Tools for a systematic appraisal of integrated community-based approaches to prevent childhood obesity

Abstract

BackgroundEvaluation and monitoring methods are often unable to identify crucial elements of success or failure of integrated community-wide approaches aiming to tackle childhood overweight and obesity, yet difficult to determine in complex programmes. Therefore, we aimed to systematically appraise strengths and weaknesses of such programmes and to assess the usefulness of the appraisal tools used.MethodsTo identify strengths and weaknesses of the integrated community-based approaches two tools were used: the Good Practice Appraisal tool for obesity prevention programmes, projects, initiatives and intervention (GPAT), a self-administered questionnaire developed by the WHO; and the OPEN tool, a structured list of questions based on the EPODE theory, to assist face-to-face interviews with the principle programme coordinators. The strengths and weaknesses of these tools were assessed with regard to practicalities, quality of acquired data and the appraisal process, criteria and scoring.ResultsSeveral strengths and weaknesses were identified in all the assessed integrated community-based approaches, different for each of them. The GPAT provided information mostly on intervention elements whereas through the OPEN tool information on both the programme and intervention levels were acquired.ConclusionLarge variability between integrated community-wide approaches preventing childhood obesity in the European region was identified and therefore each of them has different needs. Both tools used in combination seem to facilitate comprehensive assessment of integrated community-wide approaches in a systematic manner, which is rarely conducted. Nonetheless, the tools should be improved in line to their limitations as recommended in this manuscript.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-5042-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Factors influencing obesity among preschoolers: multilevel approach

“…Based on such evidence, social ecological approaches have been recommended to prevent and control childhood obesity (Mantziki et al. ). Williams () suggests the associations between child weight‐regulating behaviours and multiple environmental influences should be examined within an ecological framework to guide development of effective programs.…”

“…Grow et al's (2010) multilevel analysis of risk factors for obesity in children from 6 to 18 years noted social disadvantage in both a child's immediate household and their neighbourhood. Based on such evidence, social ecological approaches have been recommended to prevent and control childhood obesity (Mantziki et al 2018). Williams (2011) suggests the associations between child weight-regulating behaviours and multiple environmental influences should be examined within an ecological framework to guide development of effective programs.…”

Prevalence of overweight among Dutch primary school children living in JOGG and non-JOGG areas

“…The evaluation of integrated approaches such as EPODE and JOGG is still in its infancy, and is complicated by often poor- to moderate-quality monitoring and evaluation [ 37 ] due to a lack of motivation, resources, time, and knowledge [ 38 , 39 ]. Furthermore, target groups are often not thoroughly assessed prior to designing the intervention, which makes it more difficult to reach and engage with the target group and achieve the intended change [ 37 ].…”

Socio‐economic inequalities in childhood obesity: Can community level interventions help to reduce the gap?

“…The evaluation report concluded that after EPODE interventions, lower SES groups improved their behaviour compared to the other socio‐economic groups. However, the authors of a systematic evaluation of integrated community‐based programmes across Europe using the EPODE methodology identified limitations in the design of some approaches (Mantziki et al ). These included limited analysis of the specific needs of the target group ( e.g.…”