There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
Poor diet and insufficient physical activity are major risk factors for non‐communicable
diseases. Developing healthy diet and physical activity behaviors early in life is
important as these behaviors track between childhood and adulthood. Parents and other
adult caregivers have important influences on children's health behaviors, but whether
their involvement in children's nutrition and physical activity interventions contributes
to intervention effectiveness is not known. • To assess effects of caregiver involvement
in interventions for improving children's dietary intake and physical activity behaviors,
including those intended to prevent overweight and obesity • To describe intervention
content and behavior change techniques employed, drawing from a behavior change technique
taxonomy developed and advanced by Abraham, Michie, and colleagues (Abraham 2008;
Michie 2011; Michie 2013; Michie 2015) • To identify content and techniques related
to reported outcomes when such information was reported in included studies In January
2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases, and three trials registers.
We also searched the references lists of relevant reports and systematic reviews.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs evaluating the effects of interventions
to improve children's dietary intake or physical activity behavior, or both, with
children aged 2 to 18 years as active participants and at least one component involving
caregivers versus the same interventions but without the caregiver component(s). We
excluded interventions meant as treatment or targeting children with pre‐existing
conditions, as well as caregiver‐child units residing in orphanages and school hostel
environments. We used standard methodological procedures outlined by Cochrane. We
included 23 trials with approximately 12,192 children in eligible intervention arms.
With the exception of two studies, all were conducted in high‐income countries, with
more than half performed in North America. Most studies were school‐based and involved
the addition of healthy eating or physical education classes, or both, sometimes in
tandem with other changes to the school environment. The specific intervention strategies
used were not always reported completely. However, based on available reports, the
behavior change techniques used most commonly in the child‐only arm were "shaping
knowledge," "comparison of behavior," "feedback and monitoring," and "repetition and
substitution." In the child + caregiver arm, the strategies used most commonly included
additional "shaping knowledge" or "feedback and monitoring" techniques, as well as
"social support" and "natural consequences." We considered all trials to be at high
risk of bias for at least one design factor. Seven trials did not contribute any data
to analyses. The quality of reporting of intervention content varied between studies,
and there was limited scope for meta‐analysis. Both validated and non‐validated instruments
were used to measure outcomes of interest. Outcomes measured and reported differed
between studies, with 16 studies contributing data to the meta‐analyses. About three‐quarters
of studies reported their funding sources; no studies reported industry funding. We
assessed the quality of evidence to be low or very low. Dietary behavior change interventions
with a caregiver component versus interventions without a caregiver component Seven
studies compared dietary behavior change interventions with and without a caregiver
component. At the end of the intervention, we did not detect a difference between
intervention arms in children's percentage of total energy intake from saturated fat
(mean difference [MD] −0.42%, 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.25 to 0.41, 1 study,
n = 207; low‐quality evidence) or from sodium intake (MD −0.12 g/d, 95% CI −0.36 to
0.12, 1 study, n = 207; low‐quality evidence). No trial in this comparison reported
data for children's combined fruit and vegetable intake, sugar‐sweetened beverage
(SSB) intake, or physical activity levels, nor for adverse effects of interventions.
Physical activity interventions with a caregiver component versus interventions without
a caregiver component Six studies compared physical activity interventions with and
without a caregiver component. At the end of the intervention, we did not detect a
difference between intervention arms in children's total physical activity (MD 0.20
min/h, 95% CI −1.19 to 1.59, 1 study, n = 54; low‐quality evidence) or moderate to
vigorous physical activity (MVPA) (standard mean difference [SMD] 0.04, 95% CI −0.41
to 0.49, 2 studies, n = 80; moderate‐quality evidence). No trial in this comparison
reported data for percentage of children's total energy intake from saturated fat,
sodium intake, fruit and vegetable intake, or SSB intake, nor for adverse effects
of interventions. Combined dietary and physical activity interventions with a caregiver
component versus interventions without a caregiver component Ten studies compared
dietary and physical activity interventions with and without a caregiver component.
At the end of the intervention, we detected a small positive impact of a caregiver
component on children's SSB intake (SMD −0.28, 95% CI −0.44 to −0.12, 3 studies, n
= 651; moderate‐quality evidence). We did not detect a difference between intervention
arms in children's percentage of total energy intake from saturated fat (MD 0.06%,
95% CI −0.67 to 0.80, 2 studies, n = 216; very low‐quality evidence), sodium intake
(MD 35.94 mg/d, 95% CI −322.60 to 394.47, 2 studies, n = 315; very low‐quality evidence),
fruit and vegetable intake (MD 0.38 servings/d, 95% CI −0.51 to 1.27, 1 study, n =
134; very low‐quality evidence), total physical activity (MD 1.81 min/d, 95% CI −15.18
to 18.80, 2 studies, n = 573; low‐quality evidence), or MVPA (MD −0.05 min/d, 95%
CI −18.57 to 18.47, 1 study, n = 622; very low‐quality evidence). One trial indicated
that no adverse events were reported by study participants but did not provide data.
Current evidence is insufficient to support the inclusion of caregiver involvement
in interventions to improve children's dietary intake or physical activity behavior,
or both. For most outcomes, the quality of the evidence is adversely impacted by the
small number of studies with available data, limited effective sample sizes, risk
of bias, and imprecision. To establish the value of caregiver involvement, additional
studies measuring clinically important outcomes using valid and reliable measures,
employing appropriate design and power, and following established reporting guidelines
are needed, as is evidence on how such interventions might contribute to health equity.
Effects of involving parents and other adult caregivers in children's diet and physical
activity interventions Review question Does it make a difference if parents or other
adult caregivers are involved in interventions to encourage children to eat healthier
or be more physically active? Background Diet and physical activity behaviors are
important determinants of health. Parents and other adult caregivers have an essential
role in shaping children's health habits by controlling availability of and access
to healthy foods and opportunities to be active; supporting, encouraging, and role‐modeling
healthy behaviors; and adopting supportive feeding styles and practices. For these
reasons, it often is argued that parent and caregiver involvement in children's diet
and physical activity interventions is important; however, it remains unclear if involvement
of parents and caregivers actually provides benefit. Objectives We assessed the effects
of involving parents or other adult caregivers in children's healthy eating and physical
activity interventions compared to the effects of the same child interventions without
a parent or caregiver component. We were particularly interested in understanding
effects on children's dietary intake, children's physical activity levels, and adverse
effects of interventions. Study characteristics We found 23 studies, published between
1982 and 2019, that implemented diet interventions, physical activity interventions,
or combined diet and physical activity interventions with children or adolescents,
and evaluated the effects of adding an intervention component involving parents or
other adult caregivers. Approximately 12,192 children aged 2 to 18 years were examined.
More than half of studies took place in North America, and all but two were conducted
in high‐income countries. Most studies were school‐based and involved the addition
of healthy eating or physical education classes, or both, sometimes in tandem with
other changes to the school environment. The breadth of information provided about
intervention content varied between studies. The most commonly used intervention techniques
were those aimed at shaping participants' knowledge, such as providing instruction
about how to perform a behavior (e.g. dance, cooking lessons). About three‐quarters
of studies reported their funding source; no studies reported industry funding. Key
results The findings of this review suggest that adding a parent or caregiver component
to dietary behavior change interventions or physical activity interventions may make
little or no difference to children's dietary intake or physical activity levels.
For interventions that target both diet and physical activity behaviors, involving
a parent or caregiver probably slightly reduces children's sugar‐sweetened beverage
intake by the end of the intervention. We do not know whether any of these types of
interventions result in adverse effects because these data are not available. Quality
of evidence Overall, the evidence from studies is of low or very low quality, which
means that we are uncertain about study results. Currentness of evidence The evidence
is current to January 2019.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Terminology The terminology used to describe a systematic review and meta-analysis has evolved over time. One reason for changing the name from QUOROM to PRISMA was the desire to encompass both systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have adopted the definitions used by the Cochrane Collaboration.9 A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies. Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies. Developing the PRISMA Statement A 3-day meeting was held in Ottawa, Canada, in June 2005 with 29 participants, including review authors, methodologists, clinicians, medical editors, and a consumer. The objective of the Ottawa meeting was to revise and expand the QUOROM checklist and flow diagram, as needed. The executive committee completed the following tasks, prior to the meeting: a systematic review of studies examining the quality of reporting of systematic reviews, and a comprehensive literature search to identify methodological and other articles that might inform the meeting, especially in relation to modifying checklist items. An international survey of review authors, consumers, and groups commissioning or using systematic reviews and meta-analyses was completed, including the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and the Guidelines International Network (GIN). The survey aimed to ascertain views of QUOROM, including the merits of the existing checklist items. The results of these activities were presented during the meeting and are summarized on the PRISMA Website. Only items deemed essential were retained or added to the checklist. Some additional items are nevertheless desirable, and review authors should include these, if relevant.10 For example, it is useful to indicate whether the systematic review is an update11 of a previous review, and to describe any changes in procedures from those described in the original protocol. Shortly after the meeting a draft of the PRISMA checklist was circulated to the group, including those invited to the meeting but unable to attend. A disposition file was created containing comments and revisions from each respondent, and the checklist was subsequently revised 11 times. The group approved the checklist, flow diagram, and this summary paper. Although no direct evidence was found to support retaining or adding some items, evidence from other domains was believed to be relevant. For example, Item 5 asks authors to provide registration information about the systematic review, including a registration number, if available. Although systematic review registration is not yet widely available,12,13 the participating journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)14 now require all clinical trials to be registered in an effort to increase transparency and accountability.15 Those aspects are also likely to benefit systematic reviewers, possibly reducing the risk of an excessive number of reviews addressing the same question16,17 and providing greater transparency when updating systematic reviews. The PRISMA Statement The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist (Table 1; see also Text S1 for a downloadable template for researchers to re-use) and a 4-phase flow diagram (Figure 1; see also Figure S1 for a downloadable template for researchers to re-use). The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have focused on randomized trials, but PRISMA can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. PRISMA may also be useful for critical appraisal of published systematic reviews. However, the PRISMA checklist is not a quality assessment instrument to gauge the quality of a systematic review. Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA Figure 1 Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review Table 1 Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis From QUOROM to PRISMA The new PRISMA checklist differs in several respects from the QUOROM checklist, and the substantive specific changes are highlighted in Table 2. Generally, the PRISMA checklist “decouples” several items present in the QUOROM checklist and, where applicable, several checklist items are linked to improve consistency across the systematic review report. Table 2 Substantive specific changes between the QUOROM checklist and the PRISMA checklist (a tick indicates the presence of the topic in QUOROM or PRISMA) The flow diagram has also been modified. Before including studies and providing reasons for excluding others, the review team must first search the literature. This search results in records. Once these records have been screened and eligibility criteria applied, a smaller number of articles will remain. The number of included articles might be smaller (or larger) than the number of studies, because articles may report on multiple studies and results from a particular study may be published in several articles. To capture this information, the PRISMA flow diagram now requests information on these phases of the review process. Endorsement The PRISMA Statement should replace the QUOROM Statement for those journals that have endorsed QUOROM. We hope that other journals will support PRISMA; they can do so by registering on the PRISMA Website. To underscore to authors, and others, the importance of transparent reporting of systematic reviews, we encourage supporting journals to reference the PRISMA Statement and include the PRISMA web address in their Instructions to Authors. We also invite editorial organizations to consider endorsing PRISMA and encourage authors to adhere to its principles. The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration Paper In addition to the PRISMA Statement, a supporting Explanation and Elaboration document has been produced18 following the style used for other reporting guidelines.19-21 The process of completing this document included developing a large database of exemplars to highlight how best to report each checklist item, and identifying a comprehensive evidence base to support the inclusion of each checklist item. The Explanation and Elaboration document was completed after several face-to-face meetings and numerous iterations among several meeting participants, after which it was shared with the whole group for additional revisions and final approval. Finally, the group formed a dissemination subcommittee to help disseminate and implement PRISMA. Discussion The quality of reporting of systematic reviews is still not optimal.22-27 In a recent review of 300 systematic reviews, few authors reported assessing possible publication bias,22 even though there is overwhelming evidence both for its existence28 and its impact on the results of systematic reviews.29 Even when the possibility of publication bias is assessed, there is no guarantee that systematic reviewers have assessed or interpreted it appropriately.30 Although the absence of reporting such an assessment does not necessarily indicate that it was not done, reporting an assessment of possible publication bias is likely to be a marker of the thoroughness of the conduct of the systematic review. Several approaches have been developed to conduct systematic reviews on a broader array of questions. For example, systematic reviews are now conducted to investigate cost-effectiveness,31 diagnostic32 or prognostic questions,33 genetic associations,34 and policy-making.35 The general concepts and topics covered by PRISMA are all relevant to any systematic review, not just those whose objective is to summarize the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. However, some modifications of the checklist items or flow diagram will be necessary in particular circumstances. For example, assessing the risk of bias is a key concept, but the items used to assess this in a diagnostic review are likely to focus on issues such as the spectrum of patients and the verification of disease status, which differ from reviews of interventions. The flow diagram will also need adjustments when reporting individual patient data meta-analysis.36 We have developed an explanatory document18 to increase the usefulness of PRISMA. For each checklist item, this document contains an example of good reporting, a rationale for its inclusion, and supporting evidence, including references, whenever possible. We believe this document will also serve as a useful resource for those teaching systematic review methodology. We encourage journals to include reference to the explanatory document in their Instructions to Authors. Like any evidence-based endeavour, PRISMA is a living document. To this end we invite readers to comment on the revised version, particularly the new checklist and flow diagram, through the PRISMA website. We will use such information to inform PRISMA's continued development. Note: To encourage dissemination of the PRISMA Statement, this article is freely accessible on the Open Medicine website and the PLoS Medicine website and is also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, and Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. For details on further use, see the PRISMA website. The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration Paper is available at the PLoS Medicine website. Supporting Information Figure S1 Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review (downloadable template document for researchers to re-use) Text S1 Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis (downloadable template document for researchers to re-use)
[1
]University of Vermont; Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences; 225B Marsh Life
Science 109 Carrigan Drive Burlington VT USA 05405
[2
]Stellenbosch University; Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Division of Epidemiology
and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences; Francie van Zijl Drive
Cape Town Western Cape South Africa 7505
[3
]Cornell University; Division of Nutritional Sciences; 2250 N Triphammer Rd, Apt E8
Ithaca New York USA 14850
[4
]Texas A&M AgriLife Research; College Station TX USA
[5
]Stellenbosch University; Dean's Division, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences;
Francie van Zijl Drive, Parow Cape Town Western Cape South Africa 14853
[6
]Texas A&M University; Department of Nutrition and Food Science, College of Agriculture
and Life Sciences; Agriculture and Life Sciences Building 600 John Kimbrough Boulevard,
Suite 512 College Station TX USA 77843-2142
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.