MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2112127930 · doi:10.2196/resprot.4147

Working With Parents to Prevent Childhood Obesity: Protocol for a Primary Care-Based eHealth Study

2015· article· en· W2112127930 sur OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jillian L.S. Avis, Andrew Cave, Stephanie Donaldson, C. Ellendt, Nicholas L. Holt, Susan Jelinski, Patricia Martz, Katerina Maximova, Raj Padwal, T. Cameron Wild, Geoff D.C. Ball

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Research Protocols · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Établissements canadiensStollery Children's HospitalAlberta Health ServicesMinistry of HealthGovernment of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesUniversity of AlbertaPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of CanadaWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteChildren's Health Research Institute
Mots-cléseHealthFocus groupChildhood obesityPsychological interventionMedicineBrief interventionIntervention (counseling)NursingHealth carePsychologyFamily medicineMedical educationOverweightObesity

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Parents play a central role in preventing childhood obesity. There is a need for innovative, scalable, and evidence-based interventions designed to enhance parents' motivation to support and sustain healthy lifestyle behaviors in their children, which can facilitate obesity prevention. OBJECTIVE: (1) Develop an online screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) eHealth tool to enhance parents' concern for, and motivation to, support children's healthy lifestyle behaviors, (2) refine the SBIRT eHealth tool by assessing end-user acceptability, satisfaction, and usability through focus groups, and (3) determine feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of the refined SBIRT eHealth tool through a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: This is a three-phase, multi-method study that includes SBIRT eHealth tool development (Phase I), refinement (Phase II), and testing (Phase III). Phase I: Theoretical underpinnings of the SBIRT tool, entitled the Resource Information Program for Parents on Lifestyle and Education (RIPPLE), will be informed by concepts applied within existing interventions, and content will be based on literature regarding healthy lifestyle behaviors in children. The SBIRT platform will be developed in partnership between our research team and a third-party intervention development company. Phase II: Focus groups with parents, as well as health care professionals, researchers, and trainees in pediatrics (n=30), will explore intervention-related perceptions and preferences. Qualitative data from the focus groups will inform refinements to the aesthetics, content, structure, and function of the SBIRT. Phase III: Parents (n=200) of children-boys and girls, 5 to 17 years old-will be recruited from a primary care pediatric clinic while they await their children's clinical appointment. Parents will be randomly assigned to one of five groups-four intervention groups and one control group-as they complete the SBIRT. The randomization function is built into the tool. Parents will complete the eHealth SBIRT using a tablet that will be connected to the Internet. Subsequently, parents will be contacted via email at 1-month follow-up to assess (1) change in concern for, and motivation to, support children's dietary and physical activity behaviors (primary outcome), and (2) use of online resources and referrals to health services for obesity prevention (secondary outcome). RESULTS: This research was successfully funded and received ethics approval. Development of the SBIRT started in summer 2012, and we expect all study-related activities to be completed by fall 2016. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed research is timely and applies a novel, technology-based application designed to enhance parents concern for, and motivation to, support children's healthy lifestyle behaviors and encourage use of online resources and community services for childhood obesity prevention. Overall, this research builds on a foundation of evidence supporting the application of SBIRTs to encourage or "nudge" individuals to make healthy lifestyle choices. Findings from Phase III of this project will directly inform a cluster randomized controlled trial to study the effectiveness of our intervention across multiple primary care-based settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02330588; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02330588 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6WyUOeRlr).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Protocole · Signal consensuel: Protocole
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,154
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,266
Tête enseignante GPT0,528
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreProtocole

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations25
Publié2015
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Research ProtocolsMême sujetObesity, Physical Activity, DietTravaux en français237 207