A randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of a brief Triple P discussion group to increase healthy feeding practices and reduce risk factors for infant obesity

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Agnes Gelmini, Cassandra L Tellegen, Alina Morawska
{"title":"A randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of a brief Triple P discussion group to increase healthy feeding practices and reduce risk factors for infant obesity","authors":"Agnes Gelmini, Cassandra L Tellegen, Alina Morawska","doi":"10.1093/jpepsy/jsae063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective Test the efficacy of a brief 2-hr parenting intervention in increasing protective factors against and reducing risk factors for infant obesity. Method A 2 (Baby Healthy Living Triple P vs. care-as-usual) × 3 (baseline, postintervention, 6-month follow-up) design was used. Eighty-two parents of 4- to 18-month-old infants meeting at least two risk factors for early childhood obesity (e.g., parent/child overweight, low education level) were randomized to intervention (n = 42) or control group (n = 40). Parents questionnaires and child weight status was measured. Results Results showed an intervention effect on a primary outcome, early feeding practices (restrictive: d = 0.44, 95% CI [−0.01,0.88], pressuring: d = 0.11, 95% CI [−0.32,0.54], nonresponsive behaviors: (d = 0.32, 95% CI [−0.11,0.75]), and on a secondary outcome, feeding beliefs (d = 0.29, 95% CI [−0.14,0.73]). No beneficial impact was found on other primary outcomes (responsiveness in feeding: quantity d = 0.50, 95% CI [−0.03,1.03]) and nutritive d = 0.52, 95% CI [−0.03,1.07], mealtime environment: d = 0.35, 95% CI [−0.78,0.08], self-efficacy in responsive feeding: d = 0.21, 95% CI [−0.22,0.64]), or secondary outcomes (parental self-efficacy: d = 0.08, 95% CI [−0.50,0.35]), parent emotional eating (d = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.43,0.43]), food restraint (d = 0.42, 95% CI [−0.85,0.02]), and body satisfaction (d = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.43,0.43]) and child weight status (d = 0.11, 95% CI [−0.54,0.32]). Conclusions Promising though limited support was demonstrated for a brief, low-intensity program to help parents in the prevention of obesity for infants at risk.","PeriodicalId":48372,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Psychology","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsae063","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective Test the efficacy of a brief 2-hr parenting intervention in increasing protective factors against and reducing risk factors for infant obesity. Method A 2 (Baby Healthy Living Triple P vs. care-as-usual) × 3 (baseline, postintervention, 6-month follow-up) design was used. Eighty-two parents of 4- to 18-month-old infants meeting at least two risk factors for early childhood obesity (e.g., parent/child overweight, low education level) were randomized to intervention (n = 42) or control group (n = 40). Parents questionnaires and child weight status was measured. Results Results showed an intervention effect on a primary outcome, early feeding practices (restrictive: d = 0.44, 95% CI [−0.01,0.88], pressuring: d = 0.11, 95% CI [−0.32,0.54], nonresponsive behaviors: (d = 0.32, 95% CI [−0.11,0.75]), and on a secondary outcome, feeding beliefs (d = 0.29, 95% CI [−0.14,0.73]). No beneficial impact was found on other primary outcomes (responsiveness in feeding: quantity d = 0.50, 95% CI [−0.03,1.03]) and nutritive d = 0.52, 95% CI [−0.03,1.07], mealtime environment: d = 0.35, 95% CI [−0.78,0.08], self-efficacy in responsive feeding: d = 0.21, 95% CI [−0.22,0.64]), or secondary outcomes (parental self-efficacy: d = 0.08, 95% CI [−0.50,0.35]), parent emotional eating (d = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.43,0.43]), food restraint (d = 0.42, 95% CI [−0.85,0.02]), and body satisfaction (d = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.43,0.43]) and child weight status (d = 0.11, 95% CI [−0.54,0.32]). Conclusions Promising though limited support was demonstrated for a brief, low-intensity program to help parents in the prevention of obesity for infants at risk.
随机对照试验:测试简短的三P讨论小组对增加健康喂养方式和减少婴儿肥胖风险因素的效果
目的 测试 2 小时简短育儿干预对增加婴儿肥胖保护因素和减少婴儿肥胖风险因素的效果。方法 采用 2(婴儿健康生活三重 P 与照常护理对比)×3(基线、干预后、6 个月随访)设计。82名4至18个月大婴儿的父母至少有两个儿童早期肥胖的风险因素(如父母/子女超重、教育水平低),他们被随机分配到干预组(n = 42)或对照组(n = 40)。对家长问卷和儿童体重状况进行了测量。结果显示,干预对主要结果--早期喂养行为(限制性:d = 0.44,95% CI [-0.01,0.88];压迫性:d = 0.11,95% CI [-0.32,0.54];无反应行为:(d = 0.32,95% CI [-0.11,0.75])和次要结果--喂养观念(d = 0.29,95% CI [-0.14,0.73])产生了影响。对其他主要结果(喂养反应性:数量 d = 0.50,95% CI [-0.03,1.03])和营养性 d = 0.52,95% CI [-0.03,1.07]、进餐环境:d = 0.35,95% CI [-0.78,0.08]、反应性喂养自我效能:d = 0.21,95% CI [-0.22,0.64])或次要结果(喂养信念:d = 0.29,95% CI [-0.14,0.73])未发现有益影响。64]),或次要结果(父母自我效能:d = 0.08,95% CI [-0.50,0.35])、父母情绪化饮食(d = 0.01,95% CI [-0.43,0.43])、食物克制(d = 0.42,95% CI [-0.85,0.02])、身体满意度(d = 0.01,95% CI [-0.43,0.43])和儿童体重状况(d = 0.11,95% CI [-0.54,0.32])。结论 一项帮助家长预防高危婴儿肥胖症的简短、低强度计划虽然支持率有限,但前景广阔。
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
Journal of Pediatric Psychology
Journal of Pediatric Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
11.10%
发文量
89
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pediatric Psychology is the official journal of the Society of Pediatric Psychology, Division 54 of the American Psychological Association. The Journal of Pediatric Psychology publishes articles related to theory, research, and professional practice in pediatric psychology. Pediatric psychology is an integrated field of science and practice in which the principles of psychology are applied within the context of pediatric health. The field aims to promote the health and development of children, adolescents, and their families through use of evidence-based methods.
×
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