Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary details of individual level studies included in the review

From: A systematic review of the effectiveness of individual, community and societal level interventions at reducing socioeconomic inequalities in obesity amongst children

Study Design & quality Appraisal 1 Setting & participants Study aim Intervention 2 Inequality 3 Summary results 4 ↑ = increase ↓ = decrease ↔ = no change Impact on inequalities in obesity 5
Individual level interventions
Taveras et al 2011 [32] Cluster RCT; 1 year follow-up; Final sample = 445; Quality = Moderate 10 primary care paediatric centres, USA; 2-6 years; 48% girls; Obese and high risk of obese Reduction of BMI in obese and risk of obese children Nutrition and physical activity intervention; Treatment: Weight management programme (High Five for Kids) – diet and physical activity education and counselling, and behavioural cognitive therapy Universal: results analysed by household income BMI (low income) ↓ +
BMI (high income) ↔
Wake et al 2009 [33] RCT; 12 month follow-up; Final sample = 245; Quality = Moderate 45 family medical practices, Australia; 5-10 years; 61% girls; Overweight or mildly obese Reduce BMI gain in overweight or mildly obese children Nutrition and physical activity intervention; Treatment: Primary care obesity management programme (LEAP2) – screening for overweight/obesity followed by GP administered counselling (diet and physical activity) Universal: SES did not modify any intervention effect BMI ↔ 0
Waist circumference ↔
Prevalence overweight/ obese ↔
Epstein et al 2008 [34] RCT; 24 month follow-up; Final sample = 67; Quality = Moderate Participant’s homes, USA; 4-7 years; ≥75th percentile (at risk of overweight/ overweight/obese) Reduction of obesity-related sedentary behaviours in children at risk of obesity Physical activity intervention; Treatment/Prevention: Intervention to reduce TV viewing and computer use – duration of use regulated; monetary incentives for reduced use; and newsletters containing information and advice Universal: intervention effect compared between low SES and high SES groups BMI z score (low SES) ↓ +
BMI z score (high SES) ↔
Black et al 2010 [35] RCT; 24 month follow-up; Final sample = 179; Quality = Moderate Homes and community sites (e.g. parks and convenience stores), USA; 11-16 years; 49% girls Health promotion and prevention of obesity Nutrition and physical activity intervention; Prevention: Mentor-based health promotion and obesity prevention programme (Challenge!) – Session with mentors including food preparation, exercise; goal setting, progress discussions, and provision of information and recipes. Rap music video promoting healthy eating and physical activity Targeted: low-income communities Prevalence overweight/ obese ↓ +
BMI z score ↔
Ideal weight:  
% body fat ↔
Fat mass ↔
Fat-free mass ↔
Obese/overweight:  
% body fat ↓
Fat mass ↓
Fat-free mass ↑
  1. 1Global Quality appraisal from EPHPP (16); 2Prevention or treatment intervention; 3Targeted/Universal approach to inequality; 4p < 0.05.This is the relative mean differences between intervention and control at follow-up; 5+ positive intervention effect so it reduces obesity-related outcomes in low SES groups or reduces the SES gradient in obesity-related outcomes, 0 no intervention effect or no effect on SES gradient in obesity-related outcomes; SES = Socioeconomic status; BMI = Body mass index.
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us