↓ Skip to main content

Exposure to a multi-level multi-component childhood obesity prevention community-randomized controlled trial: patterns, determinants, and implications

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
166 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
Exposure to a multi-level multi-component childhood obesity prevention community-randomized controlled trial: patterns, determinants, and implications
Published in
Trials, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2663-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela Cristina Bizzotto Trude, Anna Yevgenyevna Kharmats, Jessica C. Jones-Smith, Joel Gittelsohn

Abstract

For community interventions to be effective in real-world conditions, participants need to have sufficient exposure to the intervention. It is unclear how the dose and intensity of the intervention differ among study participants in low-income areas. We aimed to understand patterns of exposure to different components of a multi-level multi-component obesity prevention program to inform our future impact analyses. B'more Healthy Communities for Kids (BHCK) was a community-randomized controlled trial implemented in 28 low-income zones in Baltimore in two rounds (waves). Exposure to three different intervention components (corner store/carryout restaurants, social media/text messaging, and youth-led nutrition education) was assessed via post-intervention interviews with 385 low-income urban youths and their caregivers. Exposure scores were generated based on self-reported viewing of BHCK materials (posters, handouts, educational displays, and social media posts) and participating in activities, including taste tests during the intervention. For each intervention component, points were assigned for exposure to study materials and activities, then scaled (0-1 range), yielding an overall BHCK exposure score [youths: mean 1.1 (range 0-7.6 points); caregivers: 1.1 (0-6.7), possible highest score: 13]. Ordered logit regression analyses were used to investigate correlates of youths' and caregivers' exposure level (quartile of exposure). Mean intervention exposure scores were significantly higher for intervention than comparison youths (mean 1.6 vs 0.5, p < 0.001) and caregivers (mean 1.6 vs 0.6, p < 0.001). However, exposure scores were low in both groups and 10% of the comparison group was moderately exposed to the intervention. For each 1-year increase in age, there was a 33% lower odds of being highly exposed to the intervention (odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.69; 0.88) in the unadjusted and adjusted model controlling for youths' sex and household income. Treatment effects may be attenuated in community-based trials, as participants may be differentially exposed to intervention components and the comparison group may also be exposed. Exposure should be measured to provide context to impact evaluations in multi-level trials. Future analyses linking exposure scores to the outcome should control for potential confounders in the treatment-on-the-treated approach, while recognizing that confounding and selection bias may exist affecting causal inference. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02181010 . Retrospectively registered on 2 July 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 166 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Researcher 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 4%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 77 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 13%
Psychology 9 5%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 79 48%