↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of an intervention to facilitate the implementation of healthy eating and physical activity policies and practices in childcare services: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2015
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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 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 an intervention to facilitate the implementation of healthy eating and physical activity policies and practices in childcare services: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0340-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jannah Jones, Rebecca Wyse, Meghan Finch, Christophe Lecathelinais, John Wiggers, Josephine Marshall, Maryann Falkiner, Nicole Pond, Sze Lin Yoong, Jenna Hollis, Alison Fielding, Pennie Dodds, Tara Clinton-McHarg, Megan Freund, Patrick McElduff, Karen Gillham, Luke Wolfenden

Abstract

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to increase the implementation of healthy eating and physical activity policies and practices by centre-based childcare services. The study also sought to determine if the intervention was effective in improving child dietary intake and increasing child physical activity levels while attending childcare. A parallel group, randomised controlled trial was conducted in a sample of 128 childcare services. Intervention strategies included provision of implementation support staff, securing executive support, staff training, consensus processes, academic detailing visits, tools and resources, performance monitoring and feedback and a communications strategy. The primary outcome of the trial was the proportion of services implementing all seven healthy eating and physical activity policies and practices targeted by the intervention. Outcome data were collected via telephone surveys with nominated supervisors and room leaders at baseline and immediately post-intervention. Secondary trial outcomes included the differences between groups in the number of serves consumed by children for each food group within the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating and in the proportion of children engaged in sedentary, walking or very active physical activity assessed via observation in a random subsample of 36 services at follow-up. There was no significant difference between groups for the primary trial outcome (p = 0.44). Relative to the control group, a significantly larger proportion of intervention group services reported having a written nutrition and physical activity policy (p = 0.05) and providing adult-guided activities to develop fundamental movement skills (p = 0.01). There were no significant differences between groups at follow-up on measures of child dietary intake or physical activity. The findings of the trial were equivocal. While there was no significant difference between groups for the primary trial outcome, the intervention did significantly increase the proportion of intervention group services implementing two of the seven healthy eating and physical activity policies and practices. High levels of implementation of a number of policies and practices at baseline, significant obesity prevention activity in the study region and higher than previously reported intra-class correlation of child behaviours may, in part, explain the trial findings. Australian Clinical Trials Registry (reference ACTRN12612000927820 ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 249 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 12%
Researcher 25 10%
Student > Bachelor 25 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 7%
Other 53 21%
Unknown 69 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 45 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 13%
Social Sciences 21 8%
Sports and Recreations 19 8%
Psychology 12 5%
Other 34 14%
Unknown 86 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 04 November 2015.
All research outputs
#3,301,192
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#667
of 1,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,754
of 295,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#18
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 295,677 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 53% of its contemporaries.