web-based medium of delivery at baseline. There was high acceptability of the web-based and telephone interventions. Participants found the healthy eating content to be the most useful component of the modules (web-based) and calls (telephone). They regarded text (web-based) or verbal (telephone) information as the most useful component. A high proportion of participants completed the telephone intervention compared with the web-based intervention; however, more participants actively withdrew from the telephone intervention.

conclusionsThis is one of the first studies to comprehensively report on process evaluation data from a translation trial, which demonstrated high acceptability of all interventions but a strong participant preference for the web-based intervention. This detailed process evaluation is critical to inform further implementation and be considered alongside the effectiveness outcomes.

Indexed as

Diet, HealthyInternet-Based InterventionChildChild, PreschoolHabitsHumansParentsTelephonedietary intakeinternetmobile phonemovement behaviorsonlinephysical activityscreen timesleeptelephone

Identifiers

PMID35616994
PMCPMC9185338

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.