• Arch. Dis. Child. · May 2017

    Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study

    Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the 'Families for Health' programme to reduce obesity in children.

    • Wendy Robertson, Joanna Fleming, Atiya Kamal, Thomas Hamborg, Kamran A Khan, Frances Griffiths, Sarah Stewart-Brown, Nigel Stallard, Stavros Petrou, Douglas Simkiss, Elizabeth Harrison, Sung Wook Kim, and Margaret Thorogood.
    • Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
    • Arch. Dis. Child. 2017 May 1; 102 (5): 416-426.

    ObjectiveEvaluating effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 'Families for Health V2' (FFH) compared with usual care (UC).DesignMulticentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) (investigators blinded, families unblinded) and economic evaluation. Stratified randomisation by family; target of 120 families.SettingThree National Health Service Primary Care Trusts in West Midlands, England.ParticipantsOverweight or obese (≥91st or ≥98th centile body mass index (BMI)) children aged 6-11 years and their parents/carers, recruited March 2012-February 2014.InterventionsFFH; a 10-week community-based family programme addressing parenting, lifestyle change and social and emotional development. UC; usual support for childhood obesity at each site.Main Outcome MeasuresPrimary outcomes were 12-months change in children's BMI z-score and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALY). Secondary outcomes included changes in children's physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption and quality of life, parents' BMI and mental well-being, family eating/activity, parent-child relationships and parenting style.Results115 families (128 children) were randomised to FFH (n=56) or UC (n=59). There was no significant difference in BMI z-score 12-months change (0.114, 95% CI -0.001 to 0.229, p=0.053; p=0.026 in favour of UC with missing value multiple imputation). One secondary outcome, change in children's waist z-score, was significantly different between groups in favour of UC (0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29). Economic evaluation showed that mean costs were significantly higher for FFH than UC (£998 vs £548, p<0.001). Mean incremental cost-effectiveness of FFH was estimated at £552 175 per QALY.ConclusionsFFH was neither effective nor cost-effective for the management of obesity compared with UC.Trial Registration NumberISRCTN45032201.Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.