4.7 Article

Diet outcomes of a pilot school-based randomised controlled obesity prevention study with 9-10 year olds in England

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 51, Issue 1, Pages 56-62

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.04.011

Keywords

child; Health promotion; Diet; Obesity

Funding

  1. Department of Health via the South West Public Health Group
  2. South Gloucestershire Council
  3. UK Medical Research Council
  4. ESRC [ES/G007543/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. MRC [G0600705] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/G007543/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [G0600705] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To assess the effect of a US obesity prevnetion intervention on dietary outcomes in English 9-10 year old children in 2006. Methods: A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial in 19 schools with children aged 9 to 10 with lessons taught by teachers. Diet was assessed at baseline and 5 months later using questionnaires. Full intention-to-treat analysis (n = 506) and analyses using only those with complete baseline and follow-up data (n = 393). Results. 85% of children ate 5 or more portions of fruit and vegetables per day. The odds of eating healthy amounts of fruit and vegetables (OR 1.39 (95CI: 0.69, 2.80)) and snacks (OR 1.22 (95CI: 0.68, 2.21)) were greater in children from the intervention compared to control schools. Points estimated were less than one for consumption of no portions of high fat food and one or zero high energy drinks. A full-scale trial would require 2640 children (106 schools) with 80% power to detect an odds ratio of at least 1.30 for healthy levels of consumption for the four dietary outcomes, with an alpha level of 0.01. Conclusions. The US intervention can be transferred to England and it might be effective in increasing fruit and vegetable consumption and decreasing snacks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available