↓ Skip to main content

The HAPPY (Healthy and Active Parenting Programmme for early Years) feasibility randomised control trial: acceptability and feasibility of an intervention to reduce infant obesity

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2016
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
19 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 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
The HAPPY (Healthy and Active Parenting Programmme for early Years) feasibility randomised control trial: acceptability and feasibility of an intervention to reduce infant obesity
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2861-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosemary R. C. McEachan, Gillian Santorelli, Maria Bryant, Pinki Sahota, Diane Farrar, Neil Small, Shaheen Akhtar, Judith Sargent, Sally E. Barber, Natalie Taylor, Gerry Richardson, Amanda J. Farrin, Raj S. Bhopal, Daniel D. Bingham, Sara M. Ahern, John Wright, on behalf of the BiB childhood obesity scientific group

Abstract

The prevalence of infant obesity is increasing, but there is a lack of evidence-based approaches to prevent obesity at this age. This study tested the acceptability and feasibility of evaluating a theory-based intervention aimed at reducing risk of obesity in infants of overweight/obese women during and after pregnancy: the Healthy and Active Parenting Programme for Early Years (HAPPY). A feasibility randomised controlled trial was conducted in Bradford, England. One hundred twenty overweight/obese pregnant women (Body Mass Index [BMI] ≥25 kg/m(2)) were recruited between 10-26 weeks gestation. Consenting women were randomly allocated to HAPPY (6 antenatal, 6 postnatal sessions: N = 59) or usual care (N = 61). Appropriate outcome measures for a full trial were explored, including: infant's length and weight, woman's BMI, physical activity and dietary intake of the women and infants. Health economic data were collected. Measurement occurred before randomisation and when the infant was aged 6 months and 12 months. Feasibility outcomes were: recruitment/attrition rates, and acceptability of: randomisation, measurement, and intervention. Intra-class correlations for infant weight were calculated. Fidelity was assessed through observations and facilitator feedback. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews explored acceptability of methods, implementation, and intervention content. Recruitment targets were met (~20 women/month) with a recruitment rate of 30 % of eligible women (120/396). There was 30 % attrition at 12 months; 66 % of recruited women failed to attend intervention sessions, but those who attended the first session were likely to continue to attend (mean 9.4/12 sessions, range 1-12). Reaction to intervention content was positive, and fidelity was high. Group clustering was minimal; an adjusted effect size of -0.25 standard deviation scores for infant weight at 12 months (95 % CI: -0.16-0.65) favouring the intervention was observed using intention to treat analyses. No adverse events were reported. The HAPPY intervention appeared feasible and acceptable to participants who attended and those delivering it, however attendance was low; adaptations to increase initial attendance are recommended. Whilst the study was not powered to detect a definitive effect, our results suggest a potential to reduce risk of infant obesity. The evidence reported provides valuable lessons to inform progression to a definitive trial. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56735429.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 260 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 15%
Student > Master 37 14%
Student > Bachelor 34 13%
Researcher 22 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 30 11%
Unknown 82 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 15%
Psychology 21 8%
Social Sciences 18 7%
Sports and Recreations 15 6%
Other 30 11%
Unknown 91 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 23 December 2016.
All research outputs
#1,696,747
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,893
of 16,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,611
of 303,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#34
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,248 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 done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 303,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.