Impact of Parent Engagement in Childhood Obesity Prevention Interventions on Anthropometric Indices among Preschool Children: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Home environment, modeling of weight-related behaviors, and general parenting style are very important predictors of obesity in children. The effect of parent engagement in prevention of obesity in children is not clear. The main objective of this systematic review was to address the effects of parent engagement in obesity prevention interventions on anthropometric changes among preschool children. Methods: PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar were searched. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials in last 10 years (from 2008 until February 14, 2018), which had a parent engagement in obesity prevention interventions (as an intervention) and children's anthropometric indices (as an outcome). Results: Twenty-six studies were included. Half of studies targeted both parents and children, and the rest targeted only parents. Types of interventions ranged from a simple motivational interviewing to professional skill training approaches. Studies that targeted overweight or obese children in their intervention containing training sessions followed by maintenance for parents and those that focused on individual support for overweight children and their parents, resulted in higher improvement in BMI and other outcomes. Conclusions: Anthropometric indices and BMI are not appropriate for reflecting the effectiveness of parent engagement in obesity prevention interventions. Having an individual component in the intervention and focusing more on parents vs. children in the intervention may result in improvement in anthropometric outcomes. Focusing on weight-related behaviors as the main outcome in both, children and parents, rather than anthropometric indices, is highly recommended for future reviews.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".