What is the tertiary prevention program for obesity
Bookshelf
Multiple consensus committees have established guidelines for the prevention and management of obesity. These include the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and others. Common themes in these guidelines include healthy eating and controlling calories, physical activity, behavior modifications, and consideration of medications and surgery when initial efforts are unsuccessful in motivated patients. This guideline summarizes the most recent evidence on obesity management.
Treatment
Management of overweight patients focuses primarily on lifestyle changes such as diet, physical activity, sleep and stress reduction. A combination of physical activity and dietary changes has been found to be most effective for weight loss. If these measures are unsuccessful after 6 months, then medications, surgery, and other referrals may be required.
Small concrete changes that focus on lifestyle change, behavior modification, healthy eating and physical activity are most likely to be successful in the long run. Progress should be measured on lifestyle change as much as weight parameters, as it is known that modifying diet and activity can have positive health consequences even in the absence of weight loss.
Lifestyle counseling. Even within a limited time visit, providers can promote a healthy lifestyle and influence patient behavior.
Lifestyle counseling includes self-management education and support, identifying lifestyle changes, and collaborative goal setting between the provider and patient. The provider works with the patient to identify the patients biggest concern regarding change. Examples of modifiable behaviors to target include physical activity and television viewing. Using open ended questions and listening skills, the provider helps the patient explore any issues and works collaboratively with the patient to establish a self-management goal.
Additional for children and adolescents. Management of obesity involves the entire family. Engagement of family members is important for adults, and parental involvement is critical for children. Lifestyle changes are greatly facilitated by supporting changes in the environment. Individual counseling and web-based weight-loss programs are much less successful in promoting lifestyle changes for children than group-based or family-based treatments. Recent studies have shown that many parents perceive that their overweight child is of normal weight. If the family does not perceive that the child is obese, or if they will not cooperate with lifestyle changes, then office-based interventions for pediatric obesity will not be successful.
Additional for adults. Lifestyle counseling is intended to help patients make informed decisions, identify and overcome barriers, provide health education and appropriate care recommendations, and provide self-management support. Important steps include:
Initiating a discussion about nutrition and physical activity.
Helping the patient set goals.
Encouraging open communication between the patient and health care provider.
Following up on the patients progress.
The healthcare team can be utilized to provide extended support.
Treatment goals. The adverse health outcomes associated with obesity depend on several factors, including the presence of other risks and comorbid conditions, such as cigarette smoking, family history, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, etc. Thus, clinicians should determine treatment goals keeping these in mind, rather than on the basis of weight alone.
General goals of weight management in obese persons are:
Weight loss goals should be individualized and aimed at the long term. Starting points for developing individual goals are summarized in .
Additional for children and adolescents. In growing children, slowing the rate of weight gain while they continue to get taller will result in a decreased BMI over time. For adolescents with BMI at the 99th percentile or higher, 0.5 to 1 pound per week weight loss goals may be reasonable. A simple approach for children and families is the 5-2-1-0 plan promoted by the Lets Move initiative (see ).
Additional for adults. A reduction in body weight by approximately 10 percent over a span of 6 months is a reasonable initial goal for weight loss therapy. This level of modest loss can be maintained over time. Depending on the BMI, this corresponds to an average energy deficit of approximately 500 1000 kcal per day, resulting in a weight loss rate of 1 to 2 pounds per week. The corresponding amounts of food intake in kcal per day for individuals of average height, weight, and activity level are 18002000 for men and 13001500 for women. Individualized targets for reduced calorie intake can be calculated by dietitians or estimated using free online weight loss calorie calculators. An individuals subsequent weight loss strategy will depend upon the initial amount of weight loss.
A greater weight loss (eg, 20% or more over 6 months) may be considered for persons with BMI 35 kg/m2 or those with a significant burden of obesity-related comorbid conditions.
Physical activity. Recommended basic activity goals are presented in along with categories of activity levels, their definitions, and examples.
Additional for children. Children should participate in physical activities that are age-appropriate, enjoyable, and that offer variety. Intensive family-based programs have been found to lead to sustained weight loss in children.
The average child spends 7.5 hours per day in front of a screen, including watching television, using the computer, or playing video games. The more time children spend in front of a screen, the higher their risk of obesity. Children and adolescents should limit their screen time to no more than one to two hours of quality programming daily.
Additional for adults. CDC recommends a gradual increase in physical activity toward a daily goal of 60 to 90 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity to sustain weight loss. To help maintain weight and prevent weight gain, adults should engage in approximately 60 minutes of moderate- to vigorous-intensity activity on most days of the week.
Older adults and those with chronic medical conditions limiting physical activity should be as physically active as their abilities allow. Those at risk of falling should also do exercises to improve balance.
Dietary intervention. General dietary recommendations to promote weight loss are summarized in . These recommendations apply to children and adults.
Additional for children. While the basic interventions are the same as for adults, the focus should be on changing the familys diet, not just the diet of the overweight child.
Additional for adults. Decrease total energy intake by 500 to 1,000 kcal per day to achieve a weight loss of 1 to 2 pounds per week.
Sleep. Short sleep duration is associated with an increased risk for excessive weight gain and obesity. Clinicians should counsel patients and families on appropriate sleep requirements. Recommendations for age-appropriate sleep durations and strategies for good sleep for children and adults are presented in .
Medications. Weight loss medications are not recommended for children or adolescents. For adult patients, medications typically result in only modest to moderate weight loss, but may help prevent further weight gain. Medications may be considered for adults with BMI 30 kg/m2 or with BMI 27 kg/m2 and significant medical complications, if diet and activity modifications do not result in weight loss of 5% at 3 months and 10% after 6 months.
Phentermine (short term only) and orlistat are FDA-approved for weight loss in conjunction with lifestyle intervention when lifestyle intervention alone is unsuccessful. The use of these two approved drugs is described in . Three additional weight loss medications were approved by the FDA in 2012: a combination of phentermine and topiramate (available as Qsymia), liraglutide (Saxenda), and naltrexone/bupropion ER (Contrave). All six drugs are contraindicated in pregnancy use with caution in women of childbearing age.
Metformin led to a 1.5-cm greater decrease in waist circumference; however, its use for obesity is not approved by the FDA and is thus considered an off-label use.
Medications that have been approved for other indications that are employed in off-label use for obesity and can promote short-term modest weight loss include: buproprion, zonisamide, and topiramate. However, the USPSTF found no evidence of benefit regarding maintenance of improvement in weight after discontinuation of these medications.
In general, over-the-counter (OTC) medications are not recommended for weight loss. The exception is the OTC version of orlistat, which is marked as Alli.
Multidisciplinary weight management programs. The most effective strategies for weight management employ a multidisciplinary team working in concert to achieve individualized weight loss goals. At Michigan Medicine information is available at: https://www.uofmhealth.org/conditions-treatments/adult-weight-management
Multidisciplinary teams typically include:
Physician: evaluates, assesses risk, counsels the patient, coordinates care of the team, and can refer to specialists as needed.
Dietitian: delivers tailored nutritional information appropriate to the patients preferences and lifestyle.
Exercise physiologist: assesses a patients capacity for exercise, and prescribes a regimen that can be done at home, at a gym, or in one-on-one sessions.
Behavioral therapist: offers standard behavioral or cognitive behavioral therapy.
Endocrinologist: evaluates for secondary causes of obesity, evaluates and treats complications of obesity such as diabetes, and prescribes pharmacotherapy when lifestyle interventions alone result in little success.
Bariatric surgery. When other approaches have not resulted in adequate weight control, bariatric surgery may be considered. While bariatric surgery results in significantly greater weight loss than conventional treatment for obese adults, surgery is associated with a greater risk of complications and requires lifelong intake of certain micronutrients and vitamins. Bariatric surgery has been found to reduce or resolve obesity-related medical comorbidities including diabetes (depending on duration of the disease) and hypertension.
Bariatric surgery may be considered for patients with a BMI 40 kg/m2, or BMI 35 kg/m2 with weight-related health complications (eg, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, polyarthritis, pulmonary hypertension, sleep apnea, or hyperlipidemia). Before bariatric surgery will be performed, most surgeons and insurers require documented compliance with a medically supervised weight loss program for a minimum of six months (including monthly documentation of weight, dietary, exercise, and lifestyle modifications at each visit) without achieving significant weight loss. The supervised weight loss program usually should have occurred within the past 2 years, although some insurance companies will include the past 4 years. Absolute contraindications to bariatric surgery include pregnancy, lactation, active substance abuse, end-stage cardiovascular disease, severe or uncontrolled psychiatric disorders, and anorexia nervosa. Relative contraindications include unstable medical conditions, end-stage renal disease, active binge eating disorder, or bulimia nervosa.
Managing comorbid conditions. Obese patients frequently have or develop comorbid conditions. The specifics of managing comorbid conditions are beyond the scope of this guideline. See the list of UMHS clinical guidelines for recommendations concerning some common comorbid conditions, including coronary artery disease, depression, diabetes, heart failure, hypertension, and lipid management.
Obesity can affect the diagnosis and treatment of the patients other conditions. The effects are noteworthy for:
Pharmacologic dosing. Based on their pharmacokinetic profile, drugs differ in their volume of distribution depending on the amount of body fat.
Radiologic studies and procedures. The amount of subcutaneous adipose tissue influences the quality of the results of various radiologic modalities. The results of ultrasonography and x-ray examinations are particularly vulnerable to the effects of subcutaneous fat.
Incorporating Primary and Secondary Prevention Approaches To Address Childhood Obesity Prevention and Treatment in a Low-Income, Ethnically Diverse Population: Study Design and Demographic Data from the Texas Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration (TX CORD) Study
Child Obes. 2015 Feb 1; 11(1): 7191.
Incorporating Primary and Secondary Prevention Approaches To Address Childhood Obesity Prevention and Treatment in a Low-Income, Ethnically Diverse Population: Study Design and Demographic Data from the Texas Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration (TX CORD) Study
, PhD, RD,
1, PhD, RD, MPH,
2, MD, MPH,
3, PhD,
1, PhD, RD,
8, PhD, MPH, CPH,
4, PhD,
5, MD, MPH,
6, PhD, RD,
7, PhD,
1, PhD, MPH,
1, PhD, MPH,
8, PhD, MPH,
1and , PhD, MPH
1Deanna M. Hoelscher
1Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Austin, TX.
Nancy F. Butte
2Department of Pediatrics, USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
Sarah Barlow
3Department of Pediatric Medicine, GI, Hepatology and Nutrition, Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
Elizabeth A. Vandewater
1Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Austin, TX.
Shreela V. Sharma
8Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX.
Terry Huang
4Department of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE.
Eric Finkelstein
5Program in Health Services Systems Research, Duke University Global Health Institute, Singapore.
Stephen Pont
6Texas Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Childhood Obesity, Dell Children's Medical Center, University of Texas SouthwesternAustin, Austin, TX.
Paul Sacher
7Childhood Nutrition Research Center, University College, London, United Kingdom.
Courtney Byrd-Williams
1Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Austin, TX.
Abiodun O. Oluyomi
1Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Austin, TX.
Casey Durand
8Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX.
Linlin Li
1Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Austin, TX.
Steven H. Kelder
1Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Austin, TX.
1Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Austin, TX.
2Department of Pediatrics, USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
3Department of Pediatric Medicine, GI, Hepatology and Nutrition, Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
4Department of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE.
5Program in Health Services Systems Research, Duke University Global Health Institute, Singapore.
6Texas Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Childhood Obesity, Dell Children's Medical Center, University of Texas SouthwesternAustin, Austin, TX.
7Childhood Nutrition Research Center, University College, London, United Kingdom.
8Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX.
Corresponding author.
Address correspondence to:,
Deanna M. Hoelscher, PhD, RD,
Director, Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living,
University of Texas School of Public Health,
Austin Regional Campus,
1616 Guadalupe, Suite 6.300,
Austin, TX 78701,
E-mail:Email: [email protected]Abstract
Background: There is consensus that development and evaluation of a systems-oriented approach for child obesity prevention and treatment that includes both primary and secondary prevention efforts is needed. This article describes the study design and baseline data from the Texas Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration (TX CORD) project, which addresses child obesity among low-income, ethnically diverse overweight and obese children, ages 212 years; a two-tiered systems-oriented approach is hypothesized to reduce BMI z-scores, compared to primary prevention alone.
Methods: Our study aims are to: (1) implement and evaluate a primary obesity prevention program; (2) implement and evaluate efficacy of a 12-month family-centered secondary obesity prevention program embedded within primary prevention; and (3) quantify the incremental cost-effectiveness of the secondary prevention program. Baseline demographic and behavioral data for the primary prevention community areas are presented.
Results: Baseline data from preschool centers, elementary schools, and clinics indicate that most demographic variables are similar between intervention and comparison communities. Most families are low income ($25,000) and Hispanic/Latino (73.383.8%). The majority of parents were born outside of the United States. Child obesity rates exceed national values, ranging from 19.0% in preschool to 35.2% in fifth-grade children. Most parents report that their children consume sugary beverages, have a television in the bedroom, and do not consume adequate amounts of fruits and vegetables.
Conclusions: Interventions to address childhood obesity are warranted in low-income, ethnically diverse communities. Integrating primary and secondary approaches is anticipated to provide sufficient exposure that will lead to significant decreases in childhood obesity.
Introduction
Because of its high prevalence, adverse metabolic effects, ethnic and socioeconomic (SES) disparities, and costs, addressing childhood obesity is a national public health imperative. Recent data from the United States estimate that 22.8% of children 25 years of age and 34.2% of children 611 years are overweight or obese,1 with prevalence rates highest among black and Latino children. Childhood obesity is associated with metabolic and endocrine disorders that lead to early development of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.2,3 Annually, obesity accounts for roughly 9% of all medical expenditures, and this cost may increase as today's obese youth enter adulthood.4
Recent systematic reviews indicate that behavior changes and weight loss among obese children are possible5,6; however, reported weight losses were modest and the maintenance of effects was rarely measured. Moreover, the generalizability and reproducibility of the findings are unclear because of small sample sizes, nonstandardized outcome measures, inadequate inclusion of low-income minority children, and limited program accessibility.
Recognizing the complexity of childhood obesity, there is a consensus that development and evaluation of a systems-oriented approach for child obesity prevention and treatment is needed.7 A systems approach would simultaneously address the drivers of obesity at the individual, family, healthcare, community, organizational, and societal levels through primary prevention and secondary prevention efforts.
The goal of the Texas Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration (TX CORD) study is to implement and evaluate an integrated, systems-oriented model that incorporates primary and secondary prevention efforts at multiple sectors (primary healthcare clinics [PHCs], early care and education [ECE] centers, elementary schools, and community organizations) and multiple levels (child, family, community, and environment/policy). Our specific study aims are threefold: (1) to implement and evaluate a primary obesity prevention program in low-income, ethnically diverse catchment areas in Austin and Houston; (2) to implement and evaluate the efficacy of a systems-based, 12-month, family-centered secondary obesity prevention program embedded within the primary prevention program; and (3) to quantify the incremental cost-effectiveness of the 12-month family-based secondary prevention program, relative to primary prevention alone, for child obesity. The primary hypothesis for the TX CORD project is that integrating primary and secondary prevention approaches for child obesity will significantly reduce BMI z-scores in low-income, ethnically diverse overweight and obese children, ages 212 years, compared to primary prevention alone. The aim of this article is to present the study design and description of the TX CORD project and include baseline data from the primary prevention communities.
Methods
Main Trial Study Aims and Study Design
The TX CORD project consists of two study designs: (1) a quasi-experimental pre- and post-test community trial comparing primary prevention programs in intervention and comparison catchment areas8 and (2) a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) comparing two secondary prevention child obesity programs nested within the primary prevention catchment area (). In the primary prevention intervention, baseline and 2-year follow-up data on the prevalence of overweight/obesity, risk factors, and the utilization of healthcare services and community programs are collected in the intervention and demographically matched comparison catchment areas (n=1614 children ages 212 years/measurement year).
Study design for the Texas Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration (TX CORD) project. CATCH, Coordinated Approach to Child Health; ECE, early care and education; RCT, randomized, controlled trial; CHW, community health worker.
In the secondary prevention RCT, overweight/obese children (n=576), ages 212 years, and their families are recruited and randomly assigned to either the 12-month secondary prevention program (Intervention 1) or the primary prevention program alone (comparison, Intervention 2), stratified by age subgroups (25, 68, and 912 years). Outcomes include BMI z-score, obesity-related behaviors, and quality of life. We will employ activity-based costing methods to quantify the incremental cost of delivering the secondary prevention program, relative to the primary prevention intervention program alone.
Intervention Overview and Description
Overarching Theoretical Framework
Primary prevention is defined as a public health effort targeting the entire population to prevent the development (incidence) of, or to decrease, the prevalence of obesity.5 In contrast, secondary prevention6 focuses on weight reduction among overweight and obese children to prevent long-term disease progression and development of comorbidities. The TX CORD systems-based approach coordinates intervention strategies along a continuum of prevention/treatment services. In our proposed model, the obesity chronic care model9 is operationalized within a framework of the social ecological model10 and social cognitive theory11 that were used for the design of both the primary and secondary prevention programs. Using this approach, obesity is framed as a complex systems problem for which food and physical activity (PA) behaviors and psychosocial factors are not determined solely by individual choice, but are enabled or constrained by contextual factors, including environmental factors and policy.12
The TX CORD study design is shown in . This model includes secondary prevention programs (intensive, behaviorally based programs with nutrition education, PA classes, parental support, and community health worker [CHW] support) embedded in a defined catchment area with primary prevention efforts (built environment/policy, healthcare, school and ECE programs) described in .
Table 1.
Overview of TX CORD Intervention Components
| Component | Description |
|---|---|
| Primary prevention intervention | |
| CATCH Early Childhood | Implemented in all Head Start centers and school Head Start prekindergartens in the intervention catchment areas/communitiesCenter staff attend half-day CATCH training in year 1 in Austin and Houston and optional half-day booster in year 2Program curricula and materialsCATCH Early Childhood Coordination Toolkit used in year 2Limited technical support throughout the yearEncourage stronger center nutrition and activity policies |
| CATCH Elementary Plus School Program | Implemented in elementary schools in the intervention catchment areas/communitiesSchool staff (primarily PE teachers) attended a half-day CATCH training in year 1 in Austin and HoustonCATCH Coordination Toolkit that lays out a year-round agenda for all componentsUses CATCH curricula and PE equipment already at schoolsLimited technical support:StaffE-mail and online supportCATCH committees to coordinate school wellness activities1Text messages emphasizing CATCH concepts and linking families to resources, health fairs, and so onfamilies could opt in to receive messagesOnce per weekEnglish or SpanishYear 2 only |
| Your Health Matters: Growing Healthy, Active Communities training | Full-day training sessions conducted in Houston and AustinAttendees included CHWs, teachers, parents, physicians, and other stakeholdersDesigned to teach stakeholders about advocacy and the implementation of environmental changes for healthy eating and active living at local, state, and national levels |
| Healthcare (Next Steps) | Next Steps implemented in partner healthcare offices in Houston and Austin intervention catchment areas/communitiesTraining for physicians and other office staffLimited technical supportKey elements:BMI screeningDecision supports to integrate guidelines for the appropriate clinical screening, evaluation, and treatment into day-to-day practice (e.g., Texas Pediatric Society Obesity Toolkit and American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines)Next Steps brief counseling materialsFacilitates the clinical interventionSupporting educational materials for familiesEHR to identify at-risk children, provide treatment prompts, and aggregate dataObesity Smart Set incorporated into EHR |
| Secondary prevention RCT | |
|---|---|
| Intervention 1 | |
| MEND 25 | 10 weekly 90-minute sessions relating to general nutrition, PA, and behaviors for children ages 25, including:30 minutes of guided active play15 minutes of of healthy snack time evidence-based, exposure-based technique to promote acceptance and increased intake of fruit and vegetables245 minutes where children participate in creative play activities while parents attend an interactive education and skill development session based on group-based parent training principles3 |
| MEND 68 and 912 | 10-week, bi-weekly 2-hour sessions for children ages 68 and 912 (separate sessions for each age group). Sessions include:1 hour of behavioral and nutrition sessions for parents and children together to improve self-esteem and address behavior change, as well as provide interactive group-based fun activities and discussions about family-friendly nutrition guidelines, practical skills, and demonstrations.1 hour of exercise sessions that use fun activities and group play based on CATCH activities to build strength and fitness (see description in next section)1 hour of parent group discussion sessions to address behavior changes, based on group-based parent training principles4All family MEND resources provided in English and SpanishBased on evidence-based MEND 713 program |
| CATCH structured PAs | Follows initial 10-week MEND program, conducted separately for children ages 68 and 912Held 2/week for 1 hour/sessionAdapted from the PE component of the CATCH Kids' Club activities and led by YMCA PA leadersActivities modified to address needs of obese children, to increase moderate-to-vigorous PA, while emphasizing the social and enjoyable aspect of the program, and maintaining safety and following established guiding exercise training principles of progression, specificity, and exercise trainingExercise program aims for a moderate intensity level equivalent to 6070% of maximal heart rate for the majority of the 60 minutes.As children progress, they will be directed to participate in YMCA youth sports or other community sports or exercise programs for a more sustainable model. |
| CHW | Liaison between program components and family resource person4 CHWs drawn from cadres in Houston and AustinWill work with 144 families over 2 years in each siteRoles: outreach, recruitment, delivery of intervention components (i.e., MEND sessions, cooking classes, and tracking of families)Trained in MEND, CATCH, motivational interviewing, nutrition, and PA |
| Transition program | Children enrolled in YMCA sports programs (e.g., basketball, soccer, ballet, swimming) for 9 monthsMonthly family support sessions facilitated by program leaders, including:Book club format using A Year of Being Well book, which has role model stories of low-income families using CDC obesity prevention behaviors and found to be feasible and decrease obesity-related behaviorsMEND review materialsCooking classes based on The Happy Kitchen/La Cocina AlegreTheory-based cooking classes that teach families to choose and prepare healthy meals and snacksTaught by CHWs and MEND theory leadersMaterials are available in English and SpanishParticipants receive cookbook and groceries at the end of the lesson to take home.MEND World online/print materialsFollows initial 10-week MEND programBoth online and hard copySelf-directed learning and activitiesCATCH activities for children during support sessions (e.g., active play and games)En Vivo comic books to decrease screen time |
| Text messages | Text messages for families once per week in English or Spanish through cell phonesReinforce MEND, CATCH conceptsLink families to resources in the community and health-related eventsUse of social media (Facebook) when families transition out of program |
| Intervention 2 | |
|---|---|
| Next Steps plus booklet | Next Steps brief counseling materialsFacilitates the clinical interventionSupporting educational materials for familiesNext Steps booklet with games, goal setting, and other activities that parents and children work on together in a self-directed mannerFollow-up visits to physician as necessary (maximum of approximately two per 3-month period) |
Primary prevention is operationalized in healthcare clinics in which obesity risk assessment, counseling, and systems for referral are in place for all children, regardless of income level or insurance status. Primary prevention encompasses ECE- and school-based programs, which emphasize and support healthy eating and PA, together with other community-level programs. Enhancing opportunities and policies for healthy eating and PA create supportive environments in the community, with messages that reinforce and complement the behavioral targets of the interventions.
Secondary prevention programs () include more-intensive interventions that focus on overweight or obese children and their families, and include targeted goals to improve dietary intake and increase PA through integrated healthcare/public health efforts. These interventions are implemented in small groups or one on one, with emphasis on increasing food and PA-related skills and self-efficacy. Families are monitored and connected to the healthcare system through CHW. The intervention system delivers information to families, as well as to healthcare providers, to provide feedback and a safety net for adverse or unexpected consequences. This bidirectional link with the child's medical home provides an immediate link to further medical care, if required.
TX CORD Intervention Program Components
The TX CORD program components are shown in and and are briefly described below. All TX CORD components have been previously implemented and evaluated in low-income and diverse populations in various settings, and several of the programs have been widely disseminated. The use of previously evaluated programs in a packaged form for dissemination, as well as the focus on system-level changes, indicates that TX CORD program elements are generalizable to similar low-income, diverse populations.
Primary Prevention Program Components
Primary prevention consists of evidence-based obesity prevention program components that are implemented in preschools, elementary schools, community settings, and healthcare clinics, including: (1) Coordinated Approach To Child Health (CATCH) Early Childhood (CEC) in ECE centers; (2) CATCH in elementary schools; (3) Your Health Matters: Growing Healthy, Active Communities, a health promotion, systems, and environmental change training program; and (4) a TX CORD-modified Next Steps program with themed-based visits, and brief counseling program for healthcare providers.
Early Care and Education Centers and Schools
The CEC program is a developmentally appropriate obesity prevention program for preschool children and the ECE setting. CEC includes a classroom curriculum with nutrition and garden-based lesson plans, extension activities, and curriculum connectors, an activity box with corresponding equipment to promote PA indoors and outdoors in a preschool setting, parent tip sheets complementing the preschool activities, and a coordination kit with themes to coordinate CEC activities across the classrooms and preschool. Implementation of the program has been found to be feasible and acceptable in Head Start and other ECE settings.13,14
The CATCH Elementary School (grades K5) program is a coordinated school health program based on the CDC eight-component model15 for diet and PA behaviors. Core components of CATCH include: Child Nutrition Services; physical education (PE); classroom curricula; family outreach; school environment; and a coordination guide. CATCH has been found to be culturally relevant and appropriate, and results have been robust in low-income, Hispanic/Latino populations.16,17 Based on the accumulating evidence, it appears that school programs, such as CATCH, can be effective for obesity prevention, but need community or supportive efforts to produce long-term changes.16,17
Community
The community components of TX CORD include an environmental policy change training, an advisory committee, and meetings to enhance coordination with existing CDC-funded community initiatives. A health promotion, systems and environmental policy change training program, Your Health Matters: Growing Healthy, Active Communities, is implemented to train grassroots organizers in environmental efforts that can lead to changes in the food and/or PA environment. Three trainings sessions are planned, in Houston in English, and in Austin in English and Spanish, with a capacity of 3040 participants per session. Efforts are made to recruit CHWs, teachers, parents, and other community leaders who would benefit from an introduction to the role of the environment in promoting healthy living. Environmental changes emphasized in the training are consistent with the behavioral targets in the TX CORD intervention. TX CORD investigators convene an advisory committee as well, with community leaders from Austin and Houston, as well as representatives from existing state coalitions, such as Live Smart Texas18; this committee reviews and advises TX CORD on program implementation. TX CORD investigators also coordinate efforts with current funded community transformation grants in both Austin and Houston, using quarterly update meetings with program stakeholders.
Healthcare Clinics
Healthcare providers play a seminal role in children's health, although a majority feel ill equipped to address childhood obesity in their clinics.19 For TX CORD, the healthcare intervention consists of training and counseling around three main components: (1) BMI screening; (2) Next Steps theme-based childhood obesity counseling; and (3) electronic health record (EHR) changes to support childhood obesity clinical visits.
Where available, the EHR automatically displays an alert when a patient's BMI is 85th percentile.20 The optional Obesity Evaluation and Intervention Guide provides prompts for the patient history and physical, and the provider has easy access to a set of diagnosis codes, laboratory tests, and referrals common in management of overweight and obesity. In addition, a list of community resources that support healthy lifestyles, such as community recreation centers, farmers markets, and nutrition websites, is embedded in the patient information section of the electronic record or available in hard copy. When EHRs are not available, providers rely on training, Next Steps materials, and cues to actions (e.g., Next Steps posters) for screening.
The original Next Steps consisted of materials to support brief counseling for weight management in the primary healthcare office.21 TX CORD has culturally adapted Next Steps materials for low-income, urban, black, and Latino children in both English and Spanish versions. A wall poster with a menu of healthy lifestyle topics, such as the My Plate guide or appropriate screen time behaviors, serves as a cue to action to encourage parents and providers to focus on key behavioral messages. The provider uses a laminated flip chart to briefly review key concepts for the topic, show simple graphics, and help set behavior change goals. One or more topics can be covered during an office visit, depending on available time. An activity book compliments the theme-based visits and allows children and families to remember and work on the healthy themes at home through goal setting, monitoring calendars, and other behaviorally based activities to reinforce the concepts for each topic.
Secondary Prevention Program Components
The 12-month secondary prevention program (Intervention 1) for overweight and obese children and their families entails: (1) a 3-month intensive phase, which includes the Mind Exercise Nutrition Do it! (MEND) programs for preschool (ages 25) and school-aged (ages 612) children coupled with adapted CATCH activities, and (2) a 9-month transition program, which includes monthly family sessions with cooking classes, a book club, CATCH activities, YMCA youth sports, and other community-level activities (; ). CHWs serve as program liaisons and assist in delivering all intervention group sessions as well as tracking families and their healthcare expenditures throughout the year-long period. In addition, CHWs provide support to families by serving as a resource to answer questions or concerns by the families, checking monthly on participation in sports teams, and referring families to other community resources.
Intensive phase (3 month)
The MEND 25 and 612 programs for preschool- and school-aged children have been developed and evaluated over the past decade.22,23 MEND programs are multicomponent interventions including behavioral, nutrition, and PA sessions designed to treat and prevent childhood obesity.23 The TX CORD MEND programs include the following core components: (1) behaviorally based sessions for children and their families; (2) a PA curriculum adapted using CATCH materials24; (3) group discussion sessions with parents; (4) feedback reports to primary healthcare providers and parents on child progress; and (5) additional resources for families (MEND World). MEND was adapted for the United States using focus group data and interviews and extensively field tested in diverse, low-income populations in Texas. Initial pilot data show acceptability and encouraging effects on BMI and changes in obesity-related behaviors.25
Transition program (9 month)
The remaining 9 months of the secondary prevention (Intervention 1) include monthly 90-minute postprogram sessions that parents and children attend together. These sessions include a brief review of the MEND concepts, role model stories from the Being Well book,26 and cooking lessons adapted from The Happy Kitchen/La Cocina Alegre27 for parents, while children participate in activities that include CATCH games,24 comic books from En Vivo (an intervention to decrease television viewing)28 and MEND World activities. Children also enroll in YMCA sports teams or programs to encourage PA and gradually transition them into existing community programs to encourage maintenance of program effects. Weekly text messages to parents enrolled in the secondary prevention program are also used to increase both the reach and reinforcement of the behavioral objectives of the intervention.
CHWs provide interconnections and coordination between healthcare and community sectors. The CHWs receive training in childhood obesity and provide health information, strategies, and resources for families in a culturally sensitive manner. CHWs assist in presenting all MEND and transition sessions and serve as liaisons for program components.
The 12-month secondary prevention program (Intervention 2) for overweight and obese children and their families is centered in the healthcare setting and entails (1) BMI screening, (2) Next Steps, and (3) EHR changes to support childhood obesity clinical visits, as previously described.
In TX CORD, the primary prevention programs are implemented in parallel with the secondary prevention programs in the same geographic catchment area (). Families enrolled in the secondary prevention program may be exposed to the primary prevention efforts in clinics, schools, ECE centers, and in the community; analyses will determine how many of the families are exposed to both interventions (primary and secondary).
Evaluation
Determination of Primary Prevention Intervention Areas
Catchment areas in Austin and Houston were determined using geographical information systems data and are based on an index specific to this study, which includes variables such as income and racial/ethnic composition.8 Further details about the method, as well as the geographic distribution of the catchment areas, are provided elsewhere.8
Primary Prevention Recruitment and Data Collection
Representative schools and ECE centers in the intervention and comparison catchment areas are invited to participate in the TX CORD project. Human subjects approval is obtained in each school district (Austin and Houston) and from Head Start centers; after approval, individual schools/centers are recruited to participate. Informed consent is obtained from school and healthcare personnel before assessment. Informed active consent of parents of Head Start/preschool children ages 25 years as well as second- and fifth-grade students is obtained before measurement. All school children are required to complete either verbal (second grade for BMI measures) or written (fifth grade for BMI and survey) assent. The institutional review boards at The University of Texas Health Science CenterHouston and Baylor College of Medicine approved all protocols and procedures.
School and ECE surveys are completed by the school principal, center manager, or designee; teacher surveys are distributed to teachers of preschool children ages 25 years as well as second- and fifth-grade teachers. These age categories correspond to the three stratified age groups for the secondary prevention. Clinic surveys are distributed to participating clinics; all personnel involved in assessment of overweight/obese children are asked to participate. Clinic scans are completed by the clinic managers; vending machine audits are also conducted by trained staff. At ECE centers and schools, parents of preschool and second-grade students complete a survey, as do fifth-grade parents and children.
A final sample size of 1614 child-parent dyads (n=807 intervention and 807 control), with 538 children at each grade level (preschool, second grade, and fifth grade), is determined to provide adequate power.
Primary Prevention Measures
An overview of the measurements and time periods for evaluation are outlined in .
Table 2.
Overview of TX CORD Outcome and Process Measures and Time Frame
| Primary prevention intervention (2-year intervention) | Baseline | 2 years postbaseline |
|---|---|---|
| Community (catchment-wide) measures (n=1614) | ||
| Assessment of programs and policy | X | X |
| School-based survey: programs, policies related to nutrition and PA; health education programs | X | X |
| School teachers survey | X | X |
| Parent survey for preschool, second-grade, and fifth-grade parents | X | |
| Child survey (fifth grade): diet and PA | X | X |
| Fitnessgram (for elementary and middle schools); height and weight for children in day care and under age 8 (not covered by Fitnessgram) | X | X |
| ECE survey | X | X |
| ECE teacher survey | X | X |
| Clinic survey | X | X |
| Clinician survey; vending machine audit | X | X |
| Wilder Survey for TX CORD Advisory Committee | X | X |
| BRFSS Data (for adult obesity and related behaviors) | X | X |
| Community assessment data: shared from TDSHS projects | X | |
| Community assessment | X | X |
| Secondary prevention intervention (1-year intervention) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Child measures (n=576) | Baseline | 3 months | 12 Months |
| Physiological | |||
| Anthropometrics: height, weight, BMI, fat mass, waist circumference | X | X | X |
| Cardiovascular health: blood pressure, resting HR | X | X | X |
| Fitness | |||
| Height-adjusted step test | X | X | X |
| Activity: ActiGraph (7 days)SPAN survey: PA | XX | XX | XX |
| Diet | |||
| Block Kids 2004 Hispanic FFQ SPAN: diet | XX | XX | XX |
| Psychosocial health | |||
| ChEAT, body esteem, Peds quality of life | X | X | X |
| Parent measures (n=576) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sociodemographics (child and parent) | |||
| Age, race/ethnicity, SES, acculturation, nativity, education, health literacy | X | X | X |
| Physiological | |||
| Height, weight, BMI fat mass | X | X | X |
| Psychosocial health | |||
| Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, Short-form Health Survey (SF-12), Peds Quality of Life; Sizing Them Up, Child Growth, Child Feeding Questionnaire, Parenting Questionnaire (TOPSE) | X | X | X |
| Beneficiary satisfaction with community and healthcare services | X | X | X |
| Intervention programs and policy measures | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Program satisfaction, healthcare utilization | X | X | X |
| Program costs | X | X | X |
| CHW survey | X | X |
| Both primary and secondary | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Process evaluation measures | Baseline | 1 year | 2 year |
| Dose (MEND, CATCH, postprogram sessions, school, ECE, clinic data) | X | X | X |
| Fidelity (MEND, postprogram sessions, school, ECE, clinic data) | X | X | X |
| Acceptability/feasibility (exit interview, school, ECE, clinic) | X | X | X |
| Systems-level measures | Baseline | 1 year | 3 year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systems-level interviews | X | X |
Parent and child surveys
Measures for primary prevention parent and child surveys are developed from previous survey instruments, including the School Physical Activity and Nutrition (SPAN) survey ().2931 Other questionnaire items include CORD common measures.32 All measurement instruments are translated into Spanish and pilot tested for cultural competence.
Child height and weight
Trained staff use standard equipment (digital scale and stadiometer) and calibration procedures to measure body weight to the nearest 0.1 kg and height and waist circumference to the nearest 1mm as described by the National Center for Health Statistics. BMI (weight [kg]stature [m]2) z-score for age and sex is computed using the 2000 CDC reference.33
School, early care and education, and teacher surveys
School, ECE center, and teacher surveys are developed using questionnaire items from previous studies,34,35 the Nutrition and Physical Activity Self-Assessment for Child Care assessment tool,36 the Yale Rudd Center survey,37 and other items developed specifically for this study.
Clinic and clinician surveys
Clinic staff surveys are adapted from Polacsek and colleagues,38 as well as the common CORD measures.32
Community-level assessments
To assess coalition strength, the Wilder survey39 is administered to the advisory committee, as well as program stakeholders. In addition to the Wilder survey, community-level assessments were conducted using the Community-Based Surveillance of Supports for Healthy Eating/Active Living, a CDC-developed tool.40
Secondary Prevention Recruitment
Overweight/obese children (total, n=576), ages 212 years, are recruited from participating clinics within TX CORD intervention catchment areas in Austin and Houston and randomly assigned to either Intervention 1 (secondary prevention program) or Intervention 2 (comparison), in stratified age groups (25, 68, and 912 years). Recruitment includes a variety of methods, depending on the clinic: flags in EHR; referral sheets from physicians; and calls to eligible families from the clinic to ask about participation in the study. Inclusion criteria are: (1) 212 years of age and (2) 85th percentile for BMI.41 Exclusion criteria include: (1) complications of obesity that would interfere with participation (e.g., severe respiratory insufficiency or orthopedic problems); (2) underlying obesity-related conditions, such as systemic steroid use or endocrine abnormalities; (3) severe psychological problems; (4) severe obesity (>99.5th BMI percentile); and (5) participation in an obesity treatment program within the past year. Informed active consent is obtained from at least one parent or guardian and assent is obtained from the child, with children ages 612 years providing written assent and children less than 6 years providing verbal assent.
Secondary Prevention Measures
Physiological measures, anthropometrics: children
Trained staff use standard equipment (digital scale, stadiometer, and metal tape) and calibration procedures to measure body weight, as described above. Fat-free mass and fat mass are measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis (Body Composition Analyzer/Scale, model TBF-410 GS; Tanita Corp., Arlington Heights, IL).
Parents
Weight, height, and body composition are measured using the same procedures, and obesity status is categorized using cut-off points for overweight (BMI>25) and obesity (BMI>30).41,42
Fitness
Resting systolic and diastolic blood pressure as well as mean arterial pressure and heart rate are measured using an automated DINAMAP Vital Signs Monitor (8100T; Critikon, Inc., Tampa, FL). Aerobic fitness is determined by a standardized, validated, and height-adjusted step test.43
Diet and physical activity
The Block Kids 2004 Hispanic Food Frequency Questionnaire (NutritionQuest, Berkeley, CA) is used to determine usual dietary intake. Free-living PA is recorded for 7 consecutive days using a triaxial accelerometer (ActiGraph GT3X+; ActiGraph, Pensacola, FL). Awake time and sleep times are identified, and awake time is categorized into sedentary, light, moderate, and vigorous PA levels.44 Further data analysis and cut points for accelerometer data are conducted using methods from Pate and colleagues and Trost and colleagues 2002.45,46 Items adapted from the SPAN survey29 ascertain the children's food preferences, eating patterns, and physical activities.
Psychosocial health: children
The Children's Eating Attitude Test (ChEAT) is used to assess the level of disordered eating attitudes.47 The Body Esteem Scale (Mendelson) assesses children's cognitive and affective evaluations of the appearance of their body.48 Peds Quality of Life (Varni)4951 is used to measure quality of life across four discrete domains of function: physical health; emotional health; social health; and school functioning.
Parents
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, a brief behavioral screening questionnaire that asks parents to rate the frequency with which their child exhibits a range of behaviors associated with emotional distress in four areas (emotional, inactivity/hyperactivity, conduct, and peer relationships) is used.52 The Tool to Measure Parenting Self-Efficacy ascertains parenting styles and practices.53 Peds Quality of Life, a parent-rated 23-item measure of health-related quality of life in children,4951 and Sizing Them Up (Modi), an obesity-specific quality-of-life measure of children,54 are used. The Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), a brief 12-item measure assesses parents' physical and mental health.55 Health literacy is determined using The Newest Vital Sign assessment tool.56
Secondary Prevention Data Collection
The 12-month intervention was designed with an adequate sample size (n=576) to provide sufficient statistical power to determine the effect of the intervention on the primary (BMI z-score) and secondary (body composition, dietary practices, PA, fitness, quality of life, and psychological state) outcomes. Measurement periods were scheduled at baseline, 3 months (at the end of the intensive phase of the program), and 12 months (at the end of the program; ).
Cost-effectiveness
To quantify the incremental cost-effectiveness of the 12-month secondary prevention intervention, relative to the primary prevention alone, activity-based costing methods will be used. Further information about the approach will be included in subsequent publications.
Process evaluation
Process evaluation covers dose, fidelity, and acceptability/feasibility of the TX CORD primary and secondary prevention components. Dose is measured using items such as number of face-to-face sessions attended by parent and child and number of exercise sessions attended. Fidelity is assessed by checklists for each lesson, assessing critical elements of the programs that were taught and completed by participants. Acceptability/feasibility is measured through interviews and program utilization surveys with children, parents, staff, and stakeholders.
Sustainability: scalability and institutionalization
Sustainability of TX CORD core components is evaluated by conducting structured interviews with selected program administrators and implementers at schools, ECE centers, primary care clinics, and YMCAs. Sustainability, also known as institutionalization, is often cited as the culminating goal following the successful demonstration of program efficacy.5760
Data and Analysis
To provide further information on the population targeted in the TX CORD communities, data from the primary prevention community populations at baseline are presented. Data relevant to the secondary prevention, as well as the primary prevention follow-up, will be presented in future analyses. For each study population (with the exception of healthcare clinics, which were in the intervention catchment only), significant differences between those catchment areas were assessed using parametric or nonparametric tests, as appropriate, and accounting for nonindependencies, as necessary, using the SAS mixed procedure with robust standard errors (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Specifically, this procedure was used to adjust for the clustering of teachers within centers and schools, as well as of parents and children within schools.
Results
Descriptive information is presented separately for (1) ECE centers and teachers (), (2) elementary schools and teachers (), (3) primary care clinics and clinicians (), and (4) children and their parents (). Participation rates varied by sector (school, ECE center, and clinic), with 100% of selected ECE centers and clinics participating and 92% of selected elementary schools participating. Family participation ranged from 32% of elementary school families to 50% of ECE center families; 96% of the study sample-size goals for parent-child dyads were met across all age groups.
Table 3.
TX CORD Baseline Early Care and Education Centers and Center Teachers: Intervention and Comparison Catchment Differences
| Early care and education centers | Total n (%) (n=23) | Intervention n (%) (n=11) | Comparison n (%) (n=12) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economically disadvantaged (%) | 23 (100.0) | 11 (100.0) | 12 (100.0) |
| Nutrition education | |||
| Teacher training | |||
| Rarely or never | 1 (4.4) | 1 (9.1) | 0 (0.0) |
| Less than once a year | 1 (4.4) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (8.7) |
| Once a year | 8 (34.8) | 3 (27.3) | 5 (41.7) |
| Twice a year or more | 13 (56.5) | 6 (54.6) | 7 (58.3) |
| Parent workshops | |||
| Rarely or never | 1 (4.4) | 1 (9.1) | 0 (0.0) |
| 15 times per year | 2 (8.7) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (16.7) |
| 6 times per year | 5 (21.7) | 1 (9.1) | 4 (33.3) |
| At least monthly | 15 (65.2) | 9 (81.8) | 6 (50.0) |
| Physical activity education | |||
| Teacher training | |||
| Rarely or never | 2 (8.7) | 2 (18.2) | 0 (0.0)**1 |
| Less than once a year | 1 (4.4) | 1 (9.1) | 0 (0.0) |
| Once a year | 8 (34.8) | 6 (54.6) | 2 (16.7) |
| Twice a year or more | 12 (52.2) | 2 (18.2) | 10 (83.3) |
| Parent workshops | |||
| Rarely or never | 4 (17.4) | 4 (36.4) | 0 (0.0) |
| 15 times per year | 2 (8.7) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (16.7) |
| 6 times per year | 6 (26.1) | 2 (18.2) | 4 (33.3) |
| At least monthly | 11 (47.8) | 5 (45.5) | 6 (50.0) |
| Written policy on nutrition | |||
| Does not exist | 2 (9.1) | 1 (8.3) | 1 (10.0) |
| Exists informally | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Written, but not always followed by staff | 1 (4.6) | 1 (8.3) | 0 (0.0) |
| Written and followed by staff | 19 (86.3) | 10 (83.3) | 9 (90.0) |
| Written policy on physical activity | |||
| Does not exist | 4 (18.2) | 2 (16.7) | 2 (20.0) |
| Exists informally | 1 (4.6) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (10.0) |
| Written, but not always followed by staff | 2 (9.1) | 2 (16.7) | 0 (0.0) |
| Written and followed by staff | 15 (68.1) | 8 (66.7) | 7 (70.0) |
| Type of early child education center | |||
| Head Start | 23 (100.0) | 11 (100.0) | 12 (100.0) |
| State-funded preschool | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Age of children at center | |||
| Early preschool: age 3 years | 14 (60.9) | 5 (45.5) | 9 (75.0) |
| 45 years | 20 (86.7) | 8 (72.7) | 12 (100.0) |
| Early education teachers | Total mean (SD) or % (n=113) | Intervention mean (SD) or % (n=49) | Comparison mean (SD) or % (n=63) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years (mean, SE) | 42.5 (1.1) | 42.5 (1.7) | 42.4 (1.4) |
| Female (%) | 96.3 | 95.9 | 96.7 |
| Race/ethnicity | |||
| Hispanic/Latino (%) | 44.1 | 44.0 | 44.1 |
| African American (%) | 48.6 | 48.0 | 49.2 |
| Bilingual (%) | 53.2 | 59.2 | 48.3 |
| Current job title: | |||
| Teacher (n, %) | 59 (52.2) | 22 (44.0) | 37 (58.7) |
| Years of teaching | |||
| 1 year or less | 8.8 | 8.2 | 9.5 |
| 25 years | 30.4 | 40.8 | 22.2 |
| 610 years | 17.0 | 8.2 | 23.8 |
| >10 years | 43.8 | 42.8 | 44.5 |
| Years working at the center (%) | |||
| 1 year or less | 33.3 | 29.2 | 36.5 |
| 25 years | 45.0 | 50.0 | 42.9 |
| 610 years | 9.9 | 12.5 | 7.9 |
| >10 years | 10.8 | 8.3 | 12.7 |
| Trained to implement CATCH Early Childhood (%) | 19.8 | 6.1 | 31.6*2 |
| Currently teaching CATCH Early Childhood (%) | 21.4 | 6.1 | 35.2*3 |
| Number of health lessons taught yearly (mean, SE) | 7.2 (0.2) | 7.3 (0.3) | 7.2 (0.4) |
| 4050 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.9 |
| 5060 | 10.0 | 20.0 | 5.8 |
| >60 | 6.2 | 7.5 | 4.7 |
Table 4.
TX CORD Baseline Elementary Schools and Elementary Teachers: Intervention and Comparison Catchment Differences
| Elementary schools | Total mean (SD) or % (n=16)a | Intervention mean (SD) or % (n=9) | Comparison mean (SD) or % (n=7) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total enrollmentb | 707.0 (249.6) | 807.0 (262.5) | 577 (171.1) |
| Percent economically disadvantaged studentsb | 96.1 (1.7) | 96.9 (0.8) | 95.1 (2.1) |
| Student racial/ethnic compositionb | |||
| Hispanic/Latino | 84.2 | 86.4 | 80.2 |
| African American | 11.8 | 10.0 | 14.9 |
| Other | 4.0 | 3.6 | 4.9 |
| Coordinated school health program | |||
| CATCH | 75.0 | 88.9 | 57.1 |
| Otherc | 12.5 | 11.1 | 14.3 |
| None | 12.5 | 0.0 | 28.6 |
| Coordinated school health program Committee or team | 68.8 | 77.8 | 57.1 |
| Campus improvement plan with diet/PA | 81.3 | 88.9 | 71.4 |
| Number of nutrition activities and policies | 11.5 (2.5) | 11.1 (1.9) | 12.0 (3.2) |
| Elementary teachers | Total mean (SD) or % (n=146)a | Intervention mean (SD) or % (n=75) | Comparison mean (SD) or % (n=71) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 40.5 (11.5) | 41.3 (12.0) | 39.7 (10.8) |
| Female | 79.0 | 76.7 | 81.4 |
| Teacher racial/ethnic composition | |||
| Hispanic/Latino | 47.9 | 56.2 | 39.1 |
| African American | 21.8 | 9.6 | 34.8*1 |
| Other | 30.1 | 34.2 | 26.1 |
| Bilingual speaking | 55.9 | 67.1 | 44.3**2 |
| Current job title | |||
| Classroom teacher | 93.8 | 92.0 | 95.7 |
| PE teacher | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.9 |
| Years of teaching | |||
| Less than 1 year | 5.5 | 6.7 | 4.3 |
| 15 years | 26.9 | 22.7 | 31.4 |
| 610 years | 22.1 | 25.3 | 18.6 |
| More than 10 years | 45.5 | 45.3 | 45.7 |
| Years in current position | |||
| Less than 1 year | 21.2 | 20.0 | 22.5 |
| 15 years | 46.6 | 48.0 | 45.1 |
| 610 years | 13.7 | 10.7 | 16.9 |
| More than 10 years | 18.5 | 21.3 | 15.5 |
| Previous nutrition training | 71.5 | 67.6 | 75.7 |
| Previous PA training | 77.4 | 77.3 | 77.5 |
| Active schools CATCH committee | 77.0 | 81.4 | 67.9 |
| Trained to implement CATCH | 34.8 | 48.6 | 19.1**3 |
| Health lessons to teach | 4.0 (4.0) | 4.3 (4.0) | 3.6 (4.0) |
| Health policiesb | 4.4 (1.7) | 4.6 (1.7) | 4.2 (1.7) |
Table 5.
TX CORD Baseline Primary Care Clinics and Primary Care Clinicians Demographics
| Clinics | Mean (SD) or % (N=11) |
|---|---|
| No. of pediatric patients/week | 193 (130.7) |
| Health care providers | 3.5 (1.6) |
| Presence of a healthy vending machine policya | 18.2 |
| Policy prohibiting food-related rewards | 18.2 |
| Plot child's weight every visit | 50.0 |
| Plot child's height every visit | 50.0 |
| Calculate child's BMI every visit | 66.7 |
| Plot child's BMI every visit | 44.4 |
| Clinicians | MD/DO or NP/PAa mean (SD) or % (n=40) | RN, MA, and othera Mean (SD) or % (n=95) |
|---|---|---|
| Ageb | ||
| <30 | 7.5 | 36.1 |
| 3040 | 45.0 | 32.6 |
| 4050 | 20.0 | 20.9 |
| 5060 | 20.0 | 5.8 |
| >60 | 7.5 | 4.7 |
| Female | 77.5 | 98.8 |
| Racial/ethnic composition | ||
| Hispanic/Latino | 23.1 | 69.0 |
| African American | 18.0 | 19.1 |
| Other | 58.9 | 11.9 |
| How long employedc | 6.8 (0.9) | 4.5 (0.8) |
| How many years in medical fieldc | 10.4 (1.0) | 7.7 (0.8) |
| Prior training in nutritionc | 10.2 (1.0) | 4.9 (0.8) |
| Prior training in PAc | 6.2 (0.9) | 3.4 (0.7) |
| Prior training in child obesityc | 7.9 (0.8) | 2.7 (0.6) |
Table 6.
TX CORD Baseline ECE, Second-Grade, and Fifth-Grade Populations: Household, Parent, and Child Intervention and Comparison Catchment Differences
| Household characteristics | ECE total (n=685) M (SD) or % | Second-grade total (n=485) M (SD) or % | Fifth-grade total (n=391) M (SD) or % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of people living in the household | 4.57 (1.50) | 4.95 (1.52) | 4.95 (1.64) |
| Number of children under 18 in the household | 2.56 (1.30) | 2.87 (1.25) | 2.97 (1.43) |
| Annual household income (%) | |||
| Less than $10,000 | 34.1 | 34.4 | 33.3 |
| $10,001$15,000 | 18.8 | 20.1 | 20.3 |
| $15,001$20,000 | 14.3 | 14.0 | 12.4 |
| $20,001$25,000 | 14.0 | 15.4 | 11.6 |
| $25,001$35,000 | 8.6 | 8.4 | 13.0 |
| $35,001$50,000 | 3.1 | 4.8 | 6.5 |
| $50,001$75,000 | 0.9 | 2.5 | 1.1 |
| $75,001 or more | 0.1 | 0.5 | 1.7 |
| Government assistance received (%) | |||
| WIC | 50.5 | 27.0 | 25.2 |
| Food stamps (SNAP) | 63.3 | 56.8 | 55.05* |
| Free/reduced price school meals | 44.5 | 61.2 | 61.9 |
| Medicaid or Texas Health Steps | 84.1 | 68.3 | 67.6 |
| Medicare | 18.0 | 25.7 | 21.5 |
| CHIP | 16.7 | 28.4 | 26.2 |
| Parent characteristics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years | 31.2 (6.9) | 34.91 (7.51) | 36.88 (7.77) |
| Female (%) | 94.5 | 87.3 | 87.8 |
| Child's mother (%) | 93.2 | 86.6 | 87.7 |
| Race/ethnicity (%) | |||
| Hispanic or Latino | 73.3 | 83.8 | 81.5 |
| Black/African American | 22.7 | 13.5 | 15.4 |
| Other | 4.0 | 2.7 | 3.1 |
| Primary language (%) | |||
| Only English | 27.4 | 20.0 | 23.6 |
| More English than Spanish | 11.5 | 6.0 | 9.4 |
| Both English and Spanish | 15.7 | 20.0 | 19.0 |
| More Spanish than English | 26.5 | 25.7 | 24.1 |
| Only Spanish | 18.8 | 28.4 | 23.9 |
| Survey language (%) | |||
| English | 49.8 | 35.7 | 47.3 |
| Spanish | 50.2 | 64.3 | 52.7 |
| Country of birth (%) | |||
| United States | 40.8 | 31.9 | 37.5 |
| Mexico | 39.8 | 51.6 | 47.0 |
| Other country | 19.4 | 16.6 | 15.4 |
| Marrieda (%) | 64.3 | 70.1 | 63.4 |
| Employment status (%) | |||
| Currently employed | 49.9 | 42.0 | 52.3 |
| Currently unemployed | 19.1 | 15.1 | 17.7 |
| Homemaker | 31.0 | 42.9 | 30.0 |
| Highest level of education (%) | |||
| None/kindergarten only | 1.5*1 | 2.4 | 1.6 |
| Elementary-middle school | 13.0 | 23.8 | 29.4 |
| Some high school | 19.1 | 23.6 | 23.5 |
| High school diploma | 36.3 | 30.8 | 26.2 |
| Some college or technical school | 25.3 | 15.4 | 14.0 |
| College diploma | 4.8 | 4.1 | 5.3 |
| Has healthcare coverage (%) | 51.8 | 54.3 | 57.5 |
| Child characteristics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years | 4.25 (.68) | 7.61 (.64) | 10.65 (0.63) |
| Female (%) | 46.8 | 57.4 | 54.26* |
| Race/ethnicity (%) | |||
| Hispanic or Latino | 72.9 | 81.2 | 80.8 |
| Black/African American | 21.6 | 14.2 | 15.3 |
| Other | 5.3 | 4.6 | 3.8 |
| Primary language at home (%) | |||
| Only English | 31.8 | 23.3 | 26.7 |
| More English than Spanish | 12.5 | 11.8 | 16.0 |
| Both English and Spanish | 21.5 | 31.3 | 44.2 |
| More Spanish than English | 23.4 | 25.7 | 9.2 |
| Only Spanish | 10.8 | 8.0 | 3.9 |
| Ate or drank yesterdayb | |||
| Fruit | 1.69 (0.80) | 1.44 (0.79) | 1.34 (0.89) |
| Vegetables | 1.34 (0.86) | 1.09 (0.85) | 1.17 (0.84) |
| 100% juice | 1.18 (0.93) | 0.98 (0.89) | 0.98 (0.92) |
| Punch, sports drinks etc. | 0.88 (0.93) | 0.90 (0.89)*3 | 0.93 (0.94)7* |
| Regular soda | 0.34 (0.64) | 0.36 (0.65) | 0.61 (0.71) |
| Water | 2.16 (.90) | 2.16 (0.91)*4 | 2.22 (0.87) |
| Total fruits and vegetablesc | 3.02 (1.41) | 2.53 (1.38) | 2.50 (1.50) |
| Total sugar-sweetened beveragesc | 1.20 (1.23) | 1.24 (1.17) | 1.52 (1.32)8* |
| Child has a regular bedtimed (%) | 80.8*2 | 81.9 | 78.5 |
| Child has a TV in their bedroom (%) | 68.3 | 65.1 | 63.6 |
| Days child PA for 60 minutes or moree | 4.96 (2.23) | 4.24 (2.36) | 4.57 (2.26) |
| Child BMI | |||
| Measured BMI | 16.68 (2.42) | 18.63 (3.73) | 22.06 (5.36) |
| BMI-for-age z-score | 0.63 (1.17) | 0.79 (1.14) | 0.96 (1.11) |
| BMI Percentile Rank | 65.83 (28.14) | 70.95 (27.62) | 74.71 (27.75) |
| Child Weight Status (%) | |||
| Normal weight (BMI<85th percentile) | 63.4 | 54.3 | 43.3 |
| Overweight (BMI 85th to <95th percentile) | 17.5 | 17.3 | 21.5 |
| Obese (BMI95th percentile) | 19.0 | 28.3 | 35.2 |
Early Care and Education Center and Teacher Intervention-Comparison Differences
There were few significant differences in nutrition and PA training and policies between ECE centers and teachers from the intervention versus the comparison catchment areas. ECE centers from the comparison catchment reported more teacher training in PA, relative to those from the intervention catchment. A higher percentage of early education teachers in the comparison catchment reported being trained to implement the CATCH Early Childhood program as well as currently teaching the CATCH Early Childhood program ().
Elementary School and Elementary Teacher Intervention-Comparison Differences
There were few significant differences in student population and teacher background/training between elementary schools in the intervention versus the comparison catchment areas. A higher percentage of elementary teachers in the intervention catchment were Hispanic/Latino, whereas a higher percentage of teachers in the comparison area were black. Likewise, a higher percentage of elementary teachers in the intervention catchment were bilingual, relative to those in the comparison catchment. Finally, a higher percentage of elementary teachers in the intervention catchment reported being trained to implement CATCH ().
Clinic and Clinician
The staff at the 11 clinics in the intervention catchment areas in Austin and Houston were predominantly female and racially/ethnically diverse, especially among the nonprovider staff. Providers reported previous training in nutrition, PA, or child obesity for 10 hours or less, and nonprovider staff reported 5 hours or less. Approximately half of the clinics plotted weight and height at every encounter. Only two clinics had policies prohibiting food-related rewards. Most of the clinics had no vending machines ().
Primary Prevention Preschool Intervention-Comparison Differences
There were no differences in household characteristics between preschool families in the intervention and comparison catchment areas. Parents of preschool children in the comparison catchment reported slightly higher education levels, relative to those from the intervention catchment, and were also more likely to report that their child had a regular bedtime (). The overall prevalence of child obesity was 19.0%, well above current rates reported by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.1
Primary Prevention Second-Grade Intervention-Comparison Differences
There were no differences in any household or parent characteristics between second-grade sample respondents in the intervention or comparison catchment areas. Parents of second-grade children in the comparison catchment reported higher consumption of punch, sports drinks, and so on, and lower consumption of water among their children, relative to those from the intervention catchment (). Prevalence of obesity was 28.3% among all second-grade children.
Primary Prevention Fifth-Grade Intervention-Comparison Differences
A higher percentage of fifth-grade families in the intervention catchment reported receiving SNAP benefits. There were no differences between fifth-grade parent respondents in the catchment areas. Parents in the comparison catchment reported higher consumption of punch, sports drinks, and so on, as well as higher total sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among their fifth-grade children, relative to those from the intervention catchment (). Prevalence of obesity was 35.2% among all fifth-grade children.
Baseline data from the TX CORD primary prevention settings (ECE centers, elementary schools, and clinics), as well as the initial parent and child data indicate, that our intervention catchment area is similar to the comparison catchment area in most relevant demographic and behavioral variables. Families in the study area are extremely low income, with most parents reporting an annual household income of $25,000 and many families receiving multiple government assistance programs (). The population is also predominantly Hispanic/Latino (73.383.8%) and African American (13.522.7%). A majority of parents were born outside of the United States, with approximately 4455% speaking Spanish primarily.
A high prevalence of overweight and obesity (85th BMI percentile) also is documented in our population, with the rates increasing from preschool to second grade to fifth grade (36.5%, 45.6%, and 56.7%, respectively; ). In general, parent-reported child dietary and PA behaviors show approximately 2.53.0 servings per day of fruits and vegetables, 1.21.5 servings per day of sugary beverages, and 60 minutes per day of moderate-to-vigorous PA on 45 days per week. Parents reported 68.3%, 65.1%, and 63.6% of preschool, second-grade, and fifth-grade children, respectively, have a television (TV) in their bedrooms.
Discussion
The composition of the population in the primary prevention catchment areas suggests many barriers in the implementation of intervention programs for child obesity and overweight, including the necessity of bilingual materials for all programs, and cultural issues that might influence food patterns and PA,61 as well as problems inherent with diet and PA in low-income populations, such as safety issues in low-income neighborhoods,62 lack of availability of healthy foods,63 and TVs in children's bedrooms.28,64 In general, obesity-promoting behaviors related to diet and PA are more prevalent in fifth-grade children, compared to preschool children. These behaviors indicate the need for the behavioral interventions emphasized in TX CORD.
ECE centers, all of which are Head Start centers, indicated that opportunities for teacher training, child education, and parent workshops were generally available. These data may reflect recent initiatives to mandate and increase nutrition and PA programs in Head Start programs. As in previous studies,65 the ECE teachers were predominantly female and nonwhite, with the majority being bilingual as well. Most had worked at the center for 5 years or less, although it appeared that more of the comparison centers teachers reported being trained in CATCH Early Childhood, compared to the intervention centers, owing to pilot work completed previously in some of the centers in the area. Differences in training status and other factors will be adjusted for in the follow-up analyses.
Participating TX CORD schools have student populations that are predominantly Hispanic/Latino (84.2%), with a smaller proportion of African American students (11.8%). By design, a majority of teachers in the elementary schools had been trained in, and were implementing, CATCH, given that Texas law requires that all schools have a coordinated school health program.66 A large number of nutrition activities and policies were cited by the schools at baseline, also probably reflective of the legislative mandates for coordinated school health.67 Elementary school teachers were also predominantly female and reflected the diversity of the intervention population, with a majority being bilingual. More than 70% of teachers reported some type of nutrition or PA training, probably in response to state mandates for implementation of coordinated school health.67 Only 36% reported being trained to implement CATCH, which was significantly different between intervention and comparison schools. As in previous studies,17,68 most teachers were reporting teaching only a small portion of the CATCH curriculum. To address differences in teacher diversity, racial/ethnic composition will be used as a covariate in follow-up analyses.
Fewer than half of the clinics reported that providers plot child BMI for every visit, although two thirds of the clinics reported calculating BMI. This approach results in missed opportunities to identify early weight increase and offer early intervention. EHRs now automate calculation and plotting of BMI, which streamlines more frequent monitoring of BMI. Only 18.2% of the clinics reported having a policy prohibiting food-related rewards. Previous training in nutrition, PA, and child obesity were low for all staff, but especially nonprovider staff (e.g., nurses, and so on). Additional training would prepare more office members to give healthy lifestyle messages to families.
Limitations for this baseline assessment include the use of parent self-reported data for child dietary and PA behaviors; potential biases in collecting self-report data from school children, their parents, and the schools; difficulties in recruitment of this population, and cultural and language barriers. Although these data are self-reported, items that had demonstrated validity and reliability in this population were used,2931 and the data collected are similar to that from other surveys.17 Collection of data from very-low-income, ethnically diverse schools was also a challenge, as previously noted; however, we were able to obtain adequate participation rates across all three age groups (preschool, second-grade, and fifth-grade children). In addition, our study sample had demographics that were very similar to the schools and ECE centers in our study.
Strengths of the assessment include the use of validated survey items, achieving adequate participation rates in a low-income, diverse population, and the ability to collect multiple layers of data from multiple sectors (PHCs, ECE, elementary schools, and community organizations) and multiple levels (child, family, community, and environment/policy).
Conclusions
The TX CORD project includes a focus on both primary and secondary child obesity prevention efforts, a multilevel approach to both measurement and intervention, and the ability to examine the intervention effects by three age groups. It is anticipated that the incorporation of both approaches to child obesity prevention and treatment will result in a more robust intervention, with many touch points and sufficient exposure to result in significant changes in outcomes. Incorporating evaluation at each intervention level will also help to determine possible inputs, effects, and barriers of a systems-level approach. The data obtained from the primary prevention sample clearly show that recruitment of a low-income, ethnically diverse participant population is feasible.69 In addition, the stratification of the data into developmentally appropriate age groups will allow us to evaluate program outcomes and intervention nuances that can inform future work.
By testing this systems-level model, essential program elements can be elucidated. These primary and secondary prevention programs can expand on current initiatives to provide greater impact through synergy with ongoing environmental and policy efforts. If implemented broadly, such a systems approach has the potential to provide significant and positive outcomes in terms of child health, future adult health, and cost savings for the nation.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by cooperative agreement RFA-DP-11-007 from the CDC. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC. Additional support was provided by the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation through the Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living. This work is a publication of the USDA (USDA/ARS) Children's Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and had been funded, in part, with federal funds from the USDA/ARS under Cooperative Agreement No. 58-6250-0-008. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the USDA, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement from the U.S. government.
Author Disclosure Statement
Dr. Huang is on the scientific board of MEND. Dr. Finkelstein has participated in consultancies for Vivus, Takeda, Johnson & Johnson and grant work funded by Jenny Craig. Dr. Sacher is Science Director and a shareholder of Healthy Weight Partnership Inc., which holds the exclusive license for MEND in North America. In addition, he is Consultant Research Director for Mytime Active, a UK charity that owns MEND. Dr. Kelder is on the Executive Board of the CATCH Global Foundation, the goal of which is to disseminate CATCH programs to underserved communities. The University of Texas School of Public Health receives royalties based on sale of CATCH curriculum, but the funds are used for further research and development.
References
1.
Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, et al.. Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 20112012. JAMA2014;311:806814 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]2.
Must A, Strauss RS.Risks and consequences of childhood and adolescent obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord1999;23(Suppl 2):S2S11 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]3.
Freedman DS, Dietz WH, Srinivasan SR, et al.. The relation of overweight to cardiovascular risk factors among children and adolescents: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Pediatrics1999;103:11751182 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]4.
Finkelstein EA, Trogdon JG, Cohen JW, et al.. Annual medical spending attributable to obesity: Payer- and service-specific estimates. Health Aff (Millwood)2009;28:w822w831 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]5.
Hoelscher DM, Kirk S, Ritchie L, et al.. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Interventions for the prevention and treatment of pediatric overweight and obesity. J Acad Nutr Diet2013;113:13751394 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]7.
Institute of Medicine. Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]8.
Oluyomi AO, Byars A, Byrd-Williams C, et al.. A geographical information science (GIS) in systems-oriented obesity intervention projects: The selection of comparable study sites for a quasi-experimental intervention designTX CORD. Child Obes2015;11:5870 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]9.
Dietz W, Lee J, Wechsler H, et al.. Health plans' role in preventing overweight in children and adolescents. Health Aff (Millwood)2007;26:430440 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]10.
McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, et al.. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q1988;15:351377 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]11.
Bandura A.Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986 [Google Scholar]12.
Glass TA, McAtee MJ.Behavioral science at the crossroads in public health: Extending horizons, envisioning the future. Soc Sci Med2006;62:16501671 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]13.
Sharma SV, Chuang RJ, Hedberg AM.Pilot testing CATCH Early Childhood: A preschool-based healthy nutrition and physical activity program. Am J Health Educ2011;42:1223 [Google Scholar]14.
Sharma SV, Chuang RJ, Skala K.Results of pilot testing CATCH Early Childhood in Head Start preschoolers in Texas. Oral presentation at the annual meeting of theInternational Society of Behavior, Nutrition and Physical Activity (ISBNPA), May2326, 2012, Austin, Texas [Google Scholar]15.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Coordinated school health. 2010. Available at www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/cshp Last accessed April7, 201416.
Hoelscher DM, Kelder S, Perez A, et al.. Changes in the regional prevalence of child obesity in 4th, 8th, and 11th grade students in Texas from 20002002 to 20042005. Obesity (Silver Spring)2010;18:13601368 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]17.
Hoelscher DM, Springer AE, Ranjit N, et al.. Reductions in child obesity among disadvantaged school children with community involvement: The Travis County CATCH Trial. Obesity (Silver Spring)2010;18(Suppl 1):S36S44 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]18.
Ory MG, Nichols D, Dickerson JB, et al.. Creating a tipping point: Texas obesity policy actions in review, 20002010. Prog Community Health Partnersh2013;7:419427 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]19.
Huang TT, Borowski LA, Liu B, et al.. Pediatricians' and family physicians' weight-related care of children in the U.S. Am J Prev Med2011;41:2432 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]20.
Taveras EM, Marshall R, Horan CM, et al.. Rationale and design of the STAR randomized controlled trial to accelerate adoption of childhood obesity comparative effectiveness research. Contemp Clin Trials2013;34:101108 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]21.
American Academy of Pediatrics. Next Steps: A Practitioner's Guide For Themed Follow-up Visits For Their Patients. 1st ed. American Academy of Pediatrics: Elk Grove Village, IL, 2013 [Google Scholar]22.
Sacher PM, Chadwick P, Wells JC, et al.. Assessing the acceptability and feasibility of the MEND Programme in a small group of obese 711-year-old children. J Hum Nutr Diet2005;18:35 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]23.
Sacher PM, Kolotourou M, Chadwick PM, et al.. Randomized controlled trial of the MEND program: A family-based community intervention for childhood obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring)2010;18(Suppl 1):S62S68 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]24.
McKenzie TL, Nader PR, Strikmiller PK, et al.. School physical education: Effect of the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health. Prev Med1996;25:423431 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]25.
Byrd-Williams C, Hoelscher DM, Butte N, et al.. Behavioral outcomes of a pilot study of an international adaptation of the Mind, Exercise, Nutrition, Do It (MEND) program to target under-served families. Obesity 2011: The 29th Annual Scientific Meeting of The Obesity Society, October1. 2011, Orlando, Florida Available at www.obesity.org/meetings-and-events/obesity-2011-online-abstracts.htm Last accessed October5, 2014 [Google Scholar]26.
Ranjit N, Menendez T, Creamer M, et al.. Can role model stories serve as a strategy to improve diet and activity in low income families?Am J Health Educ2014. (In Press) [Google Scholar]27.
Evans A, Ranjit N, Rutledge R, et al.. Exposure to multiple components of a garden-based intervention for middle school students increases fruit and vegetable consumption. Health Promot Pract2012;13:608616 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]28.
Springer AE, Kelder SH, Barroso CS, et al.. Parental influences on television watching among children living on the Texas-Mexico border. Prev Med2010;51:112117 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]29.
Hoelscher DM, Day RS, Kelder SH, et al.. Reproducibility and validity of the secondary level School-Based Nutrition Monitoring student questionnaire. J Am Diet Assoc2003;103:186194 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]30.
Penkilo M, George GC, Hoelscher DM.Reproducibility of the School-Based Nutrition Monitoring Questionnaire among fourth-grade students in Texas. J Nutr Educ Behav2008;40:2027 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]31.
Thiagarajah K, Fly AD, Hoelscher DM, et al.. Validating the food behavior questions from the elementary school SPAN questionnaire. J Nutr Educ Behav2008;40:305310 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]32.
OConnor DP, Lee RE, Mehta P, et al.. Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration Project: Cross-site evaluation methods. Child Obes2014;11:92103 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]33.
Kuczmarski RJ, Ogden CL, Grummer-Strawn LM, et al.. CDC growth charts: United States. Adv Data2000;314:127 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]34.
Hoelscher DM, Feldman HA, Johnson CC, et al.. School-based health education programs can be maintained over time: Results from the CATCH Institutionalization study. Prev Med2004;38:594606 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]35.
Barroso CS, Kelder SH, Springer AE, et al.. Senate Bill 42: Implementation and impact on physical activity in middle schools. J Adolesc Health2009;45(Suppl 3):S82S90 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]36.
Benjamin SE, Neelon B, Ball SC, et al.. Reliability and validity of a nutrition and physical activity environmental self-assessment for child care. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act2007;4:29. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]37.
Henderson KE, Grode GM, Middleton AE, et al.. Validity of a measure to assess the child-care nutrition and physical activity environment. J Am Diet Assoc2011;111:13061313 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]38.
Polacsek M, Orr J, Letourneau L, et al.. Impact of a primary care intervention on physician practice and patient and family behavior: keep ME HealthyThe Maine Youth Overweight Collaborative. Pediatrics2009;123(Suppl 5):S258S266 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]39.
Mattessich PW, Murray-Close M, Monsey BR.Collaboration: What Makes It Work, 2nd ed. Wilder: St. Paul, MN, 2004 [Google Scholar]40.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity. Pilot study of community-based surveillance of supports for Health Eating/Active Living (HE/AL). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, 2014 [Google Scholar]42.
Flegal KM, Wei R, Ogden CL, et al.. Characterizing extreme values of body mass index-for-age by using the 2000 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth charts. Am J Clin Nutr2009;90:13141320 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]43.
Francis K, Feinstein R.A simple height-specific and rate-specific step test for children. South Med J1991;84:169174 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]44.
Puyau MR, Adolph AL, Vohra FA, et al.. Validation and calibration of physical activity monitors in children. Obes Res2002;10:150157 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]45.
Pate RR, Almeida MJ, McIver KL, et al.. Validation and calibration of an accelerometer in preschool children. Obesity2006;14:20002006 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]46.
Trost SG, Pate RR, Sallis JF, et al.. Age and gender differences in objectively measured physical activity in youth. Med Sci Sports Exerc2002;34:350355 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]47.
Maloney MJ, McGuire J, Daniels SR, et al.. Dieting behavior and eating attitudes in children. Pediatrics1989;84:482489 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]48.
Mendelson BK, White DR.Relation between body-esteem and self-esteem of obese and normal children. Percept Mot Skills1982;54:899905 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]49.
Varni JW, Seid M, Kurtin PS.PedsQL 4.0: Reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Med Care2001;39:800812 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]50.
Varni JW, Burwinkle TM, Seid M, et al.. The PedsQL 4.0 as a pediatric population health measure: Feasibility, reliability, and validity. Ambul Pediatr2003;3:329341 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]51.
Varni JW, Limbers CA, Burwinkle TM.How young can children reliably and validly self-report their health-related quality of life?: An analysis of 8,591 children across age subgroups with the PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes2007;5:1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]52.
Goodman R.The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry1997;38:581586 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]53.
Kendall S, Bloomfield L.Developing and validating a tool to measure parenting self-efficacy. J Adv Nurs2005;51:174181 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]54.
Zeller MH, Reiter-Purtill J, Ramey C.Negative peer perceptions of obese children in the classroom environment. Obesity2008;16:755762 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]55.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, et al.. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ2004;13:873884 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]56.
Weiss BD, Mays MZ, Martz W, et al.. Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign. Ann Fam Med2005;3:514522 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]57.
Swerissen H, Crisp BR.The sustainability of health promotion interventions for different levels of social organization. Health Promot Int2004;19:123130 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]58.
Savaya R, Elsworth G, Rogers P.Projected sustainability of innovative social programs. Eval Rev2009;33:189205 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]59.
Johnson K, Hays C, Center H, et al.. Building capacity and sustainable prevention innovations: A sustainability planning model. Eval Prog Plann2004;27:135149 [Google Scholar]60.
Harvey G, Hurworth R.Exploring program sustainability: Identifying factors in two educational initiatives in Victoria. Evaluation Journal of Australasia2006;6:3644 [Google Scholar]61.
Gordon-Larsen P, Harris KM, Ward DS, et al.. Acculturation and overweight-related behaviors among Hispanic immigrants to the US: The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Soc Sci Med2003;57:20232034 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]62.
Gordon-Larsen P, Nelson MC, Page P, et al.. Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics2006;117:417424 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]63.
Attorp A, Scott JE, Yew AC, et al.. Associations between socioeconomic, parental and home environment factors and fruit and vegetable consumption of children in grades five and six in British Columbia, Canada. BMC Public Health2014;14:150. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]64.
Gorely T, Marshall SJ, Biddle SJ.Couch kids: Correlates of television viewing among youth. Int J Behav Med2004;11:152163 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]65.
Sharma SV, Dortch KS, Byrd-Williams C, et al.. Nutrition-related knowledge, attitudes, and dietary behaviors among head start teachers in Texas: A cross-sectional study. J Acad Nutr Diet2013;113:55862 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]66.
Texas Education Agency. The Texas Education Code (TEC), Chapter 38, Health and Safety, Subchapter A, General Provisions, 38.013, Coordinated Health Program for Elementary, Middle, and Junior High School Students. Commissioner's rules concerning coordinated health programs. Texas Education Code. 2007. Available at www.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/hpe/sb19faq.html Last accessed October2, 201467.
Hoelscher DM, Springer A, Menendez TH, et al.. From NIH to Texas schools: Policy impact of the Coordinated Approach to Child Health (CATCH) program in Texas. J Phys Act Health2011;8(Suppl 1):S5S7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]68.
Kelder SH, Mitchell PD, McKenzie TL, et al.. Long-term implementation of the CATCH physical education program. Health Educ Behav2003;30:463475 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]69.
Dooyema CA, Belay B, Foltz JL, et al.. The childhood obesity research demonstration project: A comprehensive community approach to reduce childhood obesity. Child Obes2013;9:454459 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
