TABLE 3.
Intervention Evaluation Type, Feasibility, Acceptability, and Health Outcomes (n = 23)
| Author (Year) | Type of Study | Type of Method | Feasibility and Acceptability | Health Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arauz Boudreau et al27 (2013) | RCT: underpowered | Quantitative | Feasibility: attendance rates averaged 79%, 63% completed follow-up; acceptability: not reported | Physical activity significantly increased in the intervention group (P = .03), but after demographic adjustment this effect was lost (P = .88); no differences found between groups for BMI, physical activity, or metabolic markers of obesity (lipids, glucose, insulin, HbA1C, AST and ALT, C-reactive protein, IL-6, TNF-α), health-related quality of life improved for both groups (P = .33) |
| Bender et al28 (2013) | Intervention arm only, pre-post assessment | Quantitative | Feasibility: 77% enrolled were included in the intervention; of the intervention group, 100% completed the program with 100% attendance and 91% completed 6-mo follow-up. Acceptability: high participant satisfaction and enjoyment of the program (no additional data reported) | Maternal BMI decreased (P < .05) and children’s BMI decreased (P > .05); sugary drink consumption decreased, and water and milk consumption increased (all P < .02) |
| Bender et al29 (2014) | Adaptation scoring | Mixed methods | Feasibility: no additional data reported (see Bender et al28); acceptability: participants highly complimented the promotora, bonded with each other, and continued to meet post intervention | No additional data reported; see Bender et al28 |
| Chen et al30 (2019) | RCT: fully powered | Quantitative | Feasibility: 75% reported accessing the Fitbit program several times a week, and 20% accessed once a week; 90% completed 6-mo follow-up. Acceptability: 100% would recommend this program to others; 100% reported the device was helpful in tracking physical activity, 88% found it helpful for tracking food intake; 91% shared Fitbit data with their PCP | Significantly greater decrease in BMI in the intervention group (−4.89 vs −4.72; P < .001), as well as sugar-sweetened drink consumption (P = .001) and television and/or computer time (P < .001) and increased self-efficacy in nutrition (P = .02) and physical activity (P = .05); no difference in quality of life physical health |
| Cronk et al31 (2011) | Intervention arm only, historical control | Mixed methods | Feasibility: 80% attended at least 4 of 6 sessions; home coaching occurred a median of 4 times over 12 mo; 57% completed 12-mo follow-up. Acceptability: the sessions created a sense of warmth and camaraderie; children enjoyed the structured physical activity and play sessions (qualitative) | Significant reduction in BMI z scores (average −0.13) in intervention compared with control (P < .001); >40% reduced their intake of chips, fries, and desserts, and increased milk intake; significant improvements were seen in all of the Pediatric Quality of Life subscales (all P < .001, except emotional subscale [P = .03]) |
| D’Angelo et al32 (2009) | Intervention arm only, pre-post assessment | Mixed methods | Feasibility: 100% completed the intervention; attendance was flexible, with participants averaging 7.3 sessions over 3–7 mo. Acceptability: mothers felt they had benefited from participation; 6 of 8 children were “glad to be involved”; only 1 child found the intervention stressful | Maternal ratings of therapeutic alliance averaged 6.97 of 7; parents reported improved ability to communicate and improved relationships and understanding with their child; children’s responses were similar; maternal GAS ratings revealed significant improvement (P = .02) |
| Falbe et al33 (2015) | RCT: underpowered | Quantitative | Feasibility: participants attended a mean of 3.5 of 5 sessions, 71% attended ≥4; 75% of randomly assigned participants were included in the final analysis. Acceptability: positive participant feedback was noted (no additional data reported) | Primary outcome: BMI, decreased at 10 wk in the AHF group (−0.50) and increased in the control group (+0.32; P = .004); triglyceride levels decreased in the AHF group compared with controls (P = .03); no differences found in SBP and DBP, LDL and HDL cholesterol, glucose, HOMA-IR, or HbA1C |
| Falbe et al34 (2017) | Cross-sectional | Qualitative | Feasibility: all 23 participants at the final session agreed to an exit interview, which 91% later completed. Acceptability: promotoras were felt to be an efficacious tool for helping clinicians provide bridging communication and to promote healthy behaviors; parents found the provider triad to enhance comfort and feel welcoming | Not reported |
| Feutz and Andresen35 (2013) | Intervention arm only, pre-post assessment | Quantitative | Feasibility: 15 of 24 (54%) registered for first session attended, with 5 additional unregistered participants (N = 20); 100% retention rate to second session; second program (n = 7) 70% attendance and 86% retention; and third program 0% attendance of 19 registered. Acceptability: participants evaluated the program positively; they enjoyed the activities and would strongly recommend Cuidate to others (no data reported) | There was a significant increase in HIV knowledge test scores (P = .001); improvement seen in intention to use condoms (P = .01), perceived self-efficacy in using condoms (P = .001), ability to say no to sex (P = .04) and to negotiate with partner (P = .03) |
| Hamilton et al36 (2013) | Cross-sectional | Quantitative | Feasibility: no data reported; acceptability: mean satisfaction scores for the 15 Spanish-speaking families were 8.5 points higher (more satisfied) than the mean scores from the 7 English-speaking families (P = .003) | Not reported |
| Herbst et al37 (2019) | Intervention arm only, pre-post assessment | Quantitative | Feasibility: family attendance of clinic follow-up improved from 11% to 34% pre and post innovation, respectively, retention data N/A; acceptability: not reported | Increases were seen in including: wt and BMI in the visit diagnosis (P < .001), HPI (P < .001), and plan (P = .006); providers were more likely to offer follow-up (P < .001); families were more likely to follow-up (P < .01) |
| La Roche et al38 (2006) | RCT: pilot | Quantitative | Feasibility: 100% completed the intervention, 92% completed 1 y follow-up; acceptability: not reported | Mean ED visits in the MFAGT group was 0.7, which was lower than the SPAI group (1.2) and control group (1.4) (P = .04); asthma management scale scores improved in both the MFAGT and SPAI groups (P > .05); no differences found by race and/or ethnicity |
| Landback et al39 (2009) | Intervention arm only, pre-post assessment | Quantitative | Feasibility: 92% of adolescents completed the final product intervention, which was improved significantly (P = .009) from the prototype (57%); retention not reported. Acceptability: participants rated that they would be willing to recommend the intervention to a peer (8.59/10) and that the program was useful in identifying thoughts and behaviors I would like to change (8.30/10) | Not reported |
| Lewin et al40 (2015) | Intervention arm only, pre-post assessment | Mixed methods | Feasibility: couples attended a mean of 3.2 of 5 prenatal sessions; 18% of couples completed the intervention. Acceptability: participants rated classes as very helpful (mean 4.4 of 5), and believed they were likely to use what they learned (mean 4.2 of 5) | Not reported |
| López et al41 (2018) | Intervention arm only, pre-post assessment | Quantitative | Feasibility: 100% of parents attended at least 1 session, 50% attended at least 75%; 92% retention for postintervention follow-up. Acceptability: participants rated their satisfaction with the program an average of 4.50 of 5 | No significant changes in child or parent coping competence; decrease in child behavior problems (P = .04) and parenting stress (P = .01) |
| Mazzeo et al42 (2014) | RCT: pilot | Quantitative | Feasibility: families attended an average of 52.9% of intervention sessions, 62% completed postintervention testing. Acceptability: 91.7% strongly agreed they would recommend this group to others | No changes reported in Child Feeding Questionnaire subscales; significant difference in BMI percentile, which decreased in the intervention group and did not change in the control group (P < .008); no significant changes in children’s quality of life |
| Mirza et al43 (2013) | RCT: fully powered | Quantitative | Feasibility: 79% of both groups completed 3 mo of treatment, 58% of LGD and 55% of LFD participants completed the final follow-up at 24 mo; acceptability: not reported | At 3 mo post intervention, LGD participants had decreased glycemic loads per meal compared with the LFD group (P = .02): not sustained at 12 and 24 mo, no between-group differences in glycemic loads or macronutrient intake; both groups decreased BMI z scores at all measurements post intervention (P = .0001, .003, and .002) and decreased metabolic syndrome (NS); no significant differences between groups in BMI or HOMA-IR |
| Nitsos et al44 (2017) | Intervention arm only, pre-post assessment | Quantitative | Feasibility: attendance and retention N/A; acceptability: not reported | Significant increase in Tummy Time–related knowledge (P = .04); all participants reported increased confidence |
| O’Connor et al45 (2020) | RCT: pilot | Quantitative | Feasibility: enrolled 90% of the goal sample size, retained 75% of participants for post assessment, and maintained 72% attendance; 72% had most anthropometric and behavioral data at follow-up. Acceptability: achieved 100% excellent or good satisfaction ratings among parents; almost all stated they would recommend the program to their friends | No statistically significant differences observed in wt, BMI, HR, BP, waist circumference, kilocalories (Food Frequency Questionnaire), moderate and/or vigorous physical activity, or sedentary time observed between groups in children |
| Reavy et al46 (2012) | Cross-sectional | Mixed methods | Feasibility: attendance and retention N/A; acceptability: advisors reported enhanced abilities for refugees to navigate and/or communicate with the health care system | Missed clinic appointments dropped from 25% to 2.5%; there was a drop in the no-show rate for clinic appointments; childhood immunizations rates at 100% compliance (no previous data) |
| Rice et al47 (2003) | Intervention arm only, pre-post assessment | Mixed methods | Feasibility: attendance was 100% at each of the sessions in the pilot intervention; 89% completed follow-up. Acceptability: participants evaluated the information provided as “very helpful” or “somewhat helpful” | Pilot intervention: validated tobacco quit rate of 37.5% at 1-mo follow-up |
| Ryan et al48 (2020) | Intervention arm only, pre-post assessment | Quantitative | Feasibility: attendance N/A, retention rate 60% for 1-mo follow-up; acceptability: not reported | Of those who reported riding their bikes post intervention, 100% “always” used helmets (compared with 0% preintervention); more parents required helmet use (35% preintervention, 67% post intervention); no outcomes reached statistical significance |
| Serpas et al49 (2013) | Chart reviews | Mixed methods | Feasibility: attendance and retention N/A; acceptability: not reported | Pediatric patients with wt assessments charted increased from 40% at baseline to 90% (no P value reported) |
| Svetaz et al50 (2016) | Cross-sectional | Mixed methods | Feasibility: attendance and retention N/A; acceptability: 100% reported being fully satisfied with clinic outcomes, and 29 of 30 would recommend Aqui Para Ti; adolescents reported high levels of comfort and trust | Not reported |
| Valdez et al51 (2013) | Intervention arm only, pre-post assessment | Quantitative | Feasibility: 76% of enrolled families attended >90% of the sessions; 76% of enrolled families completed the postintervention assessment. Acceptability: questionnaire ratings of satisfaction were highly favorable; overall quality of the intervention was rated at 4.92 of 5 and 4.56 of 5 by mothers and caregivers, respectively | Small improvements seen in child support–seeking behaviors, decreases in total conflict behavior with mothers, and improvements in conduct problems, emotional symptoms, and prosocial behavior; contrary to expectation, children reported an increase in peer problems (No P values reported) |
AHF, Active and Healthy Families; ALT, alanine aminotransferase ; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BP, blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; ED, emergency department; GAS, Global Assessment Scale; HbA1C, hemoglobin A1C; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; HOMA-IR, homeostatic model assessment estimate of insulin resistance; HR, heart rate; IL-6, interleukin 6; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; LFD, low-fat diet; LGD, low-glycemic diet; MFAGT, Multifamily Asthma Group Treatment; N/A, not applicable; NS, not significant; PCP, primary care provider; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SPAI, Standard Psychoeducational Asthma Intervention; TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor α.