Ostbye 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study name: KAN‐DO (Kids and adults now — defeat obesity!) Study design: RCT Intervention period: 8 months Follow‐up period (post‐intervention): 12 months Differences in baseline characteristics: reported Reliable outcomes: reported Protection against contamination: NR Unit of allocation: mother and child dyads Unit of analysis: individual
Participants	N (control baseline) = 200 N (control follow‐up) = 151 (child’s weight) N (intervention baseline) = 200 N (intervention follow‐up) = 150 (child’s weight) Setting (and number by study group): home setting with one group session Recruitment: postpartum women who were overweight/obese prior to pregnancy and their children aged 2–5 years, women were primarily identified from state birth certificates and screened for eligibility at 2–6 months postpartum Geographic region: Triangle and Triad regions of North Carolina, USA Percentage of eligible population enrolled: 28% (496/1769) Mean age: intervention + control: 3.06 ± 1.0 Sex: intervention: 43.5% female; control: 45.0% female
Interventions	To enhance healthy lifestyle behaviours in mother–preschooler (2–5 years old) dyads in North Carolina Participants in the intervention arm received 8 monthly mailed interactive kits, followed each month by a 20–30‐min telephone coaching session using MI techniques. Kits included child activities and incentives reinforcing the month's topic (e.g. a rewards chart, yoga mat, pedometer, portion plate). The intervention targeted the dyad's healthy weight via instruction in parenting styles and skills, techniques for stress management (including emotion regulation), and education about healthy behaviours. Parenting skill instruction emphasised an authoritative parenting style routines for sleep and mealtimes a supportive home environment, role‐modeling of healthy eating and PA improvement of feeding style Education about healthy behaviour changes in the dyad targeted: decreased intake of sugary drinks and fast food, increased fruit and vegetable consumption, meals prepared at home, MVPA decreased sedentary behaviour Coaching calls reviewed information in the module and addressed motivation, self‐efficacy, and barriers to change. The intervention also included one semi‐structured group session, where the study coaches and nutritionist reinforced content from the family kits and set aside time for role play and group discussion. A healthy meal and free child care were provided. Control arm participants received monthly newsletters emphasizing pre‐reading skills PA combination intervention vs control
Outcomes	Outcome measures Primary outcome: diet, PA, sedentary behaviour, all at 8 months post‐baseline and child zBMI at 22 months post‐baseline Secondary outcomes: parenting behaviours, mother's dietary intake and PA, and mother and child weight, all at 8 months post‐baseline Process evaluation: NR
Implementation‐related factors	Theoretical basis: SCT Resources for intervention implementation: reported Who delivered the intervention: reported PROGRESS categories assessed at baseline: gender; parent: race/ethnicity, SES (household income), education, marital status PROGRESS categories analysed at outcome: NR Outcomes relating to harms/unintended effects: NR Intervention included strategies to address diversity or disadvantage: NR (except that intervention targeted overweight mothers) Economic evaluation: NR
Notes	NCT00563264 Funding: this study was funded by a grant from the NIH, National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01‐DK‐07549). Dr. Zucker was supported by grant 1‐K23‐MH‐070‐418‐01. Run‐in period prior to randomisation All participants received monetary incentives (totaling USD 100) to complete assessments. Study is ongoing – this paper only reports 8‐month outcomes (22‐month outcomes to follow)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated, with permuted 8‐block randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	NR
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	NR
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	23% attrition, balanced across groups
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes specified were reported; protocol paper reports that outcomes will be reported at 10 months post‐baseline but the available outcome paper reports at 8 months
Other bias	Low risk	No additional threats to validity