↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of differing levels of support for family meals on obesity prevention among head start preschoolers: the simply dinner study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
263 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of differing levels of support for family meals on obesity prevention among head start preschoolers: the simply dinner study
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4074-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Holly E. Brophy-Herb, Mildred Horodynski, Dawn Contreras, Jean Kerver, Niko Kaciroti, Mara Stein, Hannah Jong Lee, Brittany Motz, Sheilah Hebert, Erika Prine, Candace Gardiner, Laurie A. Van Egeren, Julie C. Lumeng

Abstract

Despite slight decreases in obesity prevalence in children, nearly 25% of preschool-aged children are overweight or obese. Most interventions focused on promoting family meals as an obesity-prevention strategy target meal planning skills, knowledge and modeling of healthy eating without addressing the practical resources that enable implementation of family meals. There is a striking lack of evidence about what level of resources low-income parents need to implement family meals. This study will identify resources most effective in promoting family meals and, subsequently, test associations among the frequency of family meals, dietary quality and children's adiposity indices among children enrolled in Head Start. The Multiphase Optimization Strategy, employed in this study, is a cutting-edge approach to maximizing resources in behavioral interventions by identifying the most effective intervention components. We are currently testing the main, additive and interactive effects of 6 intervention components, thought to support family meals, on family meal frequency and dietary quality (Primary Outcomes) as compared to Usual Head Start Exposure in a Screening Phase (N = 512 low-income families). Components yielding the most robust effects will be bundled and evaluated in a two-group randomized controlled trial (intervention and Usual Head Start Exposure) in the Confirming Phase (N = 250), testing the effects of the bundled intervention on children's adiposity indices (Primary Outcomes; body mass index and skinfolds). The current intervention components include: (1) home delivery of pre-made healthy family meals; (2) home delivery of healthy meal ingredients; (3) community kitchens in which parents make healthy meals to cook at home; (4) healthy eating classes; (5) cooking demonstrations; and (6) cookware/flatware delivery. Secondary outcomes include cooking self-efficacy and family mealtime barriers. Moderators of the intervention include family functioning and food security. Process evaluation data includes fidelity, attendance/use of supports, and satisfaction. Results will advance fundamental science and translational research by generating new knowledge of effective intervention components more rapidly and efficiently than the standard randomized controlled trial approach evaluating a bundled intervention alone. Study results will have implications for funding decisions within public programs to implement and disseminate effective interventions to prevent obesity in children. Clincaltrials.gov Identifier NCT02487251 ; Registered June 26, 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 263 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 263 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 20%
Student > Bachelor 24 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 8%
Researcher 19 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 43 16%
Unknown 85 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 17%
Psychology 21 8%
Social Sciences 19 7%
Sports and Recreations 7 3%
Other 25 10%
Unknown 100 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,292,826
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,054
of 17,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,349
of 427,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#82
of 223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,378 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.