Mixed methods feasibility and usability testing of a childhood obesity risk estimation tool.

BACKGROUND: A Childhood Obesity Risk Estimation tool (SLOPE CORE) has been developed based on prediction models using routinely available maternity and early childhood data to estimate risk of childhood obesity at 4-5 years. This study aims to test the feasibility, acceptability and usability of SLOPE CORE within an enhanced health visiting (EHV) service in the UK, as one context in which this tool could be utilised. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used to assess feasibility of implementing SLOPE CORE. Health Visitors (HVs) were trained to use the tool, and in the processes for recruiting parents into the study. HVs were recruited using purposive sampling and parents by convenience sampling. HVs and parents were invited to take part in interviews or focus groups to explore their experiences of the tool. HVs were asked to complete a system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire. RESULTS: Five HVs and seven parents took part in the study. HVs found SLOPE CORE easy to use with a mean SUS of 84.4, (n = 4, range 70-97.5) indicating excellent usability. Five HVs and three parents took part in qualitative work. The tool was acceptable and useful for both parents and HVs. Parents expressed a desire to know their child's risk of future obesity, provided this was accompanied by additional information, or support to modify risk. HVs appreciated the health promotion opportunity that the tool presented and felt that it facilitated difficult conversations around weight, by providing 'clinical evidence' for risk, and placing the focus of the conversation onto the tool result, rather than their professional judgement. The main potential barriers to use of the tool included the need for internet access, and concerns around time needed to have a sensitive discussion around a conceptually difficult topic (risk). CONCLUSIONS: SLOPE CORE could potentially be useful in clinical practice. It may support targeting limited resources towards families most at risk of childhood obesity. Further research is needed to explore how the tool might be efficiently incorporated into practice, and to evaluate the impact of the tool, and any subsequent interventions, on preventing childhood obesity.

Household food insecurity risk indices for English neighbourhoods: Measures to support local policy decisions.

BACKGROUND: In England, the responsibility to address food insecurity lies with local government, yet the prevalence of this social inequality is unknown in small subnational areas. In 2018 an index of small-area household food insecurity risk was developed and utilised by public and third sector organisations to target interventions; this measure needed updating to better support decisions in different settings, such as urban and rural areas where pressures on food security differ. METHODS: We held interviews with stakeholders (n = 14) and completed a scoping review to identify appropriate variables to create an updated risk measure. We then sourced a range of open access secondary data to develop an indices of food insecurity risk in English neighbourhoods. Following a process of data transformation and normalisation, we tested combinations of variables and identified the most appropriate data to reflect household food insecurity risk in urban and rural areas. RESULTS: Eight variables, reflecting both household circumstances and local service availability, were separated into two domains with equal weighting for a new index, the Complex Index, and a subset of these to make up the Simple Index. Within the Complex Index, the Compositional Domain includes population characteristics while the Structural Domain reflects small area access to resources such as grocery stores. The Compositional Domain correlated well with free school meal eligibility (rs = 0.705) and prevalence of childhood obesity (rs = 0.641). This domain was the preferred measure for use in most areas when shared with stakeholders, and when assessed alongside other configurations of the variables. Areas of highest risk were most often located in the North of England. CONCLUSION: We recommend the use of the Compositional Domain for all areas, with inclusion of the Structural Domain in rural areas where locational disadvantage makes it more difficult to access resources. These measures can aid local policy makers and planners when allocating resources and interventions to support households who may experience food insecurity.

Maternal weight change between successive pregnancies: an opportunity for lifecourse obesity prevention.

Maternal obesity is a major risk factor for adverse health outcomes for both the mother and the child, including the serious public health problem of childhood obesity which is globally on the rise. Given the relatively intensive contact with health/care professionals following birth, the interpregnancy period provides a golden opportunity to focus on preconception and family health, and to introduce interventions that support mothers to achieve or maintain a healthy weight in preparation for their next pregnancy. In this review, we summarise the evidence on the association between interpregnancy weight gain with birth and obesity outcomes in the offspring. Gaining weight between pregnancies is associated with an increased risk of large-for-gestational age (LGA) birth, a predictor of childhood obesity, and weight loss between pregnancies in women with overweight or obesity seems protective against recurrent LGA. Interpregnancy weight loss seems to be negatively associated with birthweight. There is some suggestion that interpregnancy weight change may be associated with preterm birth, but the mechanisms are unclear and the direction depends if it is spontaneous or indicated. There is limited evidence on the direct positive link between maternal interpregnancy weight gain with gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension and obesity or overweight in childhood, with no studies using adult offspring adiposity outcomes. Improving preconception health and optimising weight before pregnancy could contribute to tackling the rise in childhood obesity. Research testing the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of interventions to optimise maternal weight and health during this period is needed, particularly in high-risk and disadvantaged groups.

Maternal interpregnancy weight change and premature birth: Findings from an English population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between maternal weight change between pregnancies and premature birth is unclear. This study aimed to investigate whether interpregnancy weight change between first and second, or second and third pregnancy is associated with premature birth. METHODS: Routinely collected data from 2003 to 2018 from one English maternity centre was used to produce two cohorts. The primary cohort (n = 14,961 women) consisted of first and second live-birth pregnancies. The secondary cohort (n = 5,108 women) consisted of second and third live-birth pregnancies. Logistic regression models were used to examine associations between interpregnancy BMI change and premature births adjusted for confounders. Subgroup analyses were carried out, stratifying by initial pregnancy BMI groups and analysing spontaneous and indicated premature births separately. RESULTS: In the primary cohort, 3.4% (n = 514) of births were premature compared to 4.2% (n = 212) in the secondary cohort, with fewer indicated than spontaneous premature births in both cohorts. PRIMARY COHORT: Weight loss (>3kg/m2) was associated with increased odds of premature birth (adjusted odds ratio (aOR):3.50, 95% CI: 1.78-6.88), and spontaneous premature birth (aOR: 3.34, 95%CI: 1.60-6.98), in women who were normal weight (BMI 18.5-25kg/m2) at first pregnancy. Weight gain >1kg/m2 was not associated with premature birth regardless of starting BMI. SECONDARY COHORT: Losing >3kg/m2 was associated with increased odds of premature birth (aOR: 2.01, 95%CI: 1.05-3.87), when analysing the whole sample, but not when restricting the analysis to women who were overweight or obese at second pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Normal-weight women who lose significant weight (>3kg/m2) between their first and second live pregnancies have greater odds of premature birth compared to normal-weight women who remain weight stable in the interpregnancy period. There was no evidence of association between weight change in women who were overweight or obese at the start of their first pregnancy and premature birth.