Effectiveness of Interventions Promoting Dietary Intake, Physical Activity, and Healthy Weight Status of Children in Family Child Care: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review examines the effectiveness of interventions in family child care (FCC) on (1) children's dietary intake, physical activity levels and weight, and (2) FCC health-promoting environments, policies, and practices. Quasi-experimental studies measuring these outcomes were included. METHODS: All available articles up to July 2023 were searched using MEDLINE, ERIC, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and A+ Education, and 15 interventions were included. Methodological quality was assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project Assessment tool. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were weak, and 2 strong in quality. Four interventions included children's dietary intake as an outcome measure, 2 included physical activity, and 3 weight status. Twelve interventions assessed nutrition and 7 physical activity environmental outcomes. DISCUSSION: Interventions in FCC improved children's dietary intake, but their impact on physical activity and weight status was inconclusive. Furthermore, positive impacts were observed in environmental outcomes related to nutrition, whereas research on physical activity environmental outcomes was limited. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE: Future research could replicate interventions to validate effectiveness and understand positive outcome mechanisms. Future interventions might use FCC stakeholders' input, incorporate innovative physical activity components, enhance FCC providers' position as role models, involve parents, and target those groups that are at a high risk of being obese.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".