A Family-Based Lifestyle Intervention Focusing on Fathers and Their Children Using Co-Creation: Study Protocol of the Run Daddy Run Intervention

Latomme, Julie; Morgan, Philip J.; Craemer, Marieke De; Brondeel, Ruben; Verloigne, Maïté; Cardon, Greet

doi:10.3390/ijerph18041830

Cited by 3 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Behavior Change Wheel is a comprehensive framework for systematically developing complex behavior change interventions, identifying important sources and interactions of behaviors to understand and target mechanisms of action within an intervention [ 29 ]. Details on the intervention development process can be found in Study Protocol of this paper [ 30 ], but briefly, three stages were followed using the “Guide to using the behaviour change wheel” [ 29 ]: (1) understanding the behaviour, (2) translating findings into an intervention, and (3) refining and pre-testing the intervention. Additionally, a co-creation approach was used for the intervention development process [ 34 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, a co-creation approach was used for the intervention development process [ 34 ]. An overview of how this co-creation approach was combined with the Behaviour Change Wheel can be found in the Study Protocol of this study, where each step is described into detail [ 30 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is highly recommended, when developing and evaluating an effective lifestyle intervention, that a theoretical framework is used, as clear theoretical underpinnings are known to maximize the potential for intervention effectiveness [ 26 , 27 ]. Therefore, The Behavior Change Wheel was used as a theoretical framework to systematically develop the intervention [ 28 , 29 ], which is described into detail in the Study Protocol paper of this study [ 30 ]. In brief, the intervention development followed three stages: (1) understanding the health problem and specifying the target behavior(s), (2) translating the findings into an intervention, and (3) refining and pre-testing the intervention [ 33 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The primary goal of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of a newly developed lifestyle intervention for fathers and their children (i.e. ‘Run Daddy Run’ intervention) [ 30 ], on objectively measured PA of fathers and their children (6–8 years old), by increasing co-PA. We hypothesized that in the intervention group (compared to the control group), father-child co-PA and fathers’ and children’s PA will significantly improve.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of a family-based lifestyle intervention on co-physical activity and other health-related outcomes of fathers and their children: the ‘Run Daddy Run’ intervention

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Fathers are important in establishing healthy behaviors in their children, but are rarely engaged in lifestyle programs. Focusing on physical activity (PA) of both fathers and their children by engaging them together in PA (i.e. “co-PA”) is therefore a promising novel strategy for interventions. The study aim was to investigate the effect of the ‘Run Daddy Run’ on co-PA and PA of fathers and their children, and secondary outcomes such as weight status and sedentary behaviour (SB). Methods: This study is a non-randomized controlled trial (nRCT), including 98 fathers and one of their 6 to 8 years old children (intervention = 35, control = 63). The intervention was implemented over a 14-week period, and consisted of six (inter)active father-child sessions and an online component. Due to COVID-19, only 2/6 sessions could be implemented as planned, the remaining sessions were delivered online. In November 2019-January 2020 pre-test measurements took place, and post-test measurements in June 2020. Additional follow-up test was conducted in November 2020. PA (i.e. LPA, MPA, VPA and volume) of fathers and children were objectively measured using accelerometry, co-PA and the secondary outcomes were questioned using an online questionnaire. Results: Significant intervention effects were found for co-PA (+ 24 min./day in the intervention compared to the control group, p = 0.002), and MPA of the father (+ 17 min./day, p = 0.035). For children, a significant increase in LPA (+ 35 min./day, p < 0.001) was found. However, an inverse intervention effect was found for their MPA and VPA (-15 min./day, p = 0.005 and − 4 min./day, p = 0.002, respectively). Also decreases in fathers’ and children’s SB were found (-39 min./day, p = 0.022 and − 40 min./day, p = 0.003, respectively), but no changes in weight status, the father-child relationship, and the PA-family health climate (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: The Run Daddy Run intervention was able to improve co-PA, MPA of fathers and LPA of children, and decreasing their SB. Inverse intervention effects were however found for MPA and VPA of children. These results are unique given their magnitude and clinical relevance. Targeting fathers together with their children might be a novel and potential intervention strategy to improve overall physical activity levels, however, further efforts should however be made to target children’s MPA and VPA. Last, replicating these findings in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is recommended for future research. Trial registration number: This study is registered as a clinical trial (clinicaltrials.gov, ID number: NCT04590755, date: 19/10/2020).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of a family-based lifestyle intervention on co-physical activity and other health-related outcomes of fathers and their children: the ‘Run Daddy Run’ intervention

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The short questionnaire will be based on co-creation principles and will consist out of 14 statements that will be scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = 'strongly disagree' to 5 = 'strongly agree'). The statements are the following: openness for new ideas and opinions, exchange of useful information, equal level of involvement, a climate of trust and openness, useful conversations, positive atmosphere, development of new insights, good feeling, clear common mission, equal influence on decision-making, respectful interactions, satisfaction with course and progress, use of comprehensible language, interesting and fascinating topics [134,135]. Furthermore, through two additional open questions developed by the research group, the participants will be asked which elements facilitated or hindered discussions during the sessions.…”

Section: Session Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The CIVISANO protocol: a mixed-method study about the role of objective and perceived environmental factors on physical activity and eating behavior among socioeconomically disadvantaged adults

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Overweight and obesity have a strong socioeconomic profile. Unhealthy behaviors like insufficient physical activity and an unbalanced diet, which are causal factors of overweight and obesity, tend to be more pronounced in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups in high income countries. The CIVISANO project aims to identify objective and perceived environmental factors among different socioeconomic population groups that impede or facilitate physical activity and healthy eating behavior in the local context of two peri-urban Flemish municipalities in Belgium. We also aim to identify and discuss possible local interventions and evaluate the participatory processes of the project. Methods This study (2020–2023) will use community-based participatory tools, involving collaborative partnerships with civic and stakeholder members of the community and regular exchanges among all partners to bridge knowledge development and health promotion for socioeconomically disadvantaged citizens. Furthermore, a mixed-methods approach will be used. A population survey and geographic analysis will explore potential associations between the physical activity and eating behaviors of socioeconomically disadvantaged adults (25–65 years old) and both their perceived and objective physical, food and social environments. Profound perceptive context information will be gathered from socioeconomically disadvantaged adults by using participatory methods like photovoice, walk-along, individual map creation and group model building. An evaluation of the participatory process will be conducted simultaneously. Discussion The CIVISANO project will identify factors in the local environment that might provoke inequities in adopting a healthy lifestyle. The combination of perceived and objective measures using validated strategies will provide a robust assessment of the municipality environment. Through this analysis, the project will investigate to what extent community engagement can be a useful strategy to reduce health inequities. The strong knowledge exchange and capacity-building in a local setting is expected to contribute to our understanding of how to maximize research impact in this field and generate evidence about potential linkages between a health enhancing lifestyle among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups and their physical, food and social environments.

show abstract

Co-Produce, Co-Design, Co-Create, or Co-Construct—Who Does It and How Is It Done in Chronic Disease Prevention? A Scoping Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co-production in health literature has increased in recent years. Despite mounting interest, numerous terms are used to describe co-production. There is confusion regarding its use in health promotion and little evidence and guidance for using co-produced chronic disease prevention interventions in the general population. We conducted a scoping review to examine the research literature using co-production to develop and evaluate chronic disease prevention programs. We searched four electronic databases for articles using co-production for health behaviour change in smoking, physical activity, diet, and/or weight management. In 71 articles that reported using co-production, co-design, co-create, co-develop, and co-construct, these terms were used interchangeably to refer to a participatory process involving researchers, stakeholders, and end users of interventions. Overall, studies used co-production as a formative research process, including focus groups and interviews. Co-produced health promotion interventions were generally not well described or robustly evaluated, and the literature did not show whether co-produced interventions achieved better outcomes than those that were not. Uniform agreement on the meanings of these words would avoid confusion about their use, facilitating the development of a co-production framework for health promotion interventions. Doing so would allow practitioners and researchers to develop a shared understanding of the co-production process and how best to evaluate co-produced interventions.

show abstract

A Family-Based Lifestyle Intervention Focusing on Fathers and Their Children Using Co-Creation: Study Protocol of the Run Daddy Run Intervention

Cited by 3 publications

References 77 publications

Effects of a family-based lifestyle intervention on co-physical activity and other health-related outcomes of fathers and their children: the ‘Run Daddy Run’ intervention

Effects of a family-based lifestyle intervention on co-physical activity and other health-related outcomes of fathers and their children: the ‘Run Daddy Run’ intervention

The CIVISANO protocol: a mixed-method study about the role of objective and perceived environmental factors on physical activity and eating behavior among socioeconomically disadvantaged adults

Co-Produce, Co-Design, Co-Create, or Co-Construct—Who Does It and How Is It Done in Chronic Disease Prevention? A Scoping Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About