Obesity prevention interventions in early childhood education and care settings with parental involvement: a systematic review

Abstract

Partnering early childhood education and care (ECEC) and the home together may be more effective in combating obesogenic risk factors in preschool children. Thus, an evaluation of ECEC obesity prevention interventions with a parental component was conducted, exploring parental engagement and its effect on obesity and healthy lifestyle outcomes. A search revealed 15 peer-reviewed papers. Some studies demonstrated positive weight changes, and secondary outcomes of changes in physical activity and healthy eating were reported in most studies; study quality ranged from fair to good. Four findings were linked to weight changes: (1) when educational material is consistent across settings; (2) capacity building of parents; (3) parents encouraging their children to drink water and (4) parental satisfaction and participation. A partnership between parents and ECEC may be a powerful force in the prevention of paediatric obesity. A better understanding of collaborative parental engagement is needed.

Characteristics of Effective Interventions Promoting Healthy Eating for Pre-Schoolers in Childcare Settings: An Umbrella Review

“…Fourteen systematic reviews were considered eligible for the present Umbrella review. Of the 14 included reviews, seven stated obesity-related physiological outcomes, for example, Body Mass Index (BMI) as the primary outcome, with diet-related outcomes reported separately as secondary outcomes [ 38 , 39 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 ]. The other seven studies, addressed diet-related behaviours as the primary outcomes [ 23 , 41 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 ].…”

“…A relatively small number of primary studies were excluded by the reviewers ( Table S3 : Characteristics of included systematic reviews). Reasons for ineligibility of some of the primary studies were no dietary outcomes reported or settings such as schools and Family Day Care [ 39 , 53 , 57 ]. The total sample size of the studies included in the individual reviews ranged between 260 children [ 60 ] to more than 18,000 [ 53 , 57 ] and centres caring for between six [ 60 ] and more than 1050 children [ 61 ].…”

“…Reasons for ineligibility of some of the primary studies were no dietary outcomes reported or settings such as schools and Family Day Care [ 39 , 53 , 57 ]. The total sample size of the studies included in the individual reviews ranged between 260 children [ 60 ] to more than 18,000 [ 53 , 57 ] and centres caring for between six [ 60 ] and more than 1050 children [ 61 ]. The majority of the primary studies were conducted in the USA with smaller numbers in other high-income countries including Australia, Israel, Europe (Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, France, Netherlands and Spain), UK, Asia and South America.…”

“…Only the review by Mikkelson et al (2015) rated 22 of the 26 primary studies as having a moderate or strong quality of evidence. The other four reviews rated the majority of the studies as moderate [ 38 , 39 , 53 , 54 ]. Implications are that results are uncertain and must be considered with caution.…”

“…Similarly, children significantly influenced other pre-schoolers’ food choices and food preferences through role modelling and observational learning, particularly with fruit and vegetables [ 60 ]. Children’s knowledge also improved significantly following educational activities [ 53 , 57 , 58 ].…”