Participatory development and pilot testing of iChoose: an adaptation of an evidence-based paediatric weight management program for community implementation.

BACKGROUND: To describe the identification, adaptation, and testing of an evidence-based pediatric weight management program for a health disparate community. METHODS: A community advisory board (CAB) of decision-makers and staff from local health care, public health, and recreation organizations engaged with academic partners to select an evidence-based program (EBP) for local implementation. Three EBPs were identified (Traffic Light, Bright Bodies, Golan and colleagues Home Environmental Model) and each EBP was rated on program characteristics, implementation and adaptation, and adoptability. Following selection of the EBP that was rated highest, the POPS-CAB made adaptations based on the program principles described in peer-reviewed publications. The adapted intervention, iChoose, was then pilot tested in 3 iterative phases delivered initially by research partners, then co-delivered by research and community partners, then delivered by community partners. The RE-AIM framework was used to plan and evaluate the iChoose intervention across all waves with assessments at baseline, post program (3 months), and follow-up (6 months). RESULTS: Bright Bodies rated highest on program characteristics and adoptability (p's < 0.05), while Home Environmental Model rated highest on implementation factors (p < 0.05). Qualitatively, the selection focused on important program characteristics and on matching those characteristics to the potential to fit within the community partner services. The adapted program-iChoose-had 18% reach and with participants that were representative of the target population on age, gender, ethnicity, and race. Effectiveness was demonstrated by modest, but significant reductions in BMI z-scores at post-program compared to baseline (MΔ = - 0.047; t = - 2.11, p = 0.046). This decrease returned to values similar to baseline 3 months (MΔ = 0.009) after the program was completed. Implementation fidelity was high and implementation fidelity did not differ between community or research delivery agents. CONCLUSION: The process to help organizations identify and select evidence-based programs appropriate for their community led to consensus on a single EBP. While iChoose was successful in initiating changes in BMI z-scores, could be implemented in a low resource community with fidelity, it was insufficient to lead to sustained child BMI z-scores. In response to these data, maintenance of program effects and delivery are the current focus of the CBPR team.

Building and Sustaining Community Capacity to Address Childhood Obesity: A 3-Year Mixed-Methods Case Study of a Community-Academic Advisory Board.

Guided by a community-based participatory research and systems-based approach, this 3-year mixed-methods case study describes the experiences and capacity development of a Community-Academic Advisory Board (CAB) formed to adapt, implement, and evaluate an evidence-based childhood obesity treatment program in a medically underserved region. The CAB included community, public health, and clinical (n = 9) and academic partners (n = 9). CAB members completed capacity evaluations at 4 points. Partners identified best practices that attributed to the successful execution and continued advancement of project goals. The methodological framework and findings can inform capacity development and sustainability of emergent community-academic collaborations.

The Influence of Parental Health Literacy Status on Reach, Attendance, Retention, and Outcomes in a Family-Based Childhood Obesity Treatment Program, Virginia, 2013-2015.

INTRODUCTION: Few interventions have evaluated the influence of parent health literacy (HL) status on weight-related child outcomes. This study explores how parent HL affects the reach, attendance, and retention of and outcomes in a 3-month multicomponent family-based program to treat childhood obesity (iChoose). METHODS: This pre-post, quasiexperimental trial occurred in the Dan River Region, a federally designated medically underserved area. iChoose research protocol and intervention strategies were designed using an HL universal precautions approach. We used validated measures, standardized data collection techniques, and generalized linear mixed-effect parametric models to determine the moderation effect of parent HL on outcomes. RESULTS: No significant difference in HL scores were found between parents who enrolled their child in the study and those who did not. Of 94 enrolled parents, 34% were low HL, 49% had an annual household income of less than $25,000, and 39% had a high school education or less. Of 101 enrolled children, 60% were black, and the mean age was 9.8 (standard deviation, 1.3) years. Children of parents with both low and high HL attended and were retained at similar rates. Likewise, parent HL status did not significantly influence improvements in effectiveness outcomes (eg, child body mass index [BMI] z scores, parent BMI, diet and physical activity behaviors, quality of life), with the exception of child video game/computer screen time; low HL decreased and high HL increased screen time (coefficient = 0.52, standard error, 0.11, P < .001). CONCLUSION: By incorporating design features that attended to the HL needs of parents, children of parents with low HL engaged in and benefited from a family-based childhood obesity treatment program similar to children of parents with high HL.

One-Year Mixed-Methods Case Study of a Community-Academic Advisory Board Addressing Childhood Obesity.

OBJECTIVE: Using a community-based participatory research and systems-based approach, the purpose of this community case study is to describe the planning process and first-year experiences of community-academic advisory board (CAB) partners involved with the development of an evidence-based childhood obesity treatment program in a medically underserved region. METHOD: Regional community partners ( n = 9; Pittsylvania/Danville Health District, Children's Healthcare Center, Danville Parks & Recreation, and Danville Boys & Girls Club) and academic partners ( n = 9) met monthly to select and adapt an evidence-based childhood obesity program, develop evaluation and recruitment protocols, and plan for program implementation. In the first 3 months, members developed a mixed-methods capacity evaluation, administered at 3 and 11 months following the first CAB meeting. RESULTS: Most capacity dimensions were rated highly and demonstrated no significant change over time. However, perceptions of trust approached a significant increase ( p = .055), the ability to resolve conflicts significantly increased ( p = .018), and participation and influ-ence perceptions significantly decreased ( p = .001). Qualitative analysis elucidated members' experiences and key facilitator and barrier themes emerged. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities and differences between community and academic members' experiences allowed synthesis of best practices and lessons learned. The methodological framework and best practices can inform the capacity development for new community-academic collaborations.

Randomized controlled trial targeting obesity-related behaviors: Better Together Healthy Caswell County.

INTRODUCTION: Collaborative and multilevel interventions to effectively address obesity-related behaviors among rural communities with health disparities can be challenging, and traditional research approaches may be unsuitable. The primary objective of our 15-week randomized controlled pilot study, which was guided by community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles, was to determine the effectiveness of providing twice-weekly access to group fitness classes, with and without weekly nutrition and physical activity education sessions, in Caswell County, North Carolina, a rural region devoid of medical and physical activity resources. METHODS: Participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: group 1 was offered fitness sessions and education in healthful eating and physical activity; group 2 was offered fitness sessions only. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and immediately after the intervention. Standardized assessment procedures, validated measures, and tests for analysis of variance were used. RESULTS: Of 91 enrolled participants, most were African American (62%) or female (91%). Groups were not significantly different at baseline. Group 1 experienced significantly greater improvements in body mass index (F = 15.0, P < .001) and waist circumference (F = 7.0, P = .01), compared with group 2. Both groups significantly increased weekly minutes of moderate physical activity (F = 9.4, P < .003). Participants in group 1 also had significantly greater weight loss with higher attendance at the education (F = 14.7, P < .001) and fitness sessions (F = 18.5, P < .001). CONCLUSION: This study offers effective programmatic strategies that can reduce weight and increase physical activity and demonstrates feasibility for a larger scale CBPR obesity trial targeting underserved residents affected by health disparities. This study also signifies successful collaboration among community and academic partners engaged in a CBPR coalition.

Comparing two different family-based childhood obesity treatment programmes in a medically underserved region: Effectiveness, engagement and implementation outcomes from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Access to evidence- and family-based childhood obesity (FBCO) treatment interventions is a challenge, especially in underserved regions where childhood obesity disparities persist. OBJECTIVE: Compare two 6-month FBCO treatment interventions, iChoose (high intensity, parent-child dyads) and Family Connections (low intensity, parents only), in one underserved US region. METHODS: This unblinded, RCT reports on effectiveness and implementation outcomes. Eligibility included children ages 5-12 with BMI ≥85th percentile. Analyses included descriptive statistics and intention-to-treat Heckman treatment effect models. RESULTS: Enrolled children (n = 139, mean age 10.1 ± 1.7 years, 30% with overweight, 70% with obesity, 45% black, 63% Medicaid) were randomly assigned to iChoose (n = 70) or Family Connections (n = 69). Retention rates were 63% for iChoose and 84% for Family Connection. Among children, 6-month BMI z-score changes were not statistically significant within iChoose [BMI z-score 0.03 (95% CI = -0.13, 0.19)] or Family Connections [BMI z-score 0.00 (95% CI = -0.16, 0.16)]. Likewise, parents' BMI changes were not statistically significant. No adverse events were reported. Both programmes were delivered with high fidelity (77%-100%). Engagement in core components was 25%-36% for iChoose and 52%-61% for Family Connections. Implementation costs per child with improved BMI z-score were $2841 for iChoose and $955 for Family Connections. CONCLUSIONS: Neither intervention yielded significant improvements in child BMI z-score or parent BMI, yet both were delivered with high fidelity. Relative to iChoose, descriptive data indicated higher retention, better engagement, and lower costs for Family Connections-suggesting that a lower intensity and parent-focused programme may better fit the intended audience's context.

Assets and Challenges to Recruiting and Engaging Families in a Childhood Obesity Treatment Research Trial: Insights From Academic Partners, Community Partners, and Study Participants.

Background: There is need for the childhood obesity treatment literature to identify effective recruitment and engagement strategies for rural communities that are more likely to lack supportive infrastructure for healthy lifestyles and clinical research relative to their urban counterparts. This community case study examines recruitment and engagement strategies from a comparative effectiveness research (CER) trial of two family-based childhood obesity (FBCO) treatment interventions conducted in a medically underserved, rural region. Guided by a Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) and systems-based approach, the primary aim was to analyze interviews from academic partners, community partners, and parent study participants for recruitment and engagement assets, challenges, and lessons learned. Methods: Over the 3-year lifespan of the study, researchers conducted 288 interviews with Community Advisory Board members (n = 14), Parent Advisory Team members (n = 7), and study participants (n = 100). Using an inductive-deductive approach, interviews were broadly coded for recruitment and engagement assets, challenges, and recommendations; analyzed for descriptive sub-coding; and organized into stakeholder/organization and participant level themes. Codes were analyzed aggregately across time and examined for differences among stakeholders and parent study participants. Results: Adherence to CBPR principles and development of strong community partnerships facilitated recruitment and engagement; however, variability in recruitment and engagement success impacted partner confidence, threatened outcome validity, and required additional resources. Specifically, assets and challenges emerged around eight key needs. Three were at the stakeholder/organization level: (1) readiness of stakeholders to conduct CBPR research, (2) development of sustainable referral protocols, and (3) development of participant engagement systems. The remaining five were at the participant level: (1) comfort and trust with research, (2) awareness and understanding of the study, (3) intervention accessibility, (4) intervention acceptability, and (5) target population readiness. Future recommendations included conducting readiness assessments and awareness campaigns, piloting and evaluating recruitment and engagement strategies, identifying participant barriers to engagement and finding a priori solutions, and fostering stakeholder leadership to develop sustainable protocols. Conclusion: Collective findings from multiple perspectives demonstrate the need for multi-leveled approaches focusing on infrastructure supports and strategies to improve stakeholder and participant awareness of, and capacity for, recruiting and engaging medically underserved, rural families in a FBCO CER trial.

A comparative effectiveness trial of two family-based childhood obesity treatment programs in a medically underserved region: Rationale, design & methods.

While there is a large body of literature documenting the efficacy of family-based childhood obesity (FBCO) treatment interventions, there is little evidence that these interventions have been systematically translated into regular practice - particularly in health disparate regions. To address this research-practice gap, this project was guided by a community advisory board (CAB) and the RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework within a systems-based and community-based participatory research approach. Families with overweight or obese children between 5 and 12 years old, in the medically-underserved Dan River Region, were randomly assigned to one of two FBCO treatment programs (iChoose vs. Family Connections) delivered by local Parks & Recreation staff. Both programs have previously demonstrated clinically meaningful child BMI z-score reductions, but vary in intensity, structure, and implementation demands. Two clinical CAB partners embedded recruitment methods into their regional healthcare organization, using procedures representative to what could be used if either program was taken to scale. The primary effectiveness outcome is child BMI z-scores at 6-months, with additional assessments at 3-months and at 12-months. Secondary goals are to determine: (1) reach into the intended audience; (2) effectiveness on secondary child and parent outcomes; (3) intervention adoption by organizations and staff; (4) fidelity, cost, and capacity for intervention implementation; and (5) maintenance of individual-level changes and organizational-level sustainability. This research addresses literature gaps related to the features within clinical and community settings that could improve both child weight status and the translation of FBCO interventions into typical practice in medically-underserved communities. IDENTIFIERS: Clincialtrials.gov: NCT03245775.

Exploring community gardens in a health disparate population: findings from a mixed methods pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations, there have been few efforts to apply the community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach in the development, implementation, and evaluation of community gardens. OBJECTIVES: As guided by the CBPR approach and grounded in a social-ecological model and behavioral theory, the purpose of this mixed methods study was to understand opinions and interests in developing and implementing a community garden and to understand factors impacting fruit, vegetable, and gardening behaviors. METHODS: Community and academic members collaborated to develop and execute this study. The qualitative phase- targeting regional key informants-was designed to elicit perceived benefits and challenges of community gardens at the environmental, community, and individual levels. The quantitative phase targeted low resourced youth and parents and included a variety of validated theory-based questionnaires to understand factors impacting fruit, vegetable, and gardening behaviors. RESULTS: Major benefits of community gardens that emerged from the 10 qualitative interviews included increasing community cohesion and improving nutrition and physical activity factors. The quantitative phase included 87 youth and 67 parents. Across 16 items for fruits and vegetables, the average willingness to try was 1.32 (standard deviation [SD] = 0.40) on a 2-point scale. The majority of youth indicated they would work in a garden (n = 59; 68%) and eat food grown in their garden (n = 71; 82%). Among parents, gardening attitude, belief, and self-efficacy scores were all above average; however, gardening intentions were neutral. CONCLUSION: This research illustrates the successful partnering a community-academic team and has provided the partnership with a clearer lens to conceptualize and launch future regional community garden efforts.