Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 575

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What childhood obesity prevention programmes work? A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Open access
Wang, Y., Cai, L., Wu, Y., Wilson, R. F., Weston, C., Fawole, O., Bleich, S. N., Cheskin, L. J., Showell, N. N., Lau, B. D., Chiu, D. T., Zhang, A., Segal, J.·2015·Obesity Reviews
DOI 10.1111/obr.12277
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary: Previous reviews of childhood obesity prevention have focused largely on schools and findings have been inconsistent. Funded by the US A gency for H ealthcare R esearch and Q uality (AHRQ) and the N ational I nstitutes of H ealth, we systematically evaluated the effectiveness of childhood obesity prevention programmes conducted in high‐income countries and implemented in various settings. We searched MEDLINE®, E mbase, PsycINFO, CINAHL®, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library from inception through 22 A pril 2013 for relevant studies, including randomized controlled trials, quasi‐experimental studies and natural experiments, targeting diet, physical activity or both, and conducted in children aged 2–18 in high‐income countries. Two reviewers independently abstracted the data. The strength of evidence (SOE) supporting interventions was graded for each study setting (e.g. home, school). Meta‐analyses were performed on studies judged sufficiently similar and appropriate to pool using random effect models. This paper reported our findings on various adiposity‐related outcomes. We identified 147 articles (139 intervention studies) of which 115 studies were primarily school based, although other settings could have been involved. Most were conducted in the United States and within the past decade. SOE was high for physical activity‐only interventions delivered in schools with home involvement or combined diet–physical activity interventions delivered in schools with both home and community components. SOE was moderate for school‐based interventions targeting either diet or physical activity, combined interventions delivered in schools with home or community components or combined interventions delivered in the community with a school component. SOE was low for combined interventions in childcare or home settings. Evidence was insufficient for other interventions. In conclusion, at least moderately strong evidence supports the effectiveness of school‐based interventions for preventing childhood obesity. More research is needed to evaluate programmes in other settings or of other design types, especially environmental, policy and consumer health informatics‐oriented interventions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/obr.12277

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 575

Metadata

Authors
Wang, Y., Cai, L., Wu, Y., Wilson, R. F., Weston, C., Fawole, O., Bleich, S. N., Cheskin, L. J., Showell, N. N., Lau, B. D., Chiu, D. T., Zhang, A., & Segal, J.
Venue
Obesity Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-04-20
Volume
16
Issue
7
Pages
547-565
ISSN
  • 1467-7881 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-789X
DOI
10.1111/obr.12277
OpenAlex
W1900919865
Cited by
575
References
18
FWCI
10.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.