Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the ‘Families for Health’ programme to reduce obesity in children

Robertson, Wendy and Fleming, Joanna and Kamal, Atiya and Hamborg, Thomas and Khan, Kamran A and Griffiths, Frances and Stewart-Brown, Sarah and Stallard, Nigel and Petrou, Stavros and Simkiss, Douglas and Harrison, Elizabeth and Kim, Sung Wook and Thorogood, Margaret (2016) Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the ‘Families for Health’ programme to reduce obesity in children. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 102 (5). pp. 416-426. ISSN 0003-9888

[thumbnail of Robertson et al., 2017_Arch Dis Child.pdf]

Preview

Text
Robertson et al., 2017_Arch Dis Child.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB)

Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2016-311514

Abstract

Objective Evaluating effectiveness and costeffectiveness of ‘Families for Health V20 (FFH) compared with usual care (UC).
Design Multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) (investigators blinded, families unblinded) and economic evaluation. Stratified randomisation by family; target of 120 families.
Setting Three National Health Service Primary CareTrusts in West Midlands, England.
Participants Overweight or obese (≥91st or ≥98th centile body mass index (BMI)) children aged 6–11 years and their parents/carers, recruited March 2012–February 2014.
Interventions FFH; a 10-week community-based family programme addressing parenting, lifestyle change and social and emotional development. UC; usual support for childhood obesity at each site.
Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were 12-months change in children’s BMI z-score and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALY). Secondary outcomes included changes in children’s physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption and quality of life, parents’ BMI and mental well-being, family eating/activity, parent-child relationships and parenting style.
Results 115 families (128 children) were randomised to FFH (n=56) or UC (n=59). There was no significant difference in BMI z-score 12-months change (0.114, 95% CI −0.001 to 0.229, p=0.053; p=0.026 in favour of UC with missing value multiple imputation). One secondary outcome, change in children’s waist z-score, was significantly different between groups in favour of UC (0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29). Economic evaluation showed that mean costs were significantly higher for FFH than UC (£998 vs £548, p<0.001). Mean incremental cost-effectiveness of FFH was estimated at £552 175 per QALY.
Conclusions FFH was neither effective nor cost-effective for the management of obesity compared with UC.
Trial registration number ISRCTN45032201.

Item Type:	Article
Identification Number:	10.1136/archdischild-2016-311514
Dates:	Date Event 21 December 2016 Published 15 November 2016 Accepted
Subjects:	CAH04 - psychology > CAH04-01 - psychology > CAH04-01-01 - psychology (non-specific)
Divisions:	Faculty of Business, Law and Social Sciences > College of Psychology
Depositing User:	Silvio Aldrovandi
Date Deposited:	19 Jun 2017 13:09
Last Modified:	11 Jun 2024 13:03
URI:	https://www.open-access.bcu.ac.uk/id/eprint/4694