Tabak 2012

Methods	Study design: Randomised controlled trial Funding: “Funding for this research was provided by an unrestricted grant from ‘‘Get Kids in Action,’’ a partnership between the Gatorade Corporation and the University of North Carolina.”
Participants	Description: Children aged 2 to 5 years and their parent N (Randomised): 50 parent‐child dyads Age: Child (mean): Intervention = 3.9 years, Control = 3.3 years Parent (mean): Intervention = 36.6 years, Control = 36.2 years % Female: Child: Intervention = 59%, Control = 67% Parent: Intervention = 86%, Control 90% SES and ethnicity: Parent (non‐white): Intervention = 18%, Control = 10% Income (USD): < 50,000: Intervention = 18%, Control = 81% ≥ 50,000: Intervention = 77%, Control = 19% Education: College or less: Intervention = 36%, Control = 43% Inclusion/exclusion criteria: At least 1 child 2 ‐ 5 years old, “Additional eligibility criteria included having lived in their current residence and planning to stay in that residence for at least 6 months. If the family had more than 1 eligible child, the eldest was selected as the reference child” Recruitment: “A convenience sample of 50 parent‐child dyads, with at least 1 child 2‐5 years old, was recruited through child care centers, listservs, and community postings. Interested parents responded to recruitment materials and were screened by phone.” Recruitment rate: Unknown Region: USA
Interventions	Number of experimental conditions: 2 Number of participants (analysed): Intervention = 22, control = 21 Description of intervention: “addressed vegetable and food issues based on the baseline surveys, and the dietitian helped parents select 1 primary target area for improvement during the intervention from 4 possible options (vegetable availability; picky eating; modeling; family meals). These areas were selected based on Social Cognitive Theory, which posits that there is reciprocal interaction between an individual and his/her environment. This theory also highlights the importance of self‐efficacy, which was thus a target of the intervention as well.” Duration: 4 months Number of contacts: 6 (2 phone calls, 4 newsletters) Setting: Home Modality: Multiple (telephone, newsletters) Interventionist: A registered dietitian Integrity: No information provided Date of study: April and December 2009 Description of control: “Control group families received 4 non‐health/nutrition related children's books, 1 per month.”
Outcomes	Outcome relating to children's fruit and vegetable consumption: Child’s consumption of vegetables (servings per day) assessed using a Block Kids food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) completed by parents. Outcome relating to absolute costs/cost effectiveness of interventions: Not reported Outcome relating to reported adverse events: Not reported Length of follow‐up from baseline: 5 months Length of follow‐up post‐intervention: Immediate Subgroup analyses: None Loss to follow‐up: Intervention = 12% Control = 16% Analysis: Unknown if sample size calculations performed
Notes	To enable inclusion in meta‐analysis, we calculated post‐intervention means by group by summing baseline and change from baseline means, and assumed baseline SDs for post‐intervention SDs. Sensitivity analysis ‐ primary outcome: Primary outcome not stated, fruit or vegetable intake 2nd listed outcome after height and weight
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomly allocated to experimental group but the random sequence generation procedure is not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	There is no information provided about allocation concealment and therefore it is unclear if allocation was concealed
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Child vegetable intake (parent reported): There is no blinding to group allocation of participants or personnel described and this is likely to influence performance
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Child vegetable intake (parent reported): There is no blinding to group allocation of participants or personnel described and because this is a parent‐reported measure at high risk of detection bias
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	43 (86%) of the 50 parent‐child dyads recruited completed the study. Therefore at low risk of attrition bias
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	There is no study protocol therefore it is unclear if there was selective outcome reporting
Other bias	Unclear risk	Participants differed on child age by condition. However although this was adjusted for in the analysis the impact of this imbalance is unclear