This analysis was based on a large individual-level data set
collected under service conditions across all regions of England.
It allowed us to estimate with adequate statistical power how
outcomes of the MEND intervention varied by participant,
family, neighbourhood and programme characteristics, estimates
that would be underpowered in most research studies.
However, in the absence of controls, such associations cannot
be equated with effectiveness. We were able to compare the
size of change in BMI in the service data with that observed in
the RCT, and they were similar, but we had limited power to
assess differences between them (there were only 47 children in
the intervention arm of the RCT12). The data we analysed were
collected for service provision and not for research. We used a
range of techniques for improving data quality, including
algorithms for data cleaning, and multiple imputation for
missing data. These techniques were aimed at maximising the
value of the observed data and minimising bias. We fitted
models using imputation and complete case approaches and
found that, other than the differences in statistical significance
that are to be expected given the greater power of imputation
models, findings were similar. Nevertheless, some bias may still
be present.
There is little research on what happens once interventions
found to be effective in a research setting are implemented in
practice at scale.30 We demonstrate here that the MEND
intervention when delivered at scale is associated with
improved BMI and psychosocial outcomes on average, while
at the same time having the potential to widen inequalities in
these outcomes. We do not know to what extent our findings
can be generalised to other weight management programmes
or to other community-based interventions. However, our
findings suggest that implementation of such interventions
should be accompanied by evaluation not only of sustained
impact but also of equality of impact at both the individual and
population level.
There is little consensus about what constitutes a clinically
significant reduction in BMI31 or how much average BMI would
need to be reduced in the population of overweight children to
reduce the population-level burden of childhood overweight.
Further research should clarify these questions. In addition, data
from longer-term follow-up were not available following the
service intervention (follow-up in the RCT was to 1 year) and so
the estimates derived here cannot be used to comment on
whether improvements in BMI and other outcomes were
sustained beyond the end of the programme when delivered in
service settings.
This analysis was based on a large individual-level data set
collected under service conditions across all regions of England.
It allowed us to estimate with adequate statistical power how
outcomes of the MEND intervention varied by participant,
family, neighbourhood and programme characteristics, estimates
that would be underpowered in most research studies.
However, in the absence of controls, such associations cannot
be equated with effectiveness. We were able to compare the
size of change in BMI in the service data with that observed in
the RCT, and they were similar, but we had limited power to
assess differences between them (there were only 47 children in
the intervention arm of the RCT12). The data we analysed were
collected for service provision and not for research. We used a
range of techniques for improving data quality, including
algorithms for data cleaning, and multiple imputation for
missing data. These techniques were aimed at maximising the
value of the observed data and minimising bias. We fitted
models using imputation and complete case approaches and
found that, other than the differences in statistical significance
that are to be expected given the greater power of imputation
models, findings were similar. Nevertheless, some bias may still
be present.
There is little research on what happens once interventions
found to be effective in a research setting are implemented in
practice at scale.30 We demonstrate here that the MEND
intervention when delivered at scale is associated with
improved BMI and psychosocial outcomes on average, while
at the same time having the potential to widen inequalities in
these outcomes. We do not know to what extent our findings
can be generalised to other weight management programmes
or to other community-based interventions. However, our
findings suggest that implementation of such interventions
should be accompanied by evaluation not only of sustained
impact but also of equality of impact at both the individual and
population level.
There is little consensus about what constitutes a clinically
significant reduction in BMI31 or how much average BMI would
need to be reduced in the population of overweight children to
reduce the population-level burden of childhood overweight.
Further research should clarify these questions. In addition, data
from longer-term follow-up were not available following the
service intervention (follow-up in the RCT was to 1 year) and so
the estimates derived here cannot be used to comment on
whether improvements in BMI and other outcomes were
sustained beyond the end of the programme when delivered in
service settings.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
