A Digital Intervention for Australian Adolescents Above a Healthy Weight (Health Online for Teens): Protocol for an Implementation and User Experience Study.

BACKGROUND: More than one-fourth of Australian adolescents are overweight or obese, with obesity in adolescents strongly persisting into adulthood. Recent evidence suggests that the mid-teen years present a final window of opportunity to prevent irreversible damage to the cardiovascular system. As lifestyle behaviors may change with increased autonomy during adolescence, this life stage is an ideal time to intervene and promote healthy eating and physical activity behaviors, well-being, and self-esteem. As teenagers are prolific users and innate adopters of new technologies, app-based programs may be suitable for the promotion of healthy lifestyle behaviors and goal setting training. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the reach, engagement, user experience, and satisfaction of the new app-based and Web-based Health Online for Teens (HOT) program in a sample of Australian adolescents above a healthy weight (ie, overweight or obese) and their parents. METHODS: HOT is a 14-week program for adolescents and their parents. The program is delivered online through the Moodle app-based and website-based learning environment and aims to promote adolescents' lifestyle behavior change in line with Australian Dietary Guidelines and Australia's Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines for Young People (aged 13-17 years). HOT aims to build parental and peer support during the program to support adolescents with healthy lifestyle behavior change. RESULTS: Data collection for this study is ongoing. To date, 35 adolescents and their parents have participated in one of 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: HOT is a new online-only program for Australian adolescents and their parents that aims to reduce cardiovascular disease risk factors. This protocol paper describes the HOT program in detail, along with the methods to measure reach, outcomes, engagement, user experiences, and program satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000465257; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=374771. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/13340.

Enrolment of families with overweight children into a program aimed at reducing childhood obesity with and without a weight criterion: a natural experiment.

BACKGROUND: Difficulties engaging families with overweight children to enrol into programs aimed at reducing childhood obesity have been well documented. During the implementation of the Parenting, Eating and Activity for Child Health Program (PEACH™) over a large geographical area (Queensland (QLD), Australia), a natural experiment developed. This experiment provided an opportunity to observe if there was a difference in enrolment for families with overweight children with a weight criterion (referred to as the period with a Targeted Eligibility Criterion (TEC)) compared to when a weight criterion was removed (the period referred to as Universal Eligibility Criterion (UEC)). We also examined the eligibility criterion's relationship with attendance, parental concern about their child's weight, estimation of overweight and obesity from parent-reported data. METHODS: A secondary analysis of baseline data from 926 overweight/obese children from 817 families enrolled in PEACH™ QLD was performed. Analyses were adjusted to control for the presence of clustered data. Bivariate statistics were performed using Pearson chi-square test with the second-order Rao-Scott correction, and Mann-Whitney U-test for non-parametric continuous variables. Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) explored the association between weight status-based eligibility criteria and enrolment of overweight children. GEE were adjusted for sex, age and socioeconomic index and stratified for weight category. RESULTS: Compared to obese children, overweight children were almost twice as likely to be enrolled when the program did not have weight status-based eligibility criteria (during UEC period) (OR = 1.90 (CI 95% 1.35-2.68, p <  0.001)). Parents of overweight children enrolled during the UEC period were more likely to regard their child's weight as less of a concern than during the TEC period (UEC 67% vs. TEC 45%, p = 0.036). Children whose parent-reported data underestimated their weight category were more likely to be enrolled while the program did not have weight-related eligibility criteria OR = 2.27 (CI 1.38-3.70, p <  0.01). Program session attendance did not appear to be impacted by the changes in eligibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The omission of weight criteria for healthy lifestyle programs is a consideration for health professionals and decision-makers alike when encouraging the enrolment of children who are overweight into healthy lifestyle programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12617000315314 . Retrospectively registered 28 February 2017.

CONSORT to community: translation of an RCT to a large-scale community intervention and learnings from evaluation of the upscaled program.

BACKGROUND: Translation encompasses the continuum from clinical efficacy to widespread adoption within the healthcare service and ultimately routine clinical practice. The Parenting, Eating and Activity for Child Health (PEACH™) program has previously demonstrated clinical effectiveness in the management of child obesity, and has been recently implemented as a large-scale community intervention in Queensland, Australia. This paper aims to describe the translation of the evaluation framework from a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to large-scale community intervention (PEACH™ QLD). Tensions between RCT paradigm and implementation research will be discussed along with lived evaluation challenges, responses to overcome these, and key learnings for future evaluation conducted at scale. METHODS: The translation of evaluation from PEACH™ RCT to the large-scale community intervention PEACH™ QLD is described. While the CONSORT Statement was used to report findings from two previous RCTs, the REAIM framework was more suitable for the evaluation of upscaled delivery of the PEACH™ program. Evaluation of PEACH™ QLD was undertaken during the project delivery period from 2013 to 2016. RESULTS: Experiential learnings from conducting the evaluation of PEACH™ QLD to the described evaluation framework are presented for the purposes of informing the future evaluation of upscaled programs. Evaluation changes in response to real-time changes in the delivery of the PEACH™ QLD Project were necessary at stages during the project term. Key evaluation challenges encountered included the collection of complete evaluation data from a diverse and geographically dispersed workforce and the systematic collection of process evaluation data in real time to support program changes during the project. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of large-scale community interventions in the real world is challenging and divergent from RCTs which are rigourously evaluated within a more tightly-controlled clinical research setting. Constructs explored in an RCT are inadequate in describing the enablers and barriers of upscaled community program implementation. Methods for data collection, analysis and reporting also require consideration. We present a number of experiential reflections and suggestions for the successful evaluation of future upscaled community programs which are scarcely reported in the literature. TRIALS REGISTRATION: PEACH™ QLD was retrospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 28 February 2017 (ACTRN12617000315314).