3.9 Article

Family dietary coaching to improve nutritional intakes and body weight control

期刊

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2007.2

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To test the hypothesis that family dietary coaching would improve nutritional intakes and weight control in free-living (noninstitutionalized) children and parents. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Fifty-four elementary schools in Paris, France. Participants: One thousand thirteen children ( mean age, 7.7 years) and 1013 parents (mean age, 40.5 years). Intervention: Families were randomly assigned to group A (advised to reduce fat and to increase complex carbohydrate intake), group B ( advised to reduce both fat and sugar and to increase complex carbohydrate intake), or a control group (given no advice). Groups A and B received monthly phone counseling and Internet-based monitoring for 8 months. Outcome Measures: Changes in nutritional intake, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), fat mass, physical activity, blood indicators, and quality of life. Results: Compared with controls, participants in the intervention groups achieved their nutritional targets for fat intake and to a smaller extent for sugar and complex carbohydrate intake, leading to a decrease in energy intake ( children, P <. 001; parents, P=. 02). Mean changes in body mass index were similar among children ( group A, + 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.06 to 0.16; group B, + 0.10, 95% CI, - 0.03 to 0.23; control group, + 0.13, 95% CI, 0.04- 0.22; P=. 45), but differed in parents ( group A, + 0.13, 95% CI, - 0.01 to 0.27; group B, - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.14 to 0.11; control group, + 0.24, 95% CI, 0.13- 0.34; P=. 001), with a significant difference between group B and the control group (P=. 01). Conclusions: Family dietary coaching improves nutritional intake in free- living children and parents, with beneficial effects on weight control in parents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据