Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Contemp Clin Trials. 2014 Nov 8;40:81–89. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2014.11.003

The Keys to Healthy Family Child Care Homes intervention: Study design and rationale

Truls Østbye a, Courtney M Mann a, Amber E Vaughn b, Rebecca J Namenek Brouwer a, Sara E Benjamin Neelon a, Derek Hales b, Shrikant I Bangdiwala c, Dianne S Ward b,d
PMCID: PMC4345353  NIHMSID: NIHMS641363  PMID: 25460337

Abstract

Background

Obesity is a major public health problem for which early preventive interventions are needed. Large numbers of young children are enrolled in some form of child care program, making these facilities influential environments in children’s development. Family child care homes (FCCH) are a specific type of child care in which children are cared for within the provider’s own residence. FCCHs serve approximately 1.5 million children in the U.S.; however, research to date has overlooked FCCH providers and their potential to positively influence children’s health-related behaviors.

Methods

Keys to Healthy Family Child Care Homes (Keys) is a cluster-randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of an intervention designed to help providers become healthy role models, provide quality food- and physical activity-supportive FCCH environments, and implement effective business practices. The intervention is delivered through workshops, home visits, tailored coaching calls, and educational toolkits. Primary outcomes are child physical activity measured via accelerometry data and dietary intake data collected using direct observation at the FCCH. Secondary outcomes include child body mass index, provider weight-related behaviors, and observed obesogenic environmental characteristics.

Conclusion

Keys is an innovative approach to promoting healthy eating and physical activity in young children. The intervention operates in a novel setting, targets children during a key developmental period, and addresses both provider and child behaviors to synergistically promote health.

Keywords: overweight, obesity, randomized controlled trial, children, family child care homes

Background

Combating childhood obesity is a public health priority for which preventive interventions are needed. Although recent data suggests an improving weight profile among preschoolers,1 25% of these children are still overweight or obese.2 Being overweight in childhood is associated with a wide range of adverse health outcomes3–12 and young children who are overweight or obese are more likely to be overweight or obese in adolescence and adulthood.13,14 This evidence, and recent data indicating that obese school aged children reach that status by age five,15 highlights the necessity for intervention before excess weight becomes an issue and while children are still developing important dietary and activity habits.

Child care has been identified as an important setting for obesity prevention efforts.16,17 Many young children in the US are in some type of non-parental care for a large part of each week.18–20 Research has shown that child care facilities have substantial influence on physical activity levels during the day21,22 and provide 50% to 70% of a child’s daily calorie intake.23 Unfortunately, many preschool-age children fail to accumulate the recommended 90–120 minutes a day of active play,22,24–27 and the foods served often do not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidelines, particularly for vegetables, whole grains, and milk.28 Further, personal characteristics of program directors, such as Body Mass Index (BMI), have been shown to be associated with program practices, such as servings of canned fruit, whole grains, and low-fat milk.29 Therefore, the child care setting and the providers themselves are important targets for intervention efforts.

Most child care-based interventions have been programs developed for centers, which may or may not be transferable to other types of child care settings. Family child care homes (FCCH) a are a unique type of child care setting, one that serves approximately 1.5 million children in the US.20 An FCCH is a small business that operates out of the provider’s own home where children are cared for in a more intimate home environment. In FCCH, one provider, who serves as a constant while the children are enrolled in that home, cares for children of all ages. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that time spent in FCCHs during infancy is associated with increased weight at one and three years of age,30 thus making these homes an even more critical target for early childhood obesity prevention efforts.

Keys to Healthy Child Care Homes (Keys) is one of the first studies to develop and evaluate an obesity prevention intervention specifically for FCCHs. This innovative intervention is designed to help FCCH providers foster healthy physical activity and eating habits in young children, and thereby promote healthy growth and weight. This manuscript presents the background, rationale, and design, of the Keys study.

Methods

Formative Work

To inform the development of the Keys study, the team conducted a survey of local FCCH providers, followed by an abbreviated intervention pilot study. The survey was administered in both an online and in paper format and was completed by 89 providers. Of providers responding to the survey, 57.5% were African American, 40% were White, and 2.5% were Asian. Mean age of providers was 46.2 years and 74% were overweight or obese. While most FCCHs served breakfast (75%), lunch (81%), and an afternoon snack (93%), 35% of these homes served fewer than three servings of fruit and vegetables per day, 46% did not serve whole grains, and 49% served whole rather than reduced fat milk. Additionally, 32% of homes provided less than one teacher-led physical activity session per day.

The intervention pilot study included five providers (80% African American, and all with some college education) and 15 children. Baseline measures showed that nearly all providers had high perceived self-efficacy to provide children with physical activity opportunities and healthy meals; however, assessment of FCCH’s physical activity and nutrition environments (using a modified version of the Environment Policy Assessment and Observation (EPAO)31 tool) showed the need for significant improvements. Children spent about 8.4 hours per day in care, 3 hours in non-sleeping sedentary activities, but only 20 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was accumulated.27 Healthy Eating Index (HEI)32 scores, calculated from observed dietary intake,33 indicated that the quality of children’s dietary intake needed improvement (mean score = 63.8, compared to a score of 80/100, which is considered “good”34). Furthermore, four of the five providers were classified as overweight or obese.

The 12-week pilot intervention briefly addressed three proposed program components: Healthy You, Healthy Home, and Healthy Business. The condensed format included a self-assessment, a home visit, a workshop, and a series of contacts from the coach (by mail, email, phone, or web). Providers were highly receptive to the pilot content, indicating that it offered useful information and helpful tools to improve their FCCH business, and provided support for healthy physical activity and nutrition behaviors for both themselves and the children in their care. In addition, providers also reported that the measurement burden was acceptable.

From this formative work, the provider survey and brief intervention pilot, our team gained a better understanding of the issues and topics that resonate with FCCH providers, firsthand knowledge of measuring in the FCCH environment, and a gauge of the feasibility of conducting a multi-component intervention in this novel setting. It quickly became clear that the healthy business portion and in-person workshops, while always important, were very popular. While some measurement logistics were simpler, dealing with one person instead of 3–5 in a child care center, measurement burden had to be more closely assessed and monitored. Part of the solution was to have observers complete the measurements whenever possible (i.e., recording exact times when children went outside) and separating the provider questionnaires into smaller parts given over a few days. We also found that compared to child care centers, FCCH providers had a closer relationship with parents. This created both additional opportunities and challenges for intervention development. We were also able to evaluate acceptability and preference for intervention delivery, estimate the number of children to expect, evaluate the structure of the day, and identify variations in outside and inside spaces that would need to be considered for intervention and measurement purposes.

Study Design

Keys is a two-arm, cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate the efficacy of a nine-month child obesity prevention intervention that promotes (1) providers as healthy role models, (2) physical activity- and nutrition-supportive environments at the FCCH, and (3) healthy business practices. The final sample will include 150 FCCHs and 450 children aged 18 months to 4 years. FCCHs are randomly assigned (1:1) to the intervention or control arm. Outcome measures are collected at baseline and follow-up to assess changes in children’s physical activity and diet quality at the FCCH (primary outcomes), as well as children’s BMI, providers’ physical activity and diet quality, and FCCHs’ environmental characteristics. Figure 1 provides an overview of the study design. The study has been approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University Medical Center and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Study Design

Subject Recruitment and Eligibility

A convenience sample of 150 FCCHs is being recruited in multiple waves over the course of three years, from counties across central North Carolina (NC). To help target FCCH in high-need areas, recruitment efforts focus primarily on counties with a higher-than-average prevalence of childhood overweight and obesity among children aged two to four years35 and below-average median household income. Within each county, community partners with established relationships with local FCCHs are engaged to help distribute study information via preferred communication channels (e.g., newsletters, emails, partner website, trainings, group meetings). In addition, an invitation to participate in the study and a study flyer are emailed and mailed directly to all FCCHs in the county that are listed in the NC Division of Child Development’s publically available database of licensed child care programs. Currently, this database lists about 2,350 licensed FCCHs in NC. For each wave, a catchment area with at least 250 FCCHs is identified to ensure adequate recruitment. Invitations are followed by telephone calls from specially trained recruitment staff to review details of study participation and screen for eligibility.

Eligible FCCHs must have at least two children currently enrolled who are between the ages of 18 months and 4 years (but not entering kindergarten before follow-up measures), serve at least one meal and one snack to children, and have been in business for two years (as a demonstration of business stability) with no plans to close in the coming year.

FCCHs that are eligible and interested receive welcome packets. These welcome packets are delivered primarily in-person so that recruitment staff can clearly explain all materials included. The welcome packet contains a provider consent form as well as parent packets. These parent packets provide a brief study overview and a parent consent form for child participation. To remain eligible to participate, the provider must return signed consent for his/her own participation as well as consent from at least two parents with children in the target age group. Providers who care for their own eligible child(ren) may choose to enroll their own child. Once a FCCH is formally enrolled, baseline measures are collected (see Measures below).

These recruitment efforts anticipate that only 10% of FCCHs invited to participate will end up enrolling in the study. FCCHs who enroll may represent those who are more motivated; however, multiple demographic characteristics of the provider and the FCCH are being monitored (see Measures below) in order to assess the representativeness of the study sample compared to the FCCH population in our target areas.

Randomization

After all required baseline measurements are collected, the FCCH is stratified into three groups based on the providers’ BMI (normal, overweight, obese). While additional stratification variables were considered (e.g., number of children enrolled, enrollment fees, star rating, inclusion of infants), the investigators and statistician agreed to limit stratification to this one variable given the potential for providers’ weight to impact their practices and the low prevalence of normal weight among this population. Within each group, FCCHs are randomly assigned to either the intervention or control arm (1:1), using a computerized block randomization approach to ensure equal numbers of each group of FCCHs in both study arms (SAS 9.3 Cary, NC).

Intervention

Conceptual model

The Keys intervention is guided by the Socio-Ecologic Framework36 and components of Social Cognitive Theory.37 (See Figure 2 for intervention conceptual model.) The key gatekeeper for the FCCH is the owner/provider, hence the intervention is designed to be delivered to providers who then implement changes that influence the FCCH environment and thereby the behaviors of children cared for in the FCCH. The Socio-Ecologic Framework and its previous application to child obesity prevention16,38 helped identify several levels of influence to target, specifically: individual (child and provider), interpersonal (interactions between the provider and the child and communication between provider and parents), and environmental (policies, opportunities afforded and limitations imposed by the FCCH). Several behavior change strategies from Social Cognitive Theory37 were incorporated into intervention design and messages to support providers in making these changes, specifically: goal setting, self-regulation, and self-efficacy. Additionally, intervention delivery incorporates Motivational Interviewing39,40 informed techniques and adult learning principles.41

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Conceptual Model of Keys Intervention

Content

The Keys intervention is delivered over nine months, spending approximately three months on each of three modules. These modules are designed to help providers (1) modify their own weight-related behaviors so that they can become role models for children (Module 1: Healthy You), (2) create environments that encourage and support children’s physical activity and healthy eating habits (Module 2: Healthy Home), and (3) adopt sound business practices that will help them sustain the changes introduced (Module 3: Healthy Business).

The first module of the intervention, Healthy You, targets the provider’s own health behaviors, including their physical activity, sedentary time, dietary intake, eating behaviors, weight, stress, and sleep. Providers are encouraged to compare their current health behaviors against current recommendations and to select priorities and set goals around behaviors they would like to improve. Content not only explains what target behaviors look like, but also provides a variety of simple strategies for how the providers might incorporate these habits into their normal routines. Providers’ own health is addressed first as these habits may influence the environment of their FCCH. Healthy providers should be better able to care for children, serve as good role models, and be health advocates for the children in their care.

The second module, Healthy Home, targets the nutrition and physical activity environment of the FCCH. Again, providers are encouraged to compare their current practices against recommendations and to select priorities and set goals around practices they would like to improve. Content in this module helps providers examine multiple aspects of the environment, including the foods and beverages served, the time provided for physical activity and sedentary behaviors, the day-to-day interactions between providers and children around food and physical activity, the physical environment where children eat and play, the communication between providers and parents around efforts to promote healthy living, and the policies that govern these practices.

The final module, Healthy Business, targets the financial health of the FCCH, addressing record keeping for tax purposes, creating policies to minimize the impact of client turnover and payment delinquency, creating and enforcing comprehensive contracts and policies, communicating with parents as customers, professionalism, and marketing. Components of Healthy Business are also integrated into earlier modules to help reinforce the financial feasibility and benefits of making changes. Cost is a major barrier to change, especially for FCCH providers who are self-employed, small business owners in an industry characterized by low profit margins. Helping them improve the operation of their business may help alleviate a real source of stress (lack of financial stability) and increase their self-efficacy for making and sustaining changes both to their own health and to the FCCH environment.

The content from these three modules is intended to work synergistically to encourage children’s healthy eating and physical activity habits, and thereby healthy weight. For example, helping providers improve the quality of their diet (e.g., more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean meats, with less sugar sweetened beverages and sweet and salty snacks) should allow them to be healthy role models as these same changes are made to foods served to children. Helping providers improve their personal physical activity behaviors should also help them become more confident in encouraging and leading children in physical activities. Strengthening their business practices should help them identify low-cost, sustainable changes and to use those improvements to enhance the marketing of their FCCH.

Participants in the control arm receive the Healthy Business content as described above. However, this content is divided into three modules (record keeping, contracts and policies, and marketing) and are expanded upon in order to create enough content to mimic the timing and level of attention in the intervention arm (one workshop every three months and four coaching contacts), thus reducing potential attention control bias. The only difference in attention is the replacement of the home visit in each module with a phone call. The focus on business topics are relevant and, therefore, appealing to providers in the control arm.

Materials in the intervention arm related to diet and physical activity for adults and children were written and designed by the study team, a multidisciplinary team of researchers with training and expertise in nutrition and physical activity, related obesogenic behaviors and environments, education, and curriculum development. With the exception of some workshop activities, all materials for Healthy Business (module three of the intervention materials and all control materials) were developed by Tom Copeland (consultant to the study), a lawyer with a business background specializing in business practices specifically for FCCHs. Business related workshop activities were designed to reinforce Tom Copeland’s curriculum content and were developed by the intervention manager and health behavior coaches after being trained on Tom Copeland’s curriculum and receiving one on one training sessions with Tom Copeland.

Delivery

The delivery structure for each of the three modules in the intervention is consistent. First, the FCCH is assigned a dedicated health behavior coach from the study team. Health behavior coaches have backgrounds in counseling related fields, such as social work and counseling, and have been trained in Motivational Interviewing (MI), intervention content, and intervention protocols. The coach delivers: one group workshop, one in-person visit to the FCCH, three tailored coaching phone calls, and an educational toolkit with resources for each of the three modules.

Prior to each group workshop, FCCH providers are asked to complete a self-assessment that helps coaches target potential areas of improvement. Self-assessments are reviewed during the group workshop and the first home visit to help the coach and provider select goals for each module. Details of the intervention delivery model for each module are depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Delivery model

Measures

Data collection

FCCH providers and consented children complete a series of assessments at two time points – baseline and post-intervention. Most of these assessments are collected during a two-day home visit conducted by data collectors, who are trained and certified on all protocols and blinded to randomization. The visits are scheduled over a three-day period (e.g., Monday and Wednesday or Tuesday and Thursday). The data collectors arrive in the morning before the first meal and stay until the children leave.

Children’s physical activity

To assess physical activity during child care, children are fitted with an ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer (ActiGraph, Pensacola, FL). Monitors are worn on a belt over the right hip, for three days. While the primary outcome is for physical activity at child care, children are asked to wear monitors during all waking hours, including those hours when the child is not in the FCCH. Adult caregivers (FCCH providers and parents) are instructed about monitor wear so that they can provide assistance and reminders to children. After the home visit, accelerometer data are downloaded and processed to assess non-wear. The most relevant and current algorithms are applied during this process. Minutes of MVPA and sedentary time are estimated by applying established cut points for this age group to the 15-second epoch data files.42–44 Given slight discrepancies between established cut points, an averaged cut point of less than 25 counts per epoch was used for sedentary (based on Evenson’s cut point of 0–25), and 500+ counts per epoch for moderate or vigorous activity (based on Pate’s cut point of 420, Evenson’s cut point of 574, and Trost’s cut point of 418). Estimates for physical activity while at child care are then calculated from full day data by applying start and end times for each child care day.

Children’s diet quality

Assessment of the children’s diet quality is based on observed intakes of foods and beverages consumed while at the FCCH. Using the Diet Observation in Child Care protocol,33 data collectors observe participating children at all meals and snacks served over the course of the day, estimating the amount of foods served, wasted, exchanged, and remaining at the end of the meal or snack. The original protocol was adapted to capture and differentiate foods brought from home. These records are entered into the Nutrition Data System for Research (NDSR, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis - 2014) to estimate intakes of energy (kcals), macro- and micronutrients, and servings of different food groups. The HEI32,45 is then used to assess diet quality based on the comparison of observed intake to that of national dietary guidelines.45

Children’s anthropometric measures

To assess children’s weight status, data collectors measure the height, weight, and waist circumference of participating children. The procedures are similar to those used in NHANES46 for this age group. Specifically, height is measured in the standing position (unless the child is not able) to the nearest 1/8 inch using Seca 123 portable stadiometer (Seca Corporation, Columbia, MD); weight measured to the nearest 0.1 pound using a Tanita 800BWB portable scale (Tanita Corporation, Tokyo, Japan); and waist circumference is measured to the nearest 0.1 cm using a Gulick II measuring tape. Measurements are taken twice and averaged unless they differ by more than a predetermined criterion. In this case a third measure is taken and the closest two are averaged. Height and weight measures are used to calculate body mass index (BMI). Sex-specific growth charts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention47 are then used to calculate BMI percentile and BMI z-score.

Provider physical activity, diet, and anthropometrics

Providers’ physical activity is assessed over seven days using belt-mounted ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers worn over the right hip. Monitors are mailed back and data are processed to assess non-wear. Minutes of MVPA and sedentary time are quantified based on cut points established for adults in NHANES.48 Dietary intakes are assessed with the Block Brief Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ).49 Comparisons between the longer form (100 items) and the short form (60-item) FFQ support equivalency of the short form.49–51 Provider height and weight are measured using the same equipment and procedures as described above.

FCCH environment

The Environment and Policy Assessment and Observation (EPAO) is used to measure the FCCH’s environment and ability to support healthy lifestyles.52 The EPAO assesses the nutrition and physical activity environments in child care, including the provisions, practices, and policies. While originally developed for use in child care centers, the EPAO was used successfully in our pilot study with only slight modifications. For example, questions about staff behaviors were rephrased to ask about “the provider” instead of “any staff.” Questions about the physical space were adjusted to account for the potential lack of a discrete classroom space. For example, when asking about the presence of TV during meals and snacks, a response option was added to capture presence of a TV in an adjacent space that could still be heard. For this study, data collectors completed two days of the EPAO protocol.

Provider surveys

To assess potential mediating and moderating variables, providers complete a series of self-administered questionnaires. The demographic questionnaire captures characteristics about the provider (e.g., age, sex, race/ethnicity, household income, education) and the home (e.g., ages of children, race/ethnicity of children, quality rating, and enrollment fees). Motivation to encourage children to eat healthy and be physically active is assessed with a modified version of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory.53 Providers’ self-efficacy to eat healthy and be physically active is assessed using established scales by Sallis54 and Kroll.55 Providers’ sleep habits56,57 and stress58 are also assessed using established scales. Finally, a modified version of the Business Administration Scale(BAS)59 is used to capture providers’ standard business practices. Modifications to the BAS added items about communication with parents around children’s physical activity and eating.

Statistical Analysis

For each of the two primary outcomes, physical activity (MVPA) and HEI score, the difference in mean change at follow-up between intervention and control arms will be compared. The hypotheses are that the children in the intervention arm will increase their MVPA and improve their HEI score more than the children in the control arm. These hypotheses will be tested under the intent-to-treat principle using Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) that will account for the correlation induced by the clustering of children within FCCHs.

To further explore the effect of the intervention, GLMMs will be fit that (1) adjust for baseline covariates of interest, considered a priori, relevant to change in MVPA and Health Eating Index score; (2) adjust for baseline variables distributed differently between intervention groups; (3) test interaction terms between treatment group and other covariates; and (4) examine completers only.

Differences in the secondary outcomes, child BMI, provider weight-related behaviors, and obesogenic FCCH environmental characteristics, will be analyzed in a parallel fashion. Mediating and moderating effects of the factors mentioned above will also be explored.

Process Evaluation

A comprehensive process evaluation plan is in place to evaluate intervention implementation, including reach, dose delivered, dose received and fidelity. Reach will be assessed using data collected in the recruitment tracking database. This database records the total number of licensed FCCHs present in the targeted areas, as well as the number screened, not interested, not eligible (along with reasons for ineligibility), consented, and measured. These data will allow us to assess what percent of eligible FCCHs were reached through this study and to explore differences between participants and non-participants. Dose delivered, dose received, and fidelity will be monitored using data from the intervention tracking database. This database captures attempts to deliver intervention components (dates of workshops, coaching attempts), completion of each component by participant, and date of completion. These data will allow us to evaluate our delivery of the intended intervention (dose delivered), participant completion rates (dose received), and fidelity to protocol (completion within the specified time frame). In addition, coaching contacts will be recorded and reviewed to assess the use of MI tactics and coverage of intervention topics. Additionally, process evaluation surveys designed to assess provider perceptions of content, implementation methods, and burden of the program will be administered after each module of the intervention.

Participant Incentives

FCCH providers are given a variety of incentives for participation in the study. They are offered $75 for completion of baseline measures, $125 for completion of follow up measures, as well as Continuing Education Units (CEU) for participation in the intervention or control program. As part of both the intervention and control programs, participants receive educational toolkits with incentives such as pedometers, exercise bands, reusable water cups, cork boards, shopping pads, file boxes, and books for their FCCH. The intervention group also gets divided plates and polyspots to use with the children in their homes. All of these items are designed to be useful to the FCCH while also supporting program participation. Additionally, the business content of the intervention is designed to be an incentive to participate.

Discussion

The Keys study is one of the first to evaluate a child obesity prevention intervention designed specifically for use in FCCHs. A recent review of obesity prevention interventions in children from birth to age five identified 50 trials, none targeting FCCHs specifically.60 Since that review, Trost and colleagues published results from their Healthy Kansas Kids intervention, which trained local community Resource and Referral Agencies to provide a series of eight technical assistance visits to family child care home providers to help them improve their policies and practices related to healthy eating and physical activity.61 In addition, de Silva-Sanigorski and colleagues published results from the implementation of the community-based Romp and Chomp intervention on family day care programs.62 Results from both of these studies suggest that family child care settings are amenable to obesity prevention intervention efforts. The remainder of the research that has been done with FCCHs has been cross-sectional studies focuses on characterizing their physical activity or nutrition environments and practices.63–71 Some of these studies suggest that children in FCCHs get only 14 minutes of MVPA per 8-hour day65 and watch significantly more television compared to those in center-based care.70,71 There is also some evidence that 56% of family child care homes are serving children multiple servings of juice each day and 86% are serving higher fat milk.63 Additionally, less than 50% of providers in FCCHs receive annual training on physical activity or nutrition.63 More research in FCCHs is needed; however, the little evidence that is available suggests that FCCHs are an important target for obesity prevention that are responsive to interventions.

The Keys intervention is unique among child care-based interventions to date in that it recognizes the importance of not only the providers’ personal health habits and their business practices but also the potential impact these factors have on their ability to implement and sustain changes in support of children’s healthy behaviors. Few, if any, child care-based obesity prevention programs have addressed provider health, yet the providers are key gatekeepers whose personal health and habits impact the nutrition and physical activity opportunities offered to children in their care.64,72,73 Furthermore, few obesity prevention programs have incorporated messages around economic stability. Such an approach is necessary when trying to implement and sustain changes in a business characterized by low profit margins and should allow more resources and attention to be paid to the creation of a healthy, non-obesogenic environment. To address these issues, the Keys intervention includes three separate modules – Healthy You, Healthy Home, Healthy Business – which are designed to work together synergistically to create FCCH environments that foster healthy eating and physical activity habits in children.

The use of coaches to provide tailored technical assistance to the FCCH providers throughout each phase is also novel. Although coaches have been used in other health behavior interventions, no studies have employed such an approach to simultaneously modify organizational policies, environments, and practices. In Keys, the role of the health behavior coach includes reinforcement of key messages about FCCH business “health” and viability, as well as physical activity- and nutrition-related environmental support for the children.

FCCHs are important settings through which healthy weight-related behaviors for young children can be promoted. However, these settings have special considerations that must be addressed when designing obesity prevention intervention studies. FCCHs are small businesses, with low profit margins, where providers are caring for children across a variety of age groups simultaneously. Change strategies must be low-cost, easy to implement and sustain, and applicable to infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. FCCH providers usually have a close relationship with both the children in their care and their parents, hence they can become powerful role models of healthy behaviors and advocates of healthy practices. By supplying the necessary knowledge, tools, and motivational coaching, the Keys to Healthy Homes program should be an effective tool for improving the diet quality and increasing the physical activity of children in FCCHs.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the following people who contributed to the development and execution of the Keys project: Temitope Erihosho, Tracy Itty, Joy Long, Sakinah Omar, Rachel Bartlett, Andrew DeGraff, Tom Copeland, and our Community Advisory Group of local family child care home providers.

This research was funded by the National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01HL108390. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The sponsor had no role in the study design; collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; writing of the article; or decision to publish this article.

Footnotes

a

FCCH: Family Child Care Home

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  • 1.Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. PRevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the united states, 2011–2012. JAMA. 2014;311(8):806–814. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Prevalence of obesity and trends in body mass index among US children and adolescents, 1999–2010. JAMA. 2012 Feb 1;307(5):483–490. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Freedman DS, Dietz WH, Srinivasan SR, Berenson GS. The relation of overweight to cardiovascular risk factors among children and adolescents: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Pediatrics. 1999;103(6 Pt 1):1175–1182. doi: 10.1542/peds.103.6.1175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Roberts EA. Pediatric nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): a “growing” problem? Journal of hepatology. 2007 Jun;46(6):1133–1142. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2007.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rodriguez MA, Winkleby MA, Ahn D, Sundquist J, Kraemer HC. Identification of population subgroups of children and adolescents with high asthma prevalence: findings from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine. 2002 Mar;156(3):269–275. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.156.3.269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sinha R, Fisch G, Teague B, et al. Prevalence of impaired glucose tolerance among children and adolescents with marked obesity. The New England journal of medicine. 2002 Mar 14;346(11):802–810. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa012578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Steinberger J, Moran A, Hong CP, Jacobs DR, Jr, Sinaiko AR. Adiposity in childhood predicts obesity and insulin resistance in young adulthood. The Journal of pediatrics. 2001 Apr;138(4):469–473. doi: 10.1067/mpd.2001.112658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Weiss R, Dziura J, Burgert TS, et al. Obesity and the metabolic syndrome in children and adolescents. The New England journal of medicine. 2004 Jun 3;350(23):2362–2374. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa031049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Erickson SJ, Robinson TN, Haydel KF, Killen JD. Are overweight children unhappy?: Body mass index, depressive symptoms, and overweight concerns in elementary school children. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine. 2000 Sep;154(9):931–935. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.154.9.931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Duarte CS, Sourander A, Nikolakaros G, et al. Child mental health problems and obesity in early adulthood. The Journal of pediatrics. Jan;156(1):93–97. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.06.066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wang F, Wild TC, Kipp W, Kuhle S, Veugelers PJ. The influence of childhood obesity on the development of self-esteem. Health reports / Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Health Information = Rapports sur la sante / Statistique Canada, Centre canadien d’information sur la sante. 2009 Jun;20(2):21–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.BeLue R, Francis LA, Colaco B. Mental health problems and overweight in a nationally representative sample of adolescents: effects of race and ethnicity. Pediatrics. 2009 Feb;123(2):697–702. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-0687. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Baird J, Fisher D, Lucas P, Kleijnen J, Roberts H, Law C. Being big or growing fast: systematic review of size and growth in infancy and later obesity. BMJ (Clinical research ed. 2005 Oct 22;331(7522):929. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38586.411273.E0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Monteiro PO, Victora CG. Rapid growth in infancy and childhood and obesity in later life--a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2005 May;6(2):143–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2005.00183.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cunningham SA, Kramer MR, Narayan KMV. Incidence of Childhood Obesity in the United States. The New England journal of medicine. 2014;370(5):403–411. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1309753. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Birch LL, Ventura AK. Preventing childhood obesity: what works? International journal of obesity (2005) 2009 Apr;33( Suppl 1):S74–81. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2009.22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Larson N, Ward DS, Neelon SB, Story M. What Role Can Child-Care Settings Play in Obesity Prevention? A Review of the Evidence and Call for Research Efforts. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2011;111(9):1343–1362. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2011.06.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Flynn M, McNeil D, Maloff B, et al. Reducing obesity and related chronic disease risk in children and youth: a synthesis of evidence with ‘best practice’ recommendations. Obes Rev. 2006 Feb;7( Suppl 1):7–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00242.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Iruka I, Carver P. Initial results from the 2005 NEHS Early Childhood Program Participation Survey. United States Department of Education; 2006. NCES 2006075. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Laughlin L. Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Finn K, Johannsen N, Specker B. Factors associated with physical activity in preschool children. The Journal of pediatrics. 2002 Jan;140(1):81–85. doi: 10.1067/mpd.2002.120693. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pate RR, Pfeiffer KA, Trost SG, Ziegler P, Dowda M. Physical activity among children attending preschools. Pediatrics. 2004 Nov;114(5):1258–1263. doi: 10.1542/peds.2003-1088-L. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Fox MGF, Endahl J, Wilde J. Early Childhood and Child Care Study: Nutritional Assessment of the CACFP: Final Report. Washington DC: US Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education. Preventing childhood obesity in early care and education progams: Selected standards from Caring for Our Children: National Health and Safety Performance Standards. (3) 2010 http://nrckids.org/CFOC3/PDFVersion/preventing_obesity.pdf.
  • 25.Reilly JJ. Low levels of objectively measured physical activity in preschoolers in child care. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. Mar;42(3):502–507. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181cea100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Reilly JJ, Kelly L, Montgomery C, et al. Physical activity to prevent obesity in young children: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ (Clinical research ed. 2006 Nov 18;333(7577):1041. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38979.623773.55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pate RR, McIver K, Dowda M, Brown WH, Addy C. Directly observed physical activity levels in preschool children. The Journal of school health. 2008 Aug;78(8):438–444. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00327.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ball SC, Benjamin SE, Ward DS. Dietary intakes in North Carolina child-care centers: are children meeting current recommendations? J Am Diet Assoc. 2008 Apr;108(4):718–721. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2008.01.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mazzucca SHD, Tabak RG, Vaughn A, Ward DS. International Society of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. Minneapolis, MN: 2010. Are Center or Center Director Characteristics Related to Diet Quality at Childcare? [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Benjamin SE, Rifas-Shiman SL, Taveras EM, et al. Early child care and adiposity at ages 1 and 3 years. Pediatrics. 2009 Aug;124(2):555–562. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-2857. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ward DH, Derek, Haverly Katie, Marks Julie, Benjamin Sara, Ball Sarah, Trost Stewart. An Instrument to Assess the Obesogenic Environment of Child Care Centers. American Journal of Health Behavior. 2008;32(4):380–386. doi: 10.5555/ajhb.2008.32.4.380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kennedy ET, Ohls J, Carlson S, Fleming K. The Healthy Eating Index: design and applications. J Am Diet Assoc. 1995 Oct;95(10):1103–1108. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8223(95)00300-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ball SC, Benjamin SE, Ward DS. Development and reliability of an observation method to assess food intake of young children in child care. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2007 Apr;107(4):656–661. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2007.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Basiotis PP, Carlson A, Gerrior SA, Juan WY, Lino M. The Healthy Eating Index: 1999–2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Nutrition Services Branch, North Carolina Division of Public Health. [Accessed June 8, 2011];Prevalence of Obesity, Overweight, Healthy Weight and Underweight in Children 2 through 4 years of age, By County, NC-NPASS. 2009 http://www.eatsmartmovemorenc.com/Data/Texts/NCNPASS%202009%20County%202-4%20Years.pdf.
  • 36.McLeroy K, Bibeau K, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly. 1988;15:351–377. doi: 10.1177/109019818801500401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action. A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Davison KK, Birch LL. Childhood overweight: a contextual model and recommendations for future research. Obes Rev. 2001 Aug;2(3):159–171. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-789x.2001.00036.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing : Preparing People for Change. New York: Guilford Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Rollnick S, Miller WR, Butler C. Motivational Interviewing in Health Care : Helping Patients Change Behavior. New York: Guilford Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dunst CJ. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of four adult learning methods and strategies. Centre for Research in Continuing Education & Lifelong Learning, University of Hong Kong; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Pate RR, Almeida MJ, McIver KL, Pfeiffer KA, Dowda M. Validation and calibration of an accelerometer in preschool children. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md. 2006 Nov;14(11):2000–2006. doi: 10.1038/oby.2006.234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Evenson KR, Catellier DJ, Gill K, Ondrak KS, McMurray RG. Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children. Journal of sports sciences. 2008 Dec;26(14):1557–1565. doi: 10.1080/02640410802334196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Trost SG, Fees BS, Haar SJ, Murray AD, Crowe LK. Identification and validity of accelerometer cut-points for toddlers. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md. 2012 Nov;20(11):2317–2319. doi: 10.1038/oby.2011.364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Guenther PM, Reedy J, Krebs-Smith SM, Reeve BB. Evaluation of the Healthy Eating Index-2005. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2008 Nov;108(11):1854–1864. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2008.08.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Questionnaire (or Examination Protocol, or Laboratory Protocol) Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kuczmarski RJOC, Grummer-Strawn L, et al. Vital and Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics; 2000. CDC Growth Charts: United States. Advance Data Report No. 314. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Troiano RP. Translating accelerometer counts into energy expenditure: advancing the quest. Journal of Applied Physiology. 2006;100(4):1107–1108. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01577.2005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Block GHA, Naughton D. A reduced dietary questionnaire: development and validation. Epidemiology. 1990;1:58–64. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199001000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Potischman N, Carroll RJ, Iturria SJ, et al. Comparison of the 60- and 100-item NCI-block questionnaires with validation data. Nutrition and cancer. 1999;34(1):70–75. doi: 10.1207/S15327914NC340110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Subar AF, Thompson FE, Kipnis V, et al. Comparative validation of the Block, Willett, and National Cancer Institute food frequency questionnaires : the Eating at America’s Table Study. American journal of epidemiology. 2001 Dec 15;154(12):1089–1099. doi: 10.1093/aje/154.12.1089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Ward D, Hales D, Haverly K, et al. An instrument to assess the obesogenic environment of child care centers. Am J Health Behav. 2008 Jul-Aug;32(4):380–386. doi: 10.5555/ajhb.2008.32.4.380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.McAuley E, Duncan T, Tammen VV. Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 1989 Mar;60(1):48–58. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1989.10607413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Sallis JF, Pinski RB, Grossman RM, Patterson TL, Nader PR. The development of self-efficacy scales for health related diet and exercise behaviors. Health Education Research. 1988 Sep 1;3(3):283–292. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kroll T, Kehn M, Ho P-S, Groah S. The SCI Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES): development and psychometric properties. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2007;4(1):34. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-4-34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hays RD, Stewart AL. Sleep measures. Measuring functioning and well-being: The Medical Outcomes Study approach. 1992:235–259. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hays RD, Martin SA, Sesti AM, Spritzer KL. Psychometric properties of the Medical Outcomes Study Sleep measure. Sleep medicine. 2005 Jan;6(1):41–44. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2004.07.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Sheldon C, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A Global Measure of Perceived Stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1983;24(4):385–396. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Talan TNB, Jorde Paula. Business Administration Scale for Family Child Care, BAS. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Hesketh KD, Campbell KJ. Interventions to prevent obesity in 0–5 year olds: an updated systematic review of the literature. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md. 2010 Feb;18( Suppl 1):S27–35. doi: 10.1038/oby.2009.429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Trost SG, Messner L, Fitzgerald K, Roths B. A Nutrition and Physical Activity Intervention for Family Child Care Homes. American journal of preventive medicine. 2011;41(4):392–398. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.06.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.de Silva-Sanigorski A, Elea D, Bell C, et al. Obesity prevention in the family day care setting: impact of the Romp & Chomp intervention on opportunities for children’s physical activity and healthy eating. Child: care, health and development. 2011 May;37(3):385–393. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01205.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Trost SG, Messner L, Fitzgerald K, Roths B. Nutrition and physical activity policies and practices in family child care homes. American journal of preventive medicine. 2009 Dec;37(6):537–540. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.09.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Fees B, Trost S, Bopp M, Dzewaltowski DA. Physical activity programming in family child care homes: providers’ perceptions of practices and barriers. Journal of nutrition education and behavior. 2009 Jul-Aug;41(4):268–273. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2008.01.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Temple VA, Naylor PJ, Rhodes RE, Higgins JW. Physical activity of children in family child care. Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme. 2009 Aug;34(4):794–798. doi: 10.1139/H09-061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Monsivais P, Kirkpatrick S, Johnson DB. More nutritious food is served in child-care homes receiving higher federal food subsidies. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011 May;111(5):721–726. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2011.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Gunter KB, Rice KR, Ward DS, Trost SG. Factors associated with physical activity in children attending family child care homes. Preventive medicine. 2012 Feb;54(2):131–133. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Rice KR. Doctoral Dissertation. Oregon State University; 2012. Physical activity in children attending family child care homes. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Natale R, Page M, Sanders L. Nutrition and Physical Activity Practices in Childcare Centers Versus Family Childcare Homes. Early Childhood Educ J. 2013 Aug 10;2013:1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Christakis DA, Garrison MM. Preschool-aged children’s television viewing in child care settings. Pediatrics. 2009 Dec;124(6):1627–1632. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0862. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Tandon PS, Zhou C, Lozano P, Christakis DA. Preschoolers’ total daily screen time at home and by type of child care. The Journal of pediatrics. 2011 Feb;158(2):297–300. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Copeland KA, Kendeigh CA, Saelens BE, Kalkwarf HJ, Sherman SN. Physical activity in child-care centers: do teachers hold the key to the playground? Health Educ Res. 2012 Feb;27(1):81–100. doi: 10.1093/her/cyr038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Hughes CC, Gooze RA, Finkelstein DM, Whitaker RC. Barriers to obesity prevention in Head Start. Health affairs (Project Hope) 2010 Mar-Apr;29(3):454–462. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES