Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37325332›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Recruitment and reach in a school-based pediatric obesity intervention trial in rural areas.

Bethany Forseth, Brittany Lancaster, Megan Olalde, Christie A Befort, Rebecca E Swinburne Romine, Meredith L Dreyer Gillette, Kelsey M Dean, Eve-Lynn Nelson, Ann M Davis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Bethany ForsethCenter for Children's Healthy Lifestyles and Nutrition, Kansas City, MO, United States.
Brittany LancasterCenter for Children's Healthy Lifestyles and Nutrition, Kansas City, MO, United States.
Megan OlaldeCenter for Children's Healthy Lifestyles and Nutrition, Kansas City, MO, United States.
Christie A BefortDepartment of Population Health, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, United States.
Rebecca E Swinburne RomineLife Span Institute, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, United States.
Meredith L Dreyer GilletteCenter for Children's Healthy Lifestyles and Nutrition, Kansas City, MO, United States.
Kelsey M DeanCenter for Children's Healthy Lifestyles and Nutrition, Kansas City, MO, United States.
Eve-Lynn NelsonCenter for Children's Healthy Lifestyles and Nutrition, Kansas City, MO, United States.
Ann M DavisCenter for Children's Healthy Lifestyles and Nutrition, Kansas City, MO, United States.
University of Kansas Medical Center · USCenter for Children · USChildren's Mercy Hospital · USLifeSpan Medical Institute · US

Funding

Rural Disparities in Pediatric Obesity: The iAmHealthy InterventionR01NR016255 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI DAVIS, ANN M · 2017 to 2021
$1.9M
A Rigorous Application of the RE-AIM Framework to Examine a Pediatric Obesity InterventionF32DK128982 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI FORSETH, BETHANY · 2021 to 2022
$120k
NIDDK NIH HHS F32 DK128982NINR NIH HHS R01 NR016255
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this study is to evaluate two recruitment strategies on schools and participant participation rates and representativeness (reach) within a pediatric obesity treatment trial tailored for families who live in rural areas. Methods: Recruitment of schools was evaluated based on their progress toward enrolling participants. Recruitment and reach of participants were evaluated using (1) participation rates and (2) representativeness of demographics and weight status of participants compared to eligible participants (who did not consent and enroll) and all students (regardless of eligibility). School recruitment, as well as participant recruitment and reach, were evaluated across recruitment methods comparing opt-in (i.e., caregivers agreed to allow their child to be screened for eligibility) vs. screen-first (i.e., all children screened for eligibility). Results: Of the 395 schools contacted, 34 schools (8.6%) expressed initial interest; of these, 27 (79%) proceeded to recruit participants, and 18 (53%) ultimately participated in the program. Of schools who initiated recruitment, 75% of schools using the opt-in method and 60% of schools using the screen-first method continued participation and were able to recruit a sufficient number of participants. The average participation rate (number of enrolled individuals divided by those who were eligible) from all 18 schools was 21.6%. This percentage was higher in schools using the screen-first method (average of 29.7%) compared to schools using the opt-in method (13.5%). Study participants were representative of the student population based on sex (female), race (White), and eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch. Study participants had higher body mass index (BMI) metrics (BMI, BMIz, and BMI%) than eligible non-participants. Conclusions: Schools using the opt-in recruitment were more likely to enroll at least 5 families and administer the intervention. However, the participation rate was higher in screen-first schools. The overall study sample was representative of the school demographics.

Indexed as

Pediatric ObesityBody Mass IndexChildFemaleHumansResearch DesignStudentschildrendissemination and implementationimplementation scienceRE-AIM evaluation frameworkrepresentativenessyouth

Identifiers

PMID37325332
PMCPMC10267303
OpenAlexW4379052886

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.