Impact of a Home‐Based Obesity Prevention Intervention on Children's and Parents' <scp>BMI</scp> : Findings From the Guelph Family Health Study Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background To prevent the development of obesity and related comorbidities, interventions must begin early in life. This study aimed to assess the impact of a home‐based obesity prevention intervention on children's and parents' body mass index (BMI). Methods The Guelph Family Health Study is a randomised controlled trial of a 6‐month obesity prevention intervention aimed at establishing healthful household routines regarding family meals, children's screen time, physical activity and sleep among 285 families with preschool‐aged children. The control group received 6 emails on child health behaviours. The analytic sample included 376 children (3.6 ± 1.3 years old, 20.2% at risk for overweight, 8.2% with overweight/obesity) and 481 parents (58.2% with overweight/obesity). Results Compared to controls, the intervention had no significant impact on children's or parents' BMI at post‐intervention and 1 year after the intervention. Children in both the intervention and control groups had a non‐significant decrease in BMI from baseline to post‐intervention [intervention; −0.23 kg/m 2 (95% CI, −0.46, 0.002); control; −0.17 kg/m 2 (95% CI, −0.40, 0.06)] and from baseline to 1‐year follow‐up [intervention, −0.29 kg/m 2 (95% CI, −0.67, 0.08); control, −0.06 kg/m 2 (95% CI, −0.42, 0.30)]. Conclusions Compared to controls, this home‐based obesity prevention intervention had no significant impact on children's or parents' BMI immediately after the intervention or after 1 year of follow‐up, indicating that the intervention had no additional effect compared to the control group on children's or parents' BMI over time. Future data collection phases will allow for the examination of the intervention effect on BMI as children age. Trial Registration This study is registered at clinicaltrial.gov identifier: NCT02939261
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".