Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Assessment 1c MEND Evaluation (Sacher et al 2012- Randomized Controlled…
Assessment 1c MEND Evaluation
Fagg et al. 2014- From trial to population: a study of a family-based community intervention for childhood overweight implemented at scale
Adoption and implementation of these interventions at scale might be associated with loss of effectiveness
obesogenic environments may moderate the effects of interventions
Also measured if family and neighbourhood affected biological and psychosocial outcomes.
Results
Might widen existing ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities in childhood overweight and psychosocial outcomes. Need to make it more specific to different groups
effective in reducing BMI of obese children at 6 months from baseline
implemented at scale and under service conditions, was associated with improvements in BMI and in psychosocial outcomes.
Of 21,132 families, 8,127 were involved in the research
compare changes in BMI under service conditions with those observed under research conditions
Measurements
Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale used with children
All measurements were done correctly and by professionals
Body esteem was assessed using Mendelson’s Body Esteem Scale
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire for parents emotional distress
Upton et al. 2012- The effectiveness of local child weight management programmes: an audit study
Baseline and 6 months after finishing programmes.
Largest programme, biggest coverage and most resources.
Compared 7 different child weight management family-based intervention programmes in the West Midlands
Largest decreases in waist circumference, BMI S.D., BMI and weight loss.
Limited evidence of the long-term effectiveness of these models.
Random Subsample of children who attended the programmes
Kolotourou et al. 2015- Long-Term Outcomes following the MEND 7–13 Child Weight Management Program
Means at Baseline.
53% of participants were male, 47% female
90% were obese.
Age= 10.3 years (±1.8),
37% of children were white, 63% of ethnic background
36% belonged to single-parent families, 64% both parents
31% of parents were unemployed, 69% had jobs
52% owned their home, 48% of families did not
Study Design
An uncontrolled pre-follow-up (2.4 years) design
Follow ups were in public venues, family homes
This wasn't part of the standard MEND 7–13 service
Psychometric measures was sent to all participants in advance. Height, weight, and waist circumference were measured by the research team during measurement sessions and home visits.
Results
Boys
Psychological improvments
Improved BMI, Waist Circumference and Weight maintanence
Girls
No physical improvements
Could be down to puberty
Improved self-esteem
Random subsample of 165 children who attended MEND in London. Community settings under MEND conditions(not for research)
Baseline to 2.4 years after finishing programme.
Measurements
Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale used with children
All measurements were done correctly and by professionals
Body esteem was assessed using Mendelson’s Body Esteem Scale
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire for parents emotional distress
Sacher et al 2012- Randomized Controlled Trial of the MEND Program: A Family‐based Community Intervention for Childhood Obesity
Participants were given a free 12-week family pass, 32% of families used this on average five times.
Results
6 months
Control group didn't change.
waist circumference and BMI were significantly less in the intervention than the control group (−4.1 cm and −1.2 kg/m2),
12 months
reductions in waist circumference and BMI. Less adipose, increased cardiovascular health and psychological well‐being.
More physically active, reduced sedentary activities and were fitter. Indicated by the reduction in recovery heart rate following the 3‐min step test, lower BP.
Matches or exceeds results from other treatment trials, 4 times the average
Mean attendance for the program was 86%.
116 children
60 children in intervention, 54 started and completed MEND. 37 of the 60 were seen at 6 months and 50 were seen at either 6 or 12 months.
56 control group.
Conducted between Jan 2005 and Jan 2007. 5 different areas.
Strengths
acceptability to families
multicentre delivery
consistent session delivery
use of multiple health markers
Limitations
short follow-up time limits conclusions about the long‐term effects of the intervention.
Results suggest MEND is a promising intervention to obesity problem in children. Further research needed to measure the effectiveness on a larger scale using methods.
Additional info
MEND was free for families and had funding from many places including National Lottery.
Baseline measurements were part of the MEND standardised control background during the participants first session
Intervention content and training was provided following standardized procedures.
MEND is delivered by a wide range of health, physical activity and social care professionals, community practitioners who had no previous expertise in the management of pediatric obesity and had never delivered a MEND Program were given training.
Between 2007 and 2010, the MEND 7–13 intervention was implemented on a large scale, with MEND programmes (hereafter ‘programmes’) rolled out across all regions of England. The intervention was delivered by local community-based‘ delivery partner’ organisations
RE-AIM
Adoption – The total number settings and intervention agents (people who deliver the program) who are willing to use the program. E.G. How do I develop organizational support to deliver my intervention?
Implementation –Do the people who adopted the intervention, deliver it in a reliable way, using the intervention’s protocol, including consistency of delivery as intended and the time and cost of the intervention. At the individual level, implementation refers to clients’ use of the intervention strategies. E.G. How do I ensure the intervention is delivered properly?
Effectiveness– The impact of the intervention on vital outcomes, including potential negative effects, quality of life, and economic outcomes. E.G. How do I know my intervention is effective?
Maintenance –The long-term effects of a program on outcomes after 6 or more months after the most recent intervention contact. E.G. How do I incorporate the intervention so that it is delivered over the long term?
Reach – The total number of individuals who were initially willing to participate in the intervention. E.G. How do I reach the targeted population with the intervention?