C.H.A.M.P. was a community- and family-based lifestyle (feasibility) intervention that targeted children with obesity and their caregivers. Nutritional, Metabolic, Endocrine
Conditions
Interventions
C.H.A.M.P. was a feasibility study and we were interested in assessing various dimensions of the program (including its reach, efficacy/effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance). Ther
rather, children served as their own controls in that pre- and post-intervention assessments (as well as 3, 6, and 12 month follow-up assessments) were conducted to evaluate many of the variables of i
Sponsors
The University of Western Ontario
The Lawson Foundation
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Children were eligible to participate in the study if they: 1. Were male or female and between the ages of 8 and 14 years 2. Had a body mass index (BMI) > 95th percentile for age and gender 3. Had written clearance to engage in physical activity prior to beginning the program (eligible children underwent a general medical assessment conducted by a paediatrician at the Children's Hospital of Western Ontario) Caregivers were eligible to participate in the study if they had a child who met the above criteria.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Children were excluded from the study if they: 1. Were not between the ages of 8 and 14 2. Had a body mass index (BMI) that was not > 95th percentile for their age and gender 3. Possessed any contraindications for physical activity Caregivers were not eligible to participate in the study if their child was excluded for any of the above mentioned reasons.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| To answer our primary research question—that is, whether C.H.A.M.P. represented a feasible treatment option for children with obesity and their caregivers—data were collected in relation to the RE-AIM Framework, an evaluation tool for community-based health interventions. The following represents an overview of the RE-AIM dimensions, the methods used to measure each outcome in our study, and the time points at which each outcome was measured. 1.REACH: Participant demographics were compared to census demographics in London, Canada, to assess representativeness, and records of inquiries about the program were used to analyze the participation rate as well as the most effective recruitment methods. 2. EFFECTIVENESS AND INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL MAINTENANCE: Effectiveness data were reported as part of RE-AIM and within the context of the feasibility study given that C.H.A.M.P. was offered in a ‘real world’ setting. In addition, whereas the short-term impact of the intervention (i.e., pre-post data) represented the effectiveness dimension of RE-AIM in the current project, the longer-term data (i.e., 3, 6, and/or 12 month) represented the individual-level maintenance element of RE-AIM in our study. Individual-level maintenance was also assessed using participant attrition. Measurements on specific outcomes (representing the secondary objectives, outlined below) were collected at baseline, post-intervention (i.e., approximately one week following the 4-week intervention), 3-month (in some cases), 6-month, and 12-month follow-up assessments. The impact of the intervention on these outcomes were assessed via a series of repeated measures ANOVAs to examine changes across time and post-hoc analyses were conducted to determine whether there were statistical differences in the variables of interest (physical activity behaviour, physiological outcomes, and psychological outcomes). Effect size values (?2) were also calculated 3. ADOPT | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Numerous variables of interest were considered to be secondary outcomes in the C.H.A.M.P. project. The following provides an overview of these outcomes, along with information about the method used to measure the outcome and the time points at which they were measured: 1. PHYSICAL ACTIVITY (CHILDREN): 1.1. As outlined in Burke, Vanderloo, Gaston, Pearson, and Tucker (in press), self-reported physical activity was assessed at five time points (i.e., baseline, 1-week post-intervention, 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-intervention) using the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children (PAQ-C). The PAQ-C is a commonly used 7-day recall tool. The PAQ-C is comprised of nine items which assess the frequency and intensity of spare time exercise, school-based exercise, and participation in sports after school, in the evenings, and on weekends, as well as perceived general activity level. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (i.e., 1 = no activity and 5 = the highest level of activity), whereby higher values are reflective of greater levels of physical activity. Because the PAQ-C is intended to be used during the school year and the present study included two assessments that took place during summer months (i.e., baseline and 12-months post-intervention), only the four items which referred to home-based physical activity were used in subsequent analyses. 1.2. Objective physical activity was assessed using the Actical® (MiniMitter, Oregon), which is a small durable (approximately 2.8 x 2.7 x 1.0cm3), lightweight (17g), and water resistant omnidirectional accelerometer easily worn on the child’s hip. The Actical® sensors were programmed with the participant’s personal information (e.g., age, weight, and height) to provide an estimate of activity-related energy expenditure. Children were asked to wear the accelerometer during waking hours for one week (7-day) periods at weeks 1 and 4 of the 4-week program, | — |
Countries
Canada
Outcome results
None listed