MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417465363 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd016062

Multimodal health behaviour-changing interventions for adolescents living with obesity

2025· review· en· W4417465363 sur OpenAlexaff
Juan Víctor Ariel Franco, Yang Guo, Brenda Bongaerts, Maria‐Inti Metzendorf, Jan Hindemit, Zakariya Aqra, Murad Alhalahla, Karina Tapinova, Esteban Villegas-Arbeláez, Omolola Titilayo Alade, Karen Rees, Lena Al-Khudairy, Gabriel Torbahn, Louisa Ells

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Établissements canadiensHamilton Health Sciences
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychological interventionObesityProtocol (science)Intervention (counseling)MEDLINEPopulation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Adolescent obesity is a global public health problem with multiple causes. The mainstay approach for managing obesity includes interventions targeting changes in health-related behaviours (diet, physical activity, and behaviour). However, previous research highlighted uncertainty about the sustainability and long-term results of these approaches. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of multimodal health behaviour-changing interventions for adolescents aged 10 to 19 living with obesity. SEARCH METHODS: We used CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases, and two trial registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors, to identify studies included in the review. The latest search date was 28 February 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adolescents aged 10 to 19 living with obesity that compared interventions involving a minimum of two health-related behaviour components (modifications in diet, physical activity, or behavioural change) to control (including no treatment, usual care, or waiting-list control) with a minimum of one year of follow-up. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes included physical well-being, mental well-being, physical activity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), obesity-associated disability, adverse events, and anthropometry (body mass index (BMI) z-score). RISK OF BIAS: We used the original version of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB 1). SYNTHESIS METHODS: We synthesised results for each outcome using meta-analysis, where possible, with a random-effects model. Where this was not possible, we described the results narratively. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for critical outcomes included in two key summary of findings tables. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMD). INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 33 RCTs with 5949 participants aged 10 to 19, primarily from high-income countries. We included 13 community-based interventions in schools, churches, and community centres, and 20 healthcare-based interventions implemented in primary care and hospitals. Intervention components included sessions on dietary modification, physical activity, and behavioural change. Of the 33 included studies, one targeted parents only, one involved only adolescents, and the remainder used family-based approaches, primarily through individual or group sessions. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Healthcare-based multimodal interventions versus control Healthcare-based multimodal interventions may result in little to no difference in physical well-being at 12 months of follow-up (multiple scales: SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.39; I² = 67%; 4 studies, 1006 participants; low-certainty evidence). They may result in little to no difference in mental well-being at 12 to 18 months of follow-up (multiple scales: SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.24; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 693 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these interventions on self-reported physical activity (final score) at 12 months (multiple scales: SMD 0.51, 95% CI -0.07 to 1.10; I² = 93%; 4 studies, 964 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and when measured as a change-from-baseline score, these interventions may result in little to no difference in self-reported physical activity (multiple scales: SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.34; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). These interventions may slightly improve HRQoL at 12 months (multiple scales: SMD 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.24; I² = 4%; 7 studies, 1454 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of healthcare-based multimodal interventions on adverse events (0 events; 1 study, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). These interventions may result in little to no difference in BMI z-score at 12 to 18 months (MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.02; I² = 78%; 17 studies, 2666 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 24 months (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.35 to 1.35; I² not applicable; 1 study, 33 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported obesity-associated disability. Community-based multimodal interventions versus control Community-based multimodal interventions may improve physical well-being at 12 months of follow-up (Youth Quality of Life instrument - Weight module: MD 13.50, 95% CI 4.99 to 22.01; I² not applicable; 1 study, 136 participants; low-certainty evidence). These interventions may result in little to no difference in mental well-being at 12 months (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: MD 1.20, 95% CI -0.46 to 2.86; I² not applicable; 1 study, 208 participants; low-certainty evidence). These interventions may result in little to no difference in self-reported physical activity at 24 months (Global Physical Activity Questionnaire: ß coefficient = -0.04, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.2; P = 0.76; low-certainty evidence). Community-based multimodal interventions likely result in little to no difference in HRQoL at 12 months (multiple scales: SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.24; I² = 19%; 4 studies, 666 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may result in little to no difference in HRQoL at 24 months (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory: SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.27; I² not applicable; 1 study, 188 participants; low-certainty evidence). These interventions may result in little to no difference in BMI z-score at 12 months (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.08; I² = 85%; 5 studies, 585 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce BMI z-score slightly at 24 months of follow-up (MD -0.47, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.02; I² = 98%; 3 studies, 430 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported data on obesity-associated disability or adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal health behaviour-changing interventions may result in a small improvement in physical well-being at 12 months and BMI z-score at 12 months when delivered in the community, and in HRQoL at 12 months when delivered in healthcare settings. They may have little to no effect on other pre-defined critical outcomes, including mental well-being and physical activity. Future research should consider innovative approaches to the care of adolescents living with obesity and involve diverse populations, as we found limited research conducted in disadvantaged and culturally/ethnically diverse populations and other low-resource settings. FUNDING: World Health Organization (WHO) REGISTRATION: Protocol (2024): PROSPERO CRD42023468867.

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)0,015
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,066
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: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,080

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0150,066
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,007
Bibliométrie0,0040,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,001

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 Opus0,112
Tête enseignante GPT0,421
Écart entre enseignants0,309 · 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
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations2
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetObesity, Physical Activity, DietTravaux en français237 207