Using the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the feasibility of a parent-focused intervention targeting childhood obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood obesity remains a serious public health concern. Community-based childhood obesity treatment interventions have the potential to improve health behaviors and outcomes among children, but require thorough evaluation to facilitate translation of research into practice. The purpose of the current study was to determine the feasibility of a community-based, parent-focused childhood obesity intervention ("C.H.A.M.P. Families") using the RE-AIM framework, an evaluation tool for health interventions. METHODS: A single-group, non-randomized, repeated measures feasibility study was conducted. Participants (n = 16 parents/caregivers of 11 children with obesity) completed a 13-week parent-focused education intervention. The intervention consisted of three main components: (a) eight group-based (parent-only) education sessions; (b) eight home-based (family-centered) activities; and (c) two group-based follow-up support sessions for parents and children. The five dimensions of RE-AIM-reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance-were assessed using various measures and data sources (e.g., child, parent/caregiver, costing, census) obtained throughout the study period. Outcome variables were measured at baseline, mid-intervention, post-intervention, and at a 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, the C.H.A.M.P. Families intervention reached approximately 0.09% of eligible families in London, Ontario. Despite the small number, participants were generally representative of the population from which they were drawn, and program participation rates were high (reach). Findings also suggest that involvement in the program was associated with improved health-related quality of life among children (effectiveness/individual-level maintenance). In addition, the intervention had high fidelity to protocol, attendance rates, and cost-effectiveness (implementation). Lastly, important community partnerships were established and maintained (adoption/setting-level maintenance). CONCLUSIONS: Based on a detailed and comprehensive RE-AIM evaluation, the C.H.A.M.P. Families intervention appears to be a promising parent-focused approach to the treatment of childhood obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, Study ID ISRCTN 10752416 . Registered 24 April 2018.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".