1 / 16

The effectiveness of local child weight management programmes: an audit study

The effectiveness of local child weight management programmes: an audit study. Charlotte Taylor, Rosie Erol , Penney Upton & Dominic Upton 23 rd October 2013. Context: Why commission an evaluation of CWM programmes?. Obesity in children and adolescents increasing in the UK ;

ivrit
Download Presentation

The effectiveness of local child weight management programmes: an audit study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The effectiveness of local child weight managementprogrammes: an audit study Charlotte Taylor, Rosie Erol, Penney Upton & Dominic Upton 23rd October 2013

  2. Context: Why commission an evaluation of CWM programmes? • Obesity in children and adolescents increasing in the UK; • Particular challenge in the West Midlands region (HSE, 2007; The Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2009) • Many different programmes for family based weight management are available; limited evidence of the long term effectiveness of these models. • Measures used in evaluation are inconsistent and make cross-programme comparison difficult. • Need for a standardised approach to evaluation.

  3. Evaluation aims • Benefits to participating (a) children and (b) families in terms of health improvement and behaviour change; • Barriers to change for (a) children and (b) families undertaking treatment programmes; • Short and longer term support available for programme participants; • Cost effectiveness of each intervention. ‘Does the programme work and at what cost?’

  4. Interventions • Carnegie Fun for Life: Walsall • Fitter Families: Stoke on Trent • Goals: Sandwell • MEND • One Body One Life: Coventry • Watch It!: Birmingham • YW8?: Telford and Wrekin

  5. Methods • Review of programmes: • the target group; • Theoretical rationale • recruitment and retention rates; • method of programme delivery; • structure (including routine practice for ongoing support for participants) • Assessment of physical and psychosocial benefits to programme participants • Economic evaluation

  6. Results: SEF audit • No programme collected all of the essential or desirable SEF criteria; • 19 criteria collected by all interventions • Weight and height for BMI; • Physical activity and dietary measures were collected by the majority of programmes (N=6 and 5 respectively) • Range of measures used for physical activity and diet.

  7. Results: Health Improvement - BMI

  8. Results: Behaviour change

  9. Results: Benefits to families • Health Improvement • Limited/no data for parents or other family members • Anecdotal data suggests some impact • Behaviour Change • Data is also limited

  10. Results: Economic evaluation • What are the costs? • Costs calculated based on numbers recruited/retained during the evaluation period: • Highest cost per child: Watch IT! = £798-£2,424 • Lowest cost per child: OBOL = £321-408

  11. Conclusions • All programmes have some strengths; • SEF criteria enabled comparison between different interventions BUT: • Highlighted lack of consistency between programmes • types of data recorded • evaluation methods used • Key data should be chosen based on what can be collected as well as what is desirable; • Behaviour change, e.g. food intake and exercise should be measured in a systematic and standardised way

  12. Impact on people, policy and practice?

  13. Our impact… • Enabled Primary Care Trusts to improve measurement, data collection and evaluation; • Reassured PCTs that they were commissioning effective programmes; • PCTs adopted the SEF to evaluate child weight measurement programmes when making future commissioning decisions; • One PCT specified that the SEF and the UoW evaluation tools and findings must be used by service providers. Saunders, Baker & Davis (2011)

  14. For more information… • Upton, P., Taylor, C. E., Peters, D. M., Erol, R. and Upton, D. (2013). The effectiveness of local child weight management programmes: an audit study. Child: Care, Health and Development, 39(1), 125-133. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2012.01378.x • Upton, P., Taylor, C., Beddows, S., & Upton, D. (2010). Weighing up the SEF: An assessment of the use of the NOO Standard Evaluation Framework across family-based weight management interventions in one region. Community Practitioner, 83(7), 34-35. • Upton, D., & Upton, P. (2009). Weight management programmes for children and families: A toolkit for measuring behaviour change, psychosocial wellbeing and participant satisfaction. Available at http://www.foodwm.org.uk/resources/CWM_-_Revised_toolkit_final_20_04_2010.pdf • Upton, P., & Upton, D. (2009). Recommendations for Commissioners of Weight Management Programmes for Children and Families. Available at:http://www.obesitywm.org.uk/resources/Recs_of_Commissioners_of_CWM_Progs.doc

  15. Any questions?

More Related