MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3114014425 · doi:10.1101/2020.12.17.20248435

Unpacking the behavioural components and delivery features of early childhood obesity prevention interventions in the TOPCHILD Collaboration: a systematic review and intervention coding protocol

2020· review· en· W3114014425 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Brittany J. Johnson, Kylie E Hunter, Rebecca K. Golley, Paul Chadwick, Angie Barba, Mason Aberoumand, Sol Libesman, Lisa Askie, Rachael W. Taylor, Kristy Robledo, Seema Mihrshahi, Denise O’Connor, Alison Hayes, Luke Wolfenden, Charles T. Wood, Louise A. Baur, Chris Rissel, Lukas Staub, Sarah Taki, Wendy Smith, Michelle Sue-See, Ian C. Marschner, David Espinoza, Jessica L. Thomson, Junilla K. Larsen, Vera Verbestel, Cathleen Odar Stough, Sarah‐Jeanne Salvy, Sharleen O’Reilly, Levie T Karssen, Finn Rasmussen, Mary Jo Messito, Rachel S. Gross, Maria Bryant, Ian M. Paul, Li Ming Wen, Kylie D. Hesketh, Carolina Gonzalez Acero, Karen Campbell, Nina Cecilie Øverby, Ana María Linares, Heather Wasser, Kaumudi Joshipura, Cristina Palacios, Claudio Maffeis, Amanda L. Thompson, Ata Ghaderi, Rajalakshmi Lakshman, Jinan Banna, Emily Oken, Maribel Campos Rivera, Ana Beatriz Pérez-Expósito, Barry Taylor, Jennifer S. Savage, Margrethe Røed, Michael I. Goran, Kayla de la Haye, Stephanie Anzman‐Frasca, Anna Lene Seidler

Notice bibliographique

RevuemedRxiv · 2020
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteHealth Research Council of New ZealandNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilAgricultural Research ServiceNational Institute of Food and AgricultureNational Institutes of HealthPatient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteNorske Kvinners SanitetsforeningCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInter-American Development BankFonds NutsOhraNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity of CincinnatiPepsiCoNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesUniversity of SydneyEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentWorld Health OrganizationNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentU.S. Department of Agriculture
Mots-clésPsychological interventionChildhood obesityCINAHLPsycINFOIntervention (counseling)MedicineSystematic reviewBehavior change methodsBehavioural sciencesRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEPsychologyMedical educationFamily medicineObesityNursingPsychotherapistOverweightPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Introduction Little is known about how early (e.g., commencing antenatally or in the first 12 months after birth) obesity prevention interventions seek to change behaviour and which components are or are not effective. This study aims to 1) characterise early obesity prevention interventions in terms of target behaviours, delivery features, and behaviour change techniques (BCTs), 2) explore similarities and differences in BCTs used to target behaviours, and 3) explore effectiveness of intervention components in preventing childhood obesity. Methods and analysis Annual comprehensive systematic searches will be performed in Epub Ahead of Print/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL), CINAHL, PsycINFO, as well as clinical trial registries. Eligible randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions to prevent childhood obesity commencing antenatally or in the first year after birth will be invited to join the TOPCHILD Collaboration. Standard ontologies will be used to code target behaviours, delivery features and BCTs in both published and unpublished intervention materials provided by trialists. Narrative syntheses will be performed to summarise intervention components and compare applied BCTs by types of target behaviours. Exploratory analyses will be undertaken to assess effectiveness of intervention components. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (project no. 2020/273) and Flinders University Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee (project no. HREC CIA2133-1). The study’s findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and targeted communication with key stakeholders. Discussion Our study will provide an in depth understanding of behavioural components and delivery features used in obesity prevention interventions starting antenatally or in the first 12 months after birth. Understanding common intervention approaches in a systematic way will provide much needed insight to advance the design of early obesity prevention interventions and provide the opportunity to undertake future quantitative predictive modelling. Registration PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020177408 STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY This study provides an understanding of behaviours targeted, behaviour change techniques and delivery features used in early childhood obesity prevention trials identified in a systematic review as being eligible for inclusion in the Transforming Obesity Prevention in CHILDren (TOPCHILD) Collaboration. Extends previous methods by coding behaviour change techniques in published and unpublished intervention materials and performing cross validation with trialists through the TOPCHILD Collaboration. Using standardised coding taxonomies will allow for comparisons across studies, and we will pilot test new ontologies from the Human Behaviour Change Project. Explores the complex area of targeting parent and caregivers’ behaviours to impact child outcomes across four key obesity prevention behavioural domains (relating to infant feeding practices, food provision and parent feeding practices, movement practices, sleep health practices). This study will provide preliminary results regarding the examination of intervention components’ effectiveness based on exploratory analysis. Yet, the internationally unique database this project creates will further our understanding of effective intervention components in future research. To date we already have 38 out of 65 eligible trials agreeing to share data, since not all trials may provide unpublished material we may perform sensitivity analyses comparing trials that have shared data to trials that have not shared materials.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,124
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,154
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Protocole · Signal consensuel: Protocole
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,124
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,657

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,1240,154
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0050,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0190,016
Bibliométrie0,0430,033
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,006
Communication savante0,0090,011
Science ouverte0,0060,009
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0540,007

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 Opus0,067
Tête enseignante GPT0,363
Écart entre enseignants0,296 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
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

Citations1
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuemedRxiv→Même sujetObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→Travaux en français237 207→