Developing Sustainable Family- Centered Obesity Interventions: What Can We Learn from Developmental Psychology and Implementation Science PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS: Kirsten K. Davison, PhD (PI) Janine M. Jurkowski, PhD, MPH (PI) CO-INVESTIGATORS Hal Lawson (co-I), Sibylle Kranz (co-I) Lawrence Schell (co-I) Glenn Deane (co-I) IH R24 MD004865 al. (2013). A childhood obesity intervention developed by families for fami t study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activit
The Youth-Nex Conference on Physical Health and Well-Being for Youth, Oct 10 & 11, 2013, University of Virginia
"Developing Sustainable Family-Centered Obesity Interventions: What Can We Learn from Developmental Psychology and Implementation Science?" - Kirsten Davison, Ph.D.
Davison is an Associate Professor of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. She completed her PhD at the Pennsylvania State University in Child and Family Development.
Panel 3 — Nutrition and Healthy Eating. As we understand more about what defines good nutrition for youth, we are also increasingly understanding the importance of instilling healthy eating habits for youth in the context of family, school, and sport. This varied panel covers major topics within this under-considered but important area of youth development.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
What Can We Learn from Developmental Psychology and Implementation Science
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS:
Kirsten K. Davison, PhD (PI)
Janine M. Jurkowski, PhD, MPH (PI)
CO-INVESTIGATORS
Hal Lawson (co-I),
Sibylle Kranz (co-I)
Lawrence Schell (co-I)
Glenn Deane (co-I)
Funded by NIH R24 MD004865Davison et al. (2013). A childhood obesity intervention developed by families for families: results from a pilot study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Jan 5;10:3.
Key challenges of family-based childhood obesity interventions
• Reaching families
• Passive refusals (consent but don’t show up)
• Parents not interested if don’t see immediate need
• Priorities for intervention do not match family priorities
Possible strategies
• Maintain contact with families over time
• Partner with organizations that reach families
• Use electronic means to collect data
• Build intervention into other appointments
• Design programs around the needs and interests of families
• Ask families members what they hope to gain from participating
Goals
1. Utilize community-based participatory research (CBPR) to develop and pilot test a family-centered obesity prevention program for children enrolled in Head Start.
2. Incorporate the resulting intervention into systems of care (e.g., Head Start, WIC, pediatric care).
Family Action-based Model of Intervention Layout and Implementation (FAMILI)
Phase 1: Theory
Utilize theories of family development to frame family-centered research
Phase 2: Research
Use a mixed methods approach to examine factors impacting on parents and families that are relevant for intervention design.
Phase 3: Intervention Design & Implementation
Utilize a CBPR paradigm to develop interventions that empower parents and caregivers to foster healthy family lifestyles and establish systems-level change that reinforces family change.
CBPR = community-based participatory research
Davison, Lawson, & Coatsworth (2011). Health Promotion Practice
PARENTING
Shaping children’s eating and physical activity behaviors by the use of reward and punishment systems
Family Demographics
Family income Single versus two parent household Ethnicity Education
Child Characteristics
Age Gender Weight status Athletic competence
Organizational Characteristics
• School environment• Job characteristics • Work demands
Policies and the Media
School PE and food policies
Advertising to children Nutrition labeling
Community Characteristics
Neighborhood walkability Crime levelsAccess to healthy foods and recreational spaces
Knowledge and Beliefs about behaviors that educe/promote obesity risk behaviors
Modeling of healthy and unhealthy eating and activity behaviors
Accessibility of healthy and unhealthy eating and physical activity options
Family Ecological Model
Davison & Campbell (2005). Public health approaches to the prevention of obesity. Oxford University Press
Setting
• Small city in upstate New York• Five Head Start centers (423 2-5-year olds)
Community Advisory Board – Majority were parents/grandparents of children in Head Start
Participated in all aspects of project– Development of the mission, logo, topics to explore
– Recruitment, data collection (IRB trained), workshops and conferences, research team meetings
Phase 1
Community Assessment– Focus groups– Key informant interviews– Photovoice– 24 hour dietary recall (children); Sibylle Kranz– 7-day accelerometery (children); Karin Pfeiffer– Surveys, follow-up interview– Behavioral observation in centers
Phase 2
Findings were presented to the community in two town hall meetings. Solicited ideas on what the program should entail.
What did we learn?
Children• Watched TV extensively; a coping strategy• Excessive consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages • 35% overweight or obese; 14% met PA recommendations
Parents• failed to recognize when their children were overweight• didn’t like how physicians interacted with them• wanted
• to gain advocacy skills• to connect with other parents• the program to be center-based• their children to gain something from the program
What did we learn?
Children
• watched TV extensively; a coping strategy• excessive consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages • 35% overweight or obese; 14% met PA recommendations
Parents• Failed to recognize when their children were overweight• Didn’t like how physicians interacted with them• Wanted
• to gain advocacy skills• to connect with other parents• the program to be center-based• their children to gain something from the program
What did we learn?
Community• No where to send parents concerned about their child’s
weight • Some programs available in community to promote healthy living, but underutilized
Phase 3 The CHL program
Multiple components
1. Health communication campaign
2. BMI letters sent home
3. Family coffee hour with nutrition counseling
4. Parent’s Connect for Family Wellness program
Phase 3 The CHL program
Multiple components
1. Health communication campaign
2. BMI letters sent home
3. Family coffee hour with nutrition counseling
4. Parent’s Connect for Family Wellness program
Parents Connect for Healthy Living
• 6 week parent-led program• 2 hour session each week; meal provided• Center-based• Sessions focused on:
– Resource empowerment
– Nutrition, media literacy, and communication (workshops)
– Conflict resolution, social networking and stress (hands-on)
– Effective communication with health professionals (panel discussions with pediatricians)
Intervention and Evaluation Timelines
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Baseline Intervention Implemented Follow-up
Survey (N=154)
Survey
(N=88)
Survey
(N=109)
Activity Monitors (N=90)
Activity Monitors (N=57)
Diet recall (N=55)
Diet recall
(N=33)
Evaluation sample and methods
Construct Method Sample size(Pre-test)
Sample size(Pre-test)
Child BMI; obesity Record extraction: measured height and weight
1 To reduce the risk of type II error, dose effects were only assessed for one key indicator for each construct.
Summary of Results
• Successful parent and community engagement
• Broad exposure to CHL
• Improvements in child and parent outcomes
• Dose effects were observed
Limitations•Absence of a control group•Small sample size
What now? Scaling up a CBPR-based program
•Focus on best processes rather than best practices
Component Practice Process
Health communication campaign
Posters illustrating myths endorsed by parents and research dispelling such myths
Parent awareness and understanding of their child’s weight status
Family nutrition counseling
Nutrition graduate student is available during “pick up” to answer parents’ questions
Nutrition knowledge; parent social networking; knowledge of relevant community resources
Implementation science as a framework for future research
Challenges us to:•Utilize methods to efficiently move research to practice•Focus on ecological validity (applicability, utility, feasibility, implementation effectiveness)•Collect measures relevant to stakeholders and key decision makers•Ensure representative samples