-
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/.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?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.
.