Effective interventions are needed to address the growing epidemic of childhood obesity. In the past 35 years, family-based approach has gradually developed as a preferred intervention. This review aimed to examine the methodological rigour and treatment effectiveness of family-based interventions according to intervention types and theoretical orientations. A total of 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of family-based lifestyle interventions for children and adolescents aged 2-19 years were included. The adapted Methodological Quality Rating Scales (MQRS) and a four-grade qualitative scoring scheme were adopted to evaluate the methodological rigour and the effectiveness of treatment, respectively. The average MQRS score was 7.93 out of 14 points. Ten of the 15 RCTs had well aligned their research questions with appropriate research methods. The overall short-term outcome of the15 RCTs were satisfactory with an average score of 3.1. Family-based interventions rooted in behaviour theory achieved better results than those theoretically connected to family systems theory in terms of treatment effectiveness. Results suggest future studies to improve the methodological design and continue to explore the potential of the family systems approach.

BackgroundLittle is known about the contextual factors affecting the uptake of evidence-based chronic disease interventions in the United States and in other countries. This study sought to better understand the contextual similarities and differences influencing the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based chronic disease prevention (EBCDP) in Australia, Brazil, China, and the United States.MethodsBetween February and July 2015, investigators in each country conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews (total N = 50) with chronic disease prevention practitioners, using interview guides that covered multiple domains (e.g., use of and access to EBCDP interventions, barriers and facilitators to the implementation of EBCDP interventions).ResultsPractitioners across the four countries reported only a few programmatic areas in which repositories of EBCDP interventions were used within their workplace. Across countries, academic journals were the most frequently cited channels for accessing EBCDP interventions, though peers were commonly cited as the most useful. Lack of time and heavy workload were salient personal barriers among practitioners in Australia and the United States, while lack of expertise in developing and implementing EBCDP interventions was more pertinent among practitioners from Brazil and China. Practitioners in all four countries described an organizational culture that was unsupportive of EBCDP. Practitioners in Brazil, China and the United States cited an inadequate number of staff support to implement EBCDP interventions. A few practitioners in Australia and China cited lack of access to evidence. Partnerships were emphasized as key facilitators to implementing EBCDP interventions across all countries.ConclusionsThis study is novel in its cross-country qualitative exploration of multilevel constructs of EBCDP dissemination and implementation. The interviews produced rich findings about many contextual similarities and differences with EBCDP that can inform both cross-country and country-specific research and practice to address barriers and improve EBCDP implementation among the four countries long-term.

Background Mis-implementation (i.e., the premature termination or inappropriate continuation of public health programs) contributes to the misallocation of limited public health resources and the sub-optimal response to the growing global burden of chronic disease. This study seeks to describe the occurrence of mis-implementation in four countries of differing sizes, wealth, and experience with evidence-based chronic disease prevention (EBCDP). Methods A cross-sectional study of 400 local public health practitioners in Australia, Brazil, China, and the United States was conducted from November 2015 to April 2016. Online survey questions focused on how often mis-termination and mis-continuation occur and the most common reasons programs end and continue. Results We found significant differences in knowledge of EBCDP across countries with upwards of 75% of participants from Australia ( n = 91/121) and the United States ( n = 83/101) reporting being moderately to extremely knowledgeable compared with roughly 60% ( n = 47/76) from Brazil and 20% ( n = 21/102) from China ( p < 0.05). Far greater proportions of participants from China thought effective programs were never mis-terminated (12.2% ( n = 12/102) vs. 1% ( n = 2/121) in Australia, 2.6% ( n = 2/76) in Brazil, and 1.0% ( n = 1/101) in the United States; p < 0.05) or were unable to estimate how frequently this happened (45.9% ( n = 47/102) vs. 7.1% ( n = 7/101) in the United States, 10.5% ( n = 8/76) in Brazil, and 1.7% ( n = 2/121) in Australia; p < 0.05). The plurality of participants from Australia (58.0%, n = 70/121) and the United States (36.8%, n = 37/101) reported that programs often mis-continued whereas most participants from Brazil (60.5%, n = 46/76) and one third ( n = 37/102) of participants from China believed this happened only sometimes ( p < 0.05). The availability of funding and support from political authorities, agency leadership, and the general public were common reasons programs continued and ended across all countries. A program’s effectiveness or evidence-base—or lack thereof—were rarely reasons for program continuation and termination. Conclusions Decisions about continuing or ending a program were often seen as a function of program popularity and funding availability as opposed to effectiveness. Policies and practices pertaining to programmatic decision-making should be improved in light of these findin...

Implementation of evidence-based practices can improve efficiency and effectiveness of public health efforts. Few studies have explored the political contextual factors that impact implementation of evidence-based non-communicable disease prevention (EBNCDP). This study aimed to do so in Australia, Brazil, China and the United States. Investigators conducted 10-13 qualitative, semi-structured interviews of public health practitioners working in functionally similar public health organizations in each country (total N = 50). Study participants were identified through purposive sampling and interviews were structured around an interview guide covering six domains related to EBNCDP. Interviewees from all four countries identified funding as the primary politically-influenced barrier to implementing EBNCDP. Similarly widespread barriers included government funding priorities that shift based on who is in power and the difficulty of convincing policy-makers and funders that non-communicable disease prevention is a wise investment of political capital. Policymakers who are not evidence-driven was another common barrier even in the United States and Australia, where EBNCDP is more established. Findings suggest that political contextual factors influence EBNCDP and vary to an extent by country, though certain factors seem to be universal. This can aid public health practitioners, political leaders, and policymakers in advocating for conditions and policies that encourage evidence-based practice.