No abstract

ObjectiveTo assess interdependent effects of autonomous motivation to limit sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption in relation to SSB and healthy beverage (HB) intake in mother–adolescent and father–adolescent dyads.DesignAdopting a dyadic cross-sectional design, the actor–partner interdependence modelling (APIM) approach was used to construct and analyse two APIM for mother–adolescent and father–adolescent dyads. The first model assessed actor effects (individual’s autonomous motivation associated with his/her own beverage intake) and partner effects (individual’s autonomous motivation associated with another family member’s beverage consumption) of autonomous motivation on SSB consumption. The second model assessed actor and partner effects of autonomous motivation on HB intake.SettingTwo Internet-based surveys were completed in participant households.ParticipantsData from a demographically representative US sample of parent–adolescent dyads (1225 mother–adolescent dyads, 424 father–adolescent dyads) were used.ResultsIn the first model (autonomous motivation on SSB consumption), actor effects were significant for adolescents, but not for parents. Partner effects were significant for mother–adolescent, but not father–adolescent dyads. In the second model (autonomous motivation on HB intake), actor effects were significant for adolescents and parents in all dyadic combinations. Regarding partner effects, adolescent autonomous motivation had a significant effect on HB intake for mothers and fathers. In addition, maternal autonomous motivation had a significant effect on adolescent HB intake. No partner effects for HB were identified for fathers.ConclusionsWe found significant interdependent effects of autonomous motivation in relation to SSB and HB intake in mother–adolescent and father–adolescent dyads for eleven out of sixteen pathways modelled.

No abstract

Background: Process evaluation can illuminate barriers and facilitators to intervention implementation as well as the drivers of intervention outcomes. However, few obesity intervention studies have documented process evaluation methods and results. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) requires that process evaluation methods be developed to (a) prioritize community members' power to adapt the program to local needs over strict adherence to intervention protocols, (b) share process evaluation data with implementers to maximize benefit to participants, and (c) ensure partner organizations are not overburdened. Co-designed with low-income parents using CBPR, Communities for Healthy Living (CHL) is a family-centered intervention implemented within Head Start to prevent childhood obesity and promote family well-being. We are currently undertaking a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of CHL in 23 Head Start centers in the greater Boston area. In this protocol paper, we outline an embedded process evaluation designed to monitor intervention adherence and adaptation, support ongoing quality improvement, and examine contextual factors that may moderate intervention implementation and/or effectiveness. Methods: This mixed methods process evaluation was developed using the Pérez et al. framework for evaluating adaptive interventions and is reported following guidelines outlined by Grant et al. Trained research assistants will conduct structured observations of intervention sessions. Intervention facilitators and recipients, along with Head Start staff, will complete surveys and semi-structured interviews. De-identified data for all eligible children and families will be extracted from Head Start administrative records. Qualitative data will be analyzed thematically. Quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated using triangulation methods to assess intervention adherence, monitor adaptations, and identify moderators of intervention implementation and effectiveness.