TY - JOUR

T1 - Parents‘ evaluation of the IDEFICS intervention

T2 - an analysis focussing on socio-economic factors, child’s weight status and intervention exposure

AU - Nicholls, Stuart

AU - Pohlablen, H.

AU - De Bourdeaudhuij, I.

AU - Chadjigeorgiou, C.

AU - Gwozdz, Wencke

AU - Hebestreit, A.

AU - Lauria, Fabio

AU - Lissner, L.

AU - Molnar, Denes

AU - Santaliestra-Pasías, A. M.

AU - Veidebaum, T.

AU - Williams, Garrath David

AU - IDEFICS Consortium

N1 - This is the peer reviewed version of the following article:Nicholls, S. G., Pohlabeln, H., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Chadjigeorgiou, C., Gwozdz, W., Hebestreit, A., Lauria, F., Lissner, L., Molnár, D., Santaliestra-Pasías, A. M., Veidebaum, T., Williams, G., and on behalf of the IDEFICS consortium (2015) Parents' evaluation of the IDEFICS intervention: an analysis focussing on socio-economic factors, child's weight status and intervention exposure. Obesity Reviews, 16: 103–118. doi: 10.1111/obr.12332 which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.12332/abstract This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.

PY - 2015/12/27

Y1 - 2015/12/27

N2 - Introduction: From April 2008 to August 2010 the Identification and prevention of Dietary- and lifestyle-induced health EFfects In Children and infantS (IDEFICS) intervention aimed to encourage healthier diets, higher physical activity levels and lower stress levels among European children and their families. While the intervention was intended to improve children’s health, we also wished to assess whether there were unwelcome aspects or negative side-effects. Therefore all parents of children who participated in the IDEFICS intervention were asked for their views on different aspects of the intervention.Methods: A total of 10,016 parents of children who participated in the IDEFICS survey and who were involved in the intervention were invited to complete a questionnaire on positive and negative impacts of the intervention. Responses to each of the statements were coded on a four point Likert-type scale. Demographic data were collected as part of the baseline (T0) and first follow-up (T1) surveys; intervention exposure data was also collected in the T1 follow-up survey. Anthropometric data was collected in the same surveys, and child’s weight status was assessed according to Cole and Lobstein. After initial review of the univariate statistics multi-level logistic regression was conducted to analyse the influence of socio-economic factors, child’s weight status and intervention exposure on parental responses.Results: In total 4,997 responses were received. Approval rates were high, and few parents reported negative effects. Parents who reported higher levels of exposure to the intervention were more likely to approve of it and were also no more likely to notice negative aspects. Less-educated and lower income parents were more likely to report that the intervention would make a lasting positive difference, but also more likely to report that the intervention had had negative effects. Parents of overweight and obese children were more likely to report negative effects – above all, that ‘the intervention had made their child feel as if he/she was “fat” or “overweight.”’Conclusion: While the results represent a broad endorsement of the IDEFICS intervention, they also suggest the importance of vigilance concerning the psychological effects of obesity interventions on overweight and obese children.

AB - Introduction: From April 2008 to August 2010 the Identification and prevention of Dietary- and lifestyle-induced health EFfects In Children and infantS (IDEFICS) intervention aimed to encourage healthier diets, higher physical activity levels and lower stress levels among European children and their families. While the intervention was intended to improve children’s health, we also wished to assess whether there were unwelcome aspects or negative side-effects. Therefore all parents of children who participated in the IDEFICS intervention were asked for their views on different aspects of the intervention.Methods: A total of 10,016 parents of children who participated in the IDEFICS survey and who were involved in the intervention were invited to complete a questionnaire on positive and negative impacts of the intervention. Responses to each of the statements were coded on a four point Likert-type scale. Demographic data were collected as part of the baseline (T0) and first follow-up (T1) surveys; intervention exposure data was also collected in the T1 follow-up survey. Anthropometric data was collected in the same surveys, and child’s weight status was assessed according to Cole and Lobstein. After initial review of the univariate statistics multi-level logistic regression was conducted to analyse the influence of socio-economic factors, child’s weight status and intervention exposure on parental responses.Results: In total 4,997 responses were received. Approval rates were high, and few parents reported negative effects. Parents who reported higher levels of exposure to the intervention were more likely to approve of it and were also no more likely to notice negative aspects. Less-educated and lower income parents were more likely to report that the intervention would make a lasting positive difference, but also more likely to report that the intervention had had negative effects. Parents of overweight and obese children were more likely to report negative effects – above all, that ‘the intervention had made their child feel as if he/she was “fat” or “overweight.”’Conclusion: While the results represent a broad endorsement of the IDEFICS intervention, they also suggest the importance of vigilance concerning the psychological effects of obesity interventions on overweight and obese children.

KW - Children

KW - Interventions

KW - Obesity

KW - Parents' views

U2 - 10.1111/obr.12332

DO - 10.1111/obr.12332

M3 - Journal article

VL - 16

SP - 103

EP - 118

JO - Obesity Reviews

JF - Obesity Reviews

SN - 1467-7881

IS - Suppl. 2

ER -