Background
Methods
Results
Analytic sample and sample characteristics
Reference and CTRD number | Participants | Intervention | Primary outcome | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Child’s race or ethnicity | Child’s body weight status | Child’s age in years (sex)a | Parental participation | Setting | Focus | Length | ||
Hasson et al. [14] | Black | Obese | 15.4 ± 1.1 | Yes | Laboratory | Nutrition, physical activity | 16 weeks | Adiposity, inflammation, insulin sensitivity |
NCT01441323 | ||||||||
Davis et al. [15] | Hispanic | Overweight or obese | 14–18 | Yes | Laboratory | Nutrition, physical activity | 16 weeks | Adiposity, insulin sensitivity |
Ventura et al. [16] | ||||||||
NCT00697580 | ||||||||
Azevedo et al. [17] | Hispanic | All weights | 7–11 | Yes | Not reported for dance; at home for TV time | Nutrition, physical activity | 2 years | BMI |
NCT00476775 | ||||||||
Black (63 %), white (32 %), other (5 %) | Overweight or obese | 7–10 | Overweight or obese | School | Nutrition, physical activity | 12 months | Child’s BMI percentile, parent BMI | |
NCT01378806 | ||||||||
Elizondo-Montemayor et al. [21] c | Hispanic | Overweight or obese | 6–12 | Yes | School | Nutrition | 1 school year | BMI percentile, dietary intake and eating habits |
NCT01925976 | ||||||||
Black | All weights | 5–7th grade | No | School | Nutrition, physical activity | Feasibility of intervention | ||
NCT00061165 | ||||||||
Black | All weights | 11–16 | Yes | Home and community | Nutrition, physical activity | 11 months | BMI | |
Hurley et al. [26] | ||||||||
Witherspoon et al. [27] | ||||||||
NCT00746083 | ||||||||
Weigensberg et al. [28] | Hispanic | Obese | 14–17 | No | Not clear | Nutrition, physical activity, interactive guided imagery | 12 weeks | Insulin sensitivity |
NCT01895595 | ||||||||
Black (73 %), other | All weights | 6th grade | No | School | Physical activity | 17 weeks | Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | |
NCT01028144 | ||||||||
Naar-King et al. [32] | Black | Obese | 12–17 | Yes | Home | Nutrition, physical activity | 6 months | BMI, overweight (%), percentage body fat |
NCT00604981 | ||||||||
Ritchie et al. [33] | Black | Overweight | 9–10 | Yes | YMCA | Nutrition, physical activity | 4–9 seasons | Insulin sensitivity |
Sharma et al. [34]d | ||||||||
NCT01039116 | ||||||||
Eisenmann et al. [35]d | Hispanic or black | All weights | 3rd–5th grade | Yes | School and community | Nutrition, physical activity | 2 years | Physical activity, healthy eating index |
NCT01385046 | ||||||||
Barkin et al. [36] | Hispanic | All weights | 2–6 | Yes | Community recreation center | Nutrition, physical activity | 12 weeks | BMI |
NCT00808431 | ||||||||
Burnet et al. [37]e | Black | Overweight or obese | 9-12, with family history of type 2 diabetes mellitus | Yes | Community | Nutrition, physical activity | 1 year | Child’s BMI z score, parent’s BMI, glucose tolerance |
NCT00723853 | ||||||||
White (58 %), black (39 %), Hispanic (3 %) | Overweight or obese | 7–11 | No | Laboratory | Nutrition, physical activity | 10–15 weeks | Risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus, VO2 max, percentage body fat, visceral fat | |
Tkacz et al. [41] | ||||||||
Petty et al. [42] | ||||||||
NCT00108901 | ||||||||
Madsen et al. [43] b | Hispanic (42 %), Asian (32 %), black (12 %), white (0.6 %), other (13.4 %) | All weights | 4th or 5th grade | No | School | Physical activity | 24 weeks | Change in minutes of after-school moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, VO2 max, BMI |
NCT01156103 | ||||||||
Wickham et al. [44] | Black (70.3 %), white (26.1 %), Hispanic (1.8 %) | Obese | 11–18 | Yes | Weight management clinic | Nutrition, physical activity | 2 years (results at 6 months reported) | BMI, metabolic indicators, fitness |
NCT00167830 | ||||||||
Bean et al. [45] e | Black (75.3 %), white (22.0 %), other (2.7 %) | Obese | 11–18 | Yes | Weight management clinic | Nutrition, physical activity | 2 years (results at 6 months reported) | Dietary changes |
NCT00167830 | ||||||||
White (78.2 %), black (21.0 %), Hispanic (0.8 %) | All weights | 12–16.75 with type 1 diabetes mellitus | Yes | Treatment center | Parent–adolescent conflict | 12 months (results at 3 months reported) | Family relationships, psychological adjustment to diabetes treatment, treatment adherence, diabetic control | |
NCT00358059 | ||||||||
White (63.5 %), black (30.8 %), Hispanic (2.9 %), other (2.9 %) | All weights | 11–16, with type 1 diabetes mellitus | Yes | Pediatric center | Parent–adolescent conflict | 6 months | Family relationships, treatment adherence, HbA1c, health care use | |
NCT00358059 | ||||||||
Black (63 %), white (26 %), other (11 %) | All weights | 10–17, with type 1 diabetes mellitus | Yes | Home, community | Home-based psychotherapy | Approximately 6 months | Adherence to medical regimen, metabolic control, hospital use | |
NCT00519935 | ||||||||
Story et al. [2] | Black | Phase I: BMI ≥25th or ≥50th percentile; | 8–10 (girls) | Overweight or obese | Community center, school, home | Nutrition, physical activity | Phase I: 12 weeks; | Phase I: process measures; |
Rochon et al. [53] | Phase II: BMI ≥25th percentile but ≤35 kg/m2 | Phase II: 2 years | Phase II: change in child’s BMI | |||||
Stockton et al. [60] | ||||||||
NCT00000615 | ||||||||
Natale et al. [61] b | Hispanic (60 %), Haitian (15 %), black (12 %), white (2 %), other (11 %) | All weights | 2–5 | Yes | Childcare center | Nutrition, physical activity | 2 years | Child’s BMI |
NCT01722032 | ||||||||
Nansel et al. [62] | White (75 %), Hispanic (10 %), black (9 %), other (6 %) | All weights | 9–14.9, with type 1 diabetes mellitus | Yes | Pediatric endocrinology clinic | Diabetes management behavior | 2 years | HbA1c |
NCT00273286 | ||||||||
Janicke et al. [63] | White (76.1 %), black (9.8 %), Hispanic (8.5 %), biracial (4.2 %) | Overweight or obese | 8–14 | Yes | County extension office | Nutrition, physical activity | 16 weeks | Change in child’s BMI |
Follansbee-Junger et al. [64] | ||||||||
Radcliff et al. [65] | ||||||||
NCT00248677 |
Recruitment rates and strategies
Reference | Sample size | Reach (% capture) | Formative research | Recruitment duration | Recruitment setting | Recruitment strategies | Recruitment barriers |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hasson et al. [14] | 58 families | 11.6 | Yes | – | – | – | – |
Davis et al. [15] | 68 families | 17.0 | Yes | – | – | – | – |
Ventura et al. [16] | |||||||
Azevedo et al. [17] | 252 families | – | – | – | Community | – | – |
358 parent–child dyads | 27.5 | Yes | 2 years 9 months | School | 1) Meeting with school staff | – | |
2) Printed study information | |||||||
3) Presentation to children and parents | |||||||
4) Printed study contact information | |||||||
5) Friendly manner | |||||||
Elizondo-Montemayor et al. [21] | 125 caregiver–child dyads | 9.6 | – | – | School | – | – |
249 children | 37.1 | Yes | – | School | – | – | |
235 children | – | – | 1 year 10 months | School | – | – | |
Hurley et al. [26] | |||||||
Witherspoon et al. [27] | |||||||
Weigensberg et al. [28] | 35 adolescents | 62.5 | Yes | – | Pediatric clinics, health fairs | – | School vacation |
1422 children | 91.0 | Yes | – | School and home | 1) Presentation to parents and students | – | |
2) Home visit | |||||||
Naar-King et al. [32] | 49 families | 69.0 | Yes | – | An urban adolescent medicine clinic | – | 1) Time constraint; |
2) Lack of interest | |||||||
Ritchie et al. [33] | 235 families | – | Yes | 3 years | School, community | 1) Announcements | 1) Transportation; |
Sharma et al. [34] | 2) Incentives | 2) Competing demands; | |||||
3) Distrust; | |||||||
Eisenmann et al. [35] | 434 families | 57.0 | – | – | School | – | – |
Barkin et al. [36] | 106 parent–child dyads | 22.2 | – | 4–5 months | Cooperating community agencies such as social service agencies, pediatric clinics, community centers | 1) Printed study information | 1) Transportation; |
2) Radio | 2) On-site childcare | ||||||
3) Participant referral | |||||||
Burnet et al. [37] | 29 families | – | Yes | – | Community, pediatric clinics | Printed study information | – |
222 children | 26.4 % | – | 2 years 8 months | School | Printed study information | – | |
Tkacz et al. [41] | |||||||
Petty et al. [42] | |||||||
Madsen et al. [43] | 156 children, six schools | 11.7 % , 50 %, 89.7 % | Yes | – | School | Presentation to school staff | Change in school administration |
Wickham et al. [44] | 165 adolescents | – | – | 2 years 4 months | Comprehensive weight management program | Healthcare provider referral | – |
Bean et al. [45] | 186 adolescents | – | Yes | 2 years 11 months | Health care, school, community | Healthcare provider referral | – |
119 families | 31.3 % | Yes | – | – | – | 1) Transportation; | |
2) Time constraint | |||||||
104 families | 23.9 % | Yes | – | Pediatric diabetes centers | 1) Mailed invitation letter | Funding limitation | |
2) Phone call | |||||||
127 adolescents | 69.8 % | Yes | – | Endocrinology clinic | – | – | |
Story et al. [2] | Phase I: 35–61 girls; | Phase I : not reported; | Yes | Phase I: 2.5–4 monthsa; | Community churches, community centers, community events and school | 1) Active placebo study group | Phase I: |
Rochon et al. [53] | Phase II: 261–303 girls | Phase II: 48.1 %-65.4 % | Phase II: 17 months | 2) Media adverts, stories, interviews | 1) No-treatment control group; | ||
3) Flyers to homes | 2) Parents interested in both child health and self-esteem programs, while children interested in fun programs; | ||||||
4) Presentations to families at community and school | 3) Blood draw. | ||||||
5) Separate consent for blood draw, which was not required for participation | Phase II: | ||||||
Stockton et al. [60] | 1) School vacation | ||||||
2) Study staff issues | |||||||
3) Study site locations | |||||||
Natale et al. [61] | 1105 children | – | – | – | Child care center | – | – |
Nansel et al. [62] | 390 families | 69.1 % | – | Pediatric endocrinology clinics | – | – | |
Janicke et al. [63] | 93 parent–child dyads | 83.8 % | Yes | Community and school | 1) Printed study information | – | |
Follansbee-Junger et al. [64] | 2) Community presentations | ||||||
Radcliff et al. [65] | 3) Toll-free line |
Retention rates and strategies
Number of studies | Study enrollmenta | Study retentionb | Average retention rates | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Race or ethnicity | ||||
Hispanic | 5 | 586 | 511 | 82.8 |
African American | 10 | 1331 | 1059 | 83.5 |
African American, white and other | 8 | 1927 | 1763 | 92.1 |
Intervention target | ||||
Children | 3 | 413 | 388 | 91.1 |
Children and parent | 20 | 3431 | 2945 | 85.6 |
Body weight status | ||||
Overweight or obese | 9 | 1581 | 1314 | 79.6 |
All weights | 10 | 1523 | 1334 | 90.0 |
Body weight status not measured | 4 | 740 | 685 | 92.6 |
Study type | ||||
Prevention | 10 | 1523 | 1334 | 90.0 |
Treatment | 13 | 2321 | 1999 | 83.6 |
Intervention length | ||||
<1 year | 16 | 1658 | 1461 | 88.6 |
≥1 year | 7 | 2186 | 1872 | 81.1 |
Study type and treatment length | ||||
Prevention <1 year | 7 | 707 | 614 | 90.4 |
Prevention ≥1 year | 3 | 816 | 720 | 88.8 |
Treatment <1 year | 9 | 951 | 847 | 87.2 |
Treatment ≥1 year | 4 | 1073 | 873 | 74.0 |
Primary outcome | ||||
BMI or anthropometrics | 10 | 2342 | 2026 | 82.9 |
Other (behavior, physiology, etc.) | 13 | 1502 | 1307 | 89.0 |
Intervention settingc | ||||
School | 5 | 1273 | 1151 | 91.7 |
Home or community | 15 | 2410 | 2051 | 85.5 |
Laboratory | 2 | 126 | 102 | 81.1 |
Main intervention group | ||||
Nutrition or physical activity | 4 | 755 | 712 | 92.8 |
Nutrition and physical activity | 19 | 3089 | 2621 | 85.0 |
Study design | ||||
Randomized controlled trial | 19 | 2739 | 2440 | 89.3 |
Cluster randomized controlled trial | 2 | 745 | 656 | 75.6 |
Controlled trial | 1 | 235 | 136 | 57.9 |
Trial without control | 1 | 125 | 101 | 80.8 |
Mean age of childrend | ||||
<12 years | 15 | 2708 | 2333 | 86.2 |
≥12 years | 8 | 1136 | 1000 | 86.7 |
Number of intervention sessionse | ||||
≤12 | 7 | 752 | 636 | 86.3 |
≥13 | 15 | 2840 | 2445 | 85.5 |
Sample size | ||||
<100 | 9 | 493 | 435 | 86.9 |
≥100 | 14 | 3351 | 2898 | 86.0 |
Reference | Retention strategy | Retention rate | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intervention design | Incentive | Project bond | Participant convenience | Participant tracking | ||
Davis et al. [15] | Run-in phase | Weekly grocery gift cards | – | Transportation support | – | 79.4 % (54/68) |
Ventura et al. [16] | ||||||
Azevedo et al. [17] | – | Rewards for retention | – | – | – | 100 % (252/252) |
1) Delayed intervention for control group 2) Counseling or support | 1) Exercise equipment 2) Money for data collection 3) Food 4) Gifts | 1) Regular contact 2) Refrigerator magnet 3) Building staff–participant relationship | 1) Reminder message 2) Flexible data collection days 3) Childcare 4) Transportation support | 1) Complete contact information 2) Toll-free line 3) Tracking letter | 89.1 % (638/716) | |
Elizondo-Montemayor et al. [21] | – | – | Building staff–participant relationship | Reminder message | – | 80.8 % (101/125) |
Culturally sensitive | – | – | – | – | 78.3 % (184/235) | |
Hurley et al. [26] | ||||||
Witherspoon et al. [27] | ||||||
Weigensberg et al. [28] | – | – | Transportation support Make-up session | – | 82.9 % (29/35) | |
Ritchie et al. [33] | 1) Alternative intervention for control group 2) Counseling or support 3) Culturally sensitive | 1) Exercise equipment 2) Recipe books | 1) Building staff–participant relationship 2) Regular contact | Transportation support | – | 57.9 % (136/235) |
Sharma et al. [34] | ||||||
Burnet et al. [37] | 1) Culturally sensitive 2) Activities at YMCA and grocery stores | – | Building staff–participant relationship | 1) Convenient intervention sites 2) Transportation support 3) Child care | – | 62.1 % (18/29) |
– | 1) Weekly prizes 2) Increasing money for data collections 3) Food at intervention session | Regular contact | Transportation support | – | 94.1 % (209/222) | |
Tkacz et al. [41] | ||||||
Petty et al. [42] | ||||||
Wickham et al. [44] | – | YMCA membership | – | – | – | – |
Bean et al. [45] | – | 1) YMCA membership 2) Grocery store gift card for data collection | – | – | – | – |
Alternative intervention for control group | 1) Money for each data collection 2) Money for completing all intervention sessions | – | – | – | 96.6 % (115/119) | |
Alternative intervention for control group | 1) Money for each data collection 2) Money for completion of all intervention sessions | – | – | – | 88.5 % (92/104) | |
Alternative intervention for control group | – | – | Convenient intervention sites | – | 92.9 % (118/127) | |
Story et al. [2] | 1) Alternative intervention for control group 2) Fun intervention activities 3) Culturally sensitive | 1) Gift for intervention attendance 2) Money 3) Increasing money for data collections 4) Additional money for blood draw 5) Food | 1) Family nights 2) Regular contact 3) Build relationship between study and broader community | 1) Convenient intervention sites 2) Flexible study procedures and measurement visits 3) Home visits for data collection 4) Transportation support 5) Childcare 6) Email and telephone reminders | 1) Complete contact information 2) Tracking database 3) Calls from ‘non-identifiable’ cell phones | Phase I: |
Rochon et al. [53] | ᅟ | |||||
91.4 % (32/35) and 100 % (60/60) | ||||||
Phase II: | ||||||
80.2 % (243/303) and 86.2 % (225/261) | ||||||
Stockton et al. [60] | ||||||
Natale et al. [61] | Alternative intervention for control group | Incentives (not specified) | Regular contact | – | – | – |
Nansel et al. [62] | Alternative intervention for control group | 1) Money for completing all data collections 2) Additional money for child providing blood glucose meter data | 1) Appointment reminder calls 2) Follow-up calls after appointment | 1) Transportation support 2) Midpoint evaluations by telephone | – | 92.3 % (360/390) |
Janicke et al. [63] | 1) Delayed intervention for control group 2) Proper participant goals 3) Person-centered intervention | 1) Drawing for gift card at weekly child session 2) Gift card per family for each session 3) Money for data collections 4) Food | 1) Build community connections 2) Regular contact 3) Phone calls to participants after missed sessions | Make-up sessions | – | 87.1 % (81/93) |
Follansbee-Junger et al. [64] | ||||||
Radcliff et al. [65] |