Geraldine Naughton, Australian Catholic UniversityFollow
Obiha C. Ukoumunne
McCallum, Z., Wake, M., Gerner, B., Baur, L., Gibbons, K., Gold, L., Gunn, J., Harris, C., Naughton, G., Riess, C., Sanci, L., Sheehan, J., Ukoumunne, O. C & Waters, E. (2007). Outcome data from the LEAP (Live, Eat and Play) trial: a randomized controlled trial of a primary care intervention for childhood overweight/mild obesity. International Journal of Obesity,31(4), 630-636. United Kingdom: Nature Publishing Group. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803509
Objectives: To reduce gain in body mass index (BMI) in overweight/mildly obese children in the primary care setting.
Design: Randomized controlled trial (RCT) nested within a baseline cross-sectional BMI survey.
Setting: Twenty nine general practices, Melbourne, Australia.
Participants:(1) BMI survey: 2112 children visiting their general practitioner (GP) April–December 2002; (2) RCT: individually randomized overweight/mildly obese (BMI z-score
Intervention: Four standard GP consultations over 12 weeks, targeting change in nutrition, physical activity and sedentary behaviour, supported by purpose-designed family materials.
Main outcome measures: Primary: BMI at 9 and 15 months post-randomization. Secondary: Parent-reported child nutrition, physical activity and health status; child-reported health status, body satisfaction and appearance/self-worth.
Results: Attrition was 10%. The adjusted mean difference (intervention–control) in BMI was -0.2 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.6 to 0.1; P=0.25) at 9 months and -0.0 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.5 to 0.5; P=1.00) at 15 months. There was a relative improvement in nutrition scores in the intervention arm at both 9 and 15 months. There was weak evidence of an increase in daily physical activity in the intervention arm. Health status and body image were similar in the trial arms.
Conclusions: This intervention did not result in a sustained BMI reduction, despite the improvement in parent-reported nutrition. Brief individualized solution-focused approaches may not be an effective approach to childhood overweight. Alternatively, this intervention may not have been intensive enough or the GP training may have been insufficient; however, increasing either would have significant cost and resource implications at a population level.