Background
Methods: formative study
Study design and participants
Data collection
Data analysis
Results: formative study
Perceived need for the program: work-life balance issues exist for employees and there is interest in a workplace parenting program
Existing or past program strategies used by employers
Barriers to program implementation and ways to address them
Suggested program logistics and strategies
Suggested program evaluation
Suggestions for marketing the program
Key learnings from the formative assessment & implications for program adaptation
Employees are currently struggling with work-life balance issues and a worksite parenting program is worth piloting in a workplace setting. | |
Deliver program in a lunch-and-learn format; however, shorten sessions to 30 min in length. | |
Create positive messaging to market the program to employees. | |
Create structured and focused sessions that are clearly communicated to employees. | |
Expand the evaluation protocol to include measures of work-life balance and employee engagement. |
Methods: feasibility trial of parents working together (PWT)
Study design and participants
N (%) | |
---|---|
Relation to child | |
Mother | 4 (44.4 %) |
Father | 5 (55.6 %) |
Marital status | |
Married | 6 (66.7 %) |
Single, never married | 2 (22.2 %) |
Divorced | 1 (11.1 %) |
Race/Ethnicity | |
White | 5 (55.6 %) |
Black | 1 (11.1 %) |
Chinese | 1 (11.1 %) |
Latin American | 1 (11.1 %) |
Southeast Asian | 1 (11.1 %) |
Total household income | |
$20,000- $59,999 | 4 (44.4 %) |
$60,000-$99,999 | 3 (33.3 %) |
$100,000 or more | 2 (22.2 %) |
Education obtained | |
Some high school | 1 (11.1 %) |
Graduated high school | 5 (55.6 %) |
Some college or technical school | 1 (11.1 %) |
College graduate | 1 (11.1 %) |
University graduate | 1 (11.1 %) |
Job category | |
Laborer | 6 (66.7 %) |
Supervisory role | 3 (33.3 %) |
Born in Canada | |
No | 6 (66.7 %) |
Yes | 3 (33.3 %) |
PWT intervention
Session | General parenting topic addressed | Weight-related topic addressed |
---|---|---|
1 | Child–centered time | Being physically active with your child |
2 | Importance of family routines | Sleep: Creating a bedtime routine |
3 | Using praise and rewards | Reducing intake of sugar sweetened beverages |
4 | Setting limits | TV: Setting limits on TV |
5 | Threats and consequences & Using ignore and distract strategies | When not to use threats: Identifying your child’s hunger and satiety cues & Alternatives to food as reward |
6 | Problem solving with adults | Problem solving with partners and other caregivers about child’s health behaviours |
7 | Stress management/Work-life balance | Using physical activity to help manage stress |
Data collection
Data analysis
Results: Feasibility Trial of Parents Working Together (PWT)
Process results
Confidence in: | |||
---|---|---|---|
About the same as before N (%) | A little more confident N (%) | Much more confident N (%) | |
Managing your child’s behavior at home | 2 (22.2) | 6 (66.7) | 1 (11.1) |
Knowing when your child is full | 5 (55.6) | 1 (11.1) | 3 (33.3) |
Limiting your child’s sugary beverage intake | 3 (33.3) | 4 (44.4) | 2 (22.2) |
Helping your child engage in physical activity | 5 (55.6) | 3 (33.3) | 1 (11.1) |
Limiting your child’s screen time | 4 (44.4) | 2 (22.2) | 3 (33.3) |
Following a bedtime routine with your child | 5 (55.6) | 1 (11.1) | 3 (33.3) |
Preliminary impact results
Outcome | Baseline mean (SD) | Post intervention mean (SD) | Change (95 % CI) | p-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Parent outcomes | ||||
Parenting self-efficacy Range of possible scores: 22–88 | 73.1 (5.4) | 77.7 (7.0) | 4.6 (-1.5,10.7) | 0.12 |
General parenting strategies | ||||
Range of possible scores: 1–5 | ||||
Warmth | 3.7 (0.5) | 3.9 (0.4) | 0.2 (-0.1,0.5) | 0.19 |
Follow through with discipline | 2.4 (0.7) | 2.3 (0.8) | -0.1 (-0.5,0.4) | 0.73 |
General stress | 0.3 (0.5) | 0.0 (0.0) | -0.3 (-0.6,0.1) | 0.17 |
Range of possible scores: 0–3 | ||||
Self-reported Stress | 7.1 (2.7) | 5.7 (3.2) | -1.4 (-4.2,1.4) | 0.28 |
Range of possible scores: 1–10 | ||||
Feeding behaviours | ||||
Range of possible scores: 1–4 | ||||
Food as reward | 2.3 (0.5) | 2.4 (0.5) | 0.1 (-0.2,0.4) | 0.35 |
Food restriction | 2.7 (0.6) | 3.0 (0.5) | 0.3 (0.7,0.5) | 0.02 |
Pressure to eat | 2.6 (0.5) | 2.4 (0.7) | -0.2 (-0.7,0.3) | 0.37 |
Work-family conflict | ||||
Range of possible scores: 1–5 | ||||
Work interferes with family | 2.4 (0.5) | 2.3 (1.3) | -0.1 (-1.3,1.1) | 0.86 |
Family interferes with work | 2.4 (0.3) | 1.8 (1.2) | -0.6 (-1.6,0.3) | 0.16 |
Sugar sweetened beverage intake (servings/day) | 1.0 (1.1) | 0.7 (0.4) | -0.3 (-1.4,0.6) | 0.41 |
TV duration (hours/day) | 2.3 (1.0) | 2.1 (0.8) | -0.1 (-0.8,0.5) | 0.67 |
Sleep duration (hours/day) | 7.5 (0.7) | 7.4 (1.2) | -0.1 (-0.8,0.7) | 0.84 |
Child outcomes | ||||
Sugar sweetened beverage intake (servings/day) | 1.3 (1.4) | 1.0 (0.9) | -0.3 (-1.6,1.0) | 0.60 |
TV duration (hours/day) | 2.3 (0.8) | 2.2 (0.7) | -0.1 (-0.3,0.2) | 0.43 |
Sleep duration (hours/day) | 10.8 (0.5) | 11.0 (0.6) | 0.2 (-0.1,0.5) | 0.15 |
Active play (minutes/day) | 84.1 (33.0) | 89.8 (27.4) | 5.7 (-18.2, 29.5) | 0.60 |
Outdoor play (minutes/day) | 83.6 (39.7) | 92.5 (35.1) | 8.9 (-27.0, 44.8) | 0.55 |