Effectiveness of the Go4Fun program: a comparison of face-to-face and digital delivery.

IF 2.5 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Bronwyn McGill, Christian Young, Margaret Thomas
{"title":"Effectiveness of the Go4Fun program: a comparison of face-to-face and digital delivery.","authors":"Bronwyn McGill, Christian Young, Margaret Thomas","doi":"10.17061/phrp34232408","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objectives and importance of study: Despite an increasing trend in digitally delivered health promotion programs, evidence of their effectiveness compared to face-to-face approaches is limited. Go4Fun is a 10-week, scaled-up healthy lifestyle program in New South Wales (NSW) for children 7-13 years who are above a healthy weight and their families, delivered either face-to-face or digitally. We compared the impact of Standard Go4Fun (face-to-face) and Go4Fun Online (digital) on children's weight and health behaviour outcomes and whether attendance levels influenced outcomes.</p><p><strong>Study type: </strong>Pre-post study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a secondary analysis of Go4Fun cohort data from 1893 face-to-face and 1283 digital participants (January 2018 to May 2022). Outcomes of interest were body mass index z-score (zBMI), physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and fruit, vegetable, sugary drink and takeaway food consumption.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A higher proportion of Standard Go4Fun children lived in major cities, in areas of greatest disadvantage and spoke a language other than English at home than in Go4Fun Online. Children in both Standard Go4Fun and Go4Fun Online demonstrated improvements in all outcomes; however, children in Go4Fun Online showed significantly larger improvements. On average, digital participants had a reduction in zBMI of 0.11 more than the reduction seen in face-to-face participants (95% Confidence Interval [CI] -0.12, -0.09), increased the days/week of moderate-to-vigorous-physical-activity by 30% more (95% CI 24%, 36%), were more likely to eat ≥ 2 serves of fruit/day (compared to < 2, Odds Ratio [OR] 1.85; 95% CI: 1.36, 2.52) or eat ≥ 3 serves of vegetables/day (compared to < 3, OR 1.96; CI: 1.58, 2.42). Across both modes, with each additional session attended, the odds of eating ≥ 3 serves of vegetables/day increased by 10% (95% CI 1.02, 1.19). There were no significant differences for other health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our evaluation demonstrated that both face-to-face and digital program delivery helped children above a healthy weight to improve their weight and health behaviour outcomes. Go4Fun Online achieved significantly greater improvements in outcomes, which is encouraging for the future of digital interventions. Participation in Standard Go4Fun by more children with obesity from disadvantaged areas and non-English speaking backgrounds suggests that ongoing delivery of both modes of Go4Fun could facilitate program reach among all children above a healthy weight.</p>","PeriodicalId":45898,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Research & Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Research & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp34232408","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives and importance of study: Despite an increasing trend in digitally delivered health promotion programs, evidence of their effectiveness compared to face-to-face approaches is limited. Go4Fun is a 10-week, scaled-up healthy lifestyle program in New South Wales (NSW) for children 7-13 years who are above a healthy weight and their families, delivered either face-to-face or digitally. We compared the impact of Standard Go4Fun (face-to-face) and Go4Fun Online (digital) on children's weight and health behaviour outcomes and whether attendance levels influenced outcomes.

Study type: Pre-post study.

Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of Go4Fun cohort data from 1893 face-to-face and 1283 digital participants (January 2018 to May 2022). Outcomes of interest were body mass index z-score (zBMI), physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and fruit, vegetable, sugary drink and takeaway food consumption.

Results: A higher proportion of Standard Go4Fun children lived in major cities, in areas of greatest disadvantage and spoke a language other than English at home than in Go4Fun Online. Children in both Standard Go4Fun and Go4Fun Online demonstrated improvements in all outcomes; however, children in Go4Fun Online showed significantly larger improvements. On average, digital participants had a reduction in zBMI of 0.11 more than the reduction seen in face-to-face participants (95% Confidence Interval [CI] -0.12, -0.09), increased the days/week of moderate-to-vigorous-physical-activity by 30% more (95% CI 24%, 36%), were more likely to eat ≥ 2 serves of fruit/day (compared to < 2, Odds Ratio [OR] 1.85; 95% CI: 1.36, 2.52) or eat ≥ 3 serves of vegetables/day (compared to < 3, OR 1.96; CI: 1.58, 2.42). Across both modes, with each additional session attended, the odds of eating ≥ 3 serves of vegetables/day increased by 10% (95% CI 1.02, 1.19). There were no significant differences for other health outcomes.

Conclusions: Our evaluation demonstrated that both face-to-face and digital program delivery helped children above a healthy weight to improve their weight and health behaviour outcomes. Go4Fun Online achieved significantly greater improvements in outcomes, which is encouraging for the future of digital interventions. Participation in Standard Go4Fun by more children with obesity from disadvantaged areas and non-English speaking backgrounds suggests that ongoing delivery of both modes of Go4Fun could facilitate program reach among all children above a healthy weight.

Go4Fun 计划的有效性:面对面授课与数字授课的比较。
研究目的和重要性:尽管数字化健康促进项目呈上升趋势,但与面对面方式相比,其有效性的证据却很有限。Go4Fun 是新南威尔士州(NSW)一项为期 10 周、规模更大的健康生活方式计划,面向体重超过健康标准的 7-13 岁儿童及其家庭,以面对面或数字化方式实施。我们比较了标准 Go4Fun(面对面)和 Go4Fun 在线(数字化)对儿童体重和健康行为结果的影响,以及参加人数是否影响结果:研究类型:事前-事后研究:我们对1893名面对面参与者和1283名数字参与者(2018年1月至2022年5月)的Go4Fun队列数据进行了二次分析。研究结果包括体重指数 z 值(zBMI)、体力活动、久坐行为以及水果、蔬菜、含糖饮料和外卖食品消费:与在线 Go4Fun 相比,"标准 Go4Fun "儿童中居住在大城市、最贫困地区以及在家讲英语以外语言的比例更高。参加 "标准 Go4Fun "和 "在线 Go4Fun "的儿童在所有结果上都有所改善;但参加 "在线 Go4Fun "的儿童的改善幅度更大。数字参与者的 zBMI 平均比面对面参与者减少了 0.11(95% 置信区间 [CI] -0.12, -0.09),中度到剧烈运动的天数/周增加了 30% (95% CI 24%, 36%),更有可能每天吃 ≥ 2 份水果(与 < 2 份相比,Odds Ratio [OR] 1.85; 95% CI: 1.36, 2.52)或每天吃 ≥ 3 份蔬菜(与 < 3 份相比,OR 1.96; CI: 1.58, 2.42)。在两种模式中,每多参加一次课程,每天吃蔬菜≥3 份的几率就会增加 10%(95% CI 1.02,1.19)。其他健康结果没有明显差异:我们的评估结果表明,面对面和数字化计划的实施都有助于体重超过健康体重的儿童改善体重和健康行为结果。Go4Fun在线项目在改善结果方面取得了更大的进步,这对未来的数字化干预措施来说是令人鼓舞的。更多来自贫困地区和非英语背景的肥胖症儿童参与了标准 Go4Fun,这表明持续提供两种模式的 Go4Fun 可促进该计划在所有体重超过健康标准的儿童中的普及。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Public Health Research & Practice
Public Health Research & Practice PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Health Research & Practice is an open-access, quarterly, online journal with a strong focus on the connection between research, policy and practice. It publishes innovative, high-quality papers that inform public health policy and practice, paying particular attention to innovations, data and perspectives from policy and practice. The journal is published by the Sax Institute, a national leader in promoting the use of research evidence in health policy. Formerly known as The NSW Public Health Bulletin, the journal has a long history. It was published by the NSW Ministry of Health for nearly a quarter of a century. Responsibility for its publication transferred to the Sax Institute in 2014, and the journal receives guidance from an expert editorial board.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信