Family-based pediatric weight management interventions in US primary care settings targeting children ages 6-12 years old: A systematic review guided by the RE-AIM framework.

Obesity is a pandemic that disproportionately affects children from vulnerable populations in the USA. Current treatment approaches in primary care settings in the USA have been reported to be insufficient at managing pediatric obesity, primarily due to implementation challenges for healthcare systems and barriers for families. While the literature has examined the efficacy of pediatric obesity interventions focused on internal validity, it lacks sufficient reporting and analysis of external validity necessary for successful translation to primary care settings. We conducted a systematic review of the primary-care-setting literature from January 2007 to March 2020 on family-based pediatric weight management interventions in both English and/or Spanish for children ages 6-12 years in the USA using the Reach, Efficacy/Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. A literature search, using PRISMA guidelines, was conducted in January 2022 using the following electronic databases: Medline Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane Library. 22 270 records were screened, and 376 articles were reviewed in full. 184 studies were included. The most commonly reported dimensions of the RE-AIM framework were Reach (65%), Efficacy/Effectiveness (64%), and Adoption (64%), while Implementation (47%) and Maintenance (42%) were less often reported. The prevalence of reporting RE-AIM construct indicators ranged greatly, from 1% to 100%. This systematic review underscores the need for more focus on external validity to guide the development, implementation, and dissemination of future pediatric obesity interventions based in primary care settings. It also suggests conducting additional research on sustainable financing for pediatric obesity interventions

A model of factors determining levels of public support for health care policy in the United States

Public preferences for policy are formed in a little-understood process that is not adequately described by traditional economic theory of choice. In this paper I suggest that U.S. aggregate support for health reform can be modeled as tradeoffs among a small number of behavioral values and the stage of policy development. The theory underlying the model is based on Samuelson, et al.\u27s (1986) work and Wilke\u27s (1991) elaboration of it as the Greed/Efficiency/Fairness (GEF) hypothesis of motivation in the management of resource dilemmas, and behavioral economics informed by Kahneman and Thaler\u27s prospect theory. The model developed in this paper employs ordered probit econometric techniques applied to data derived from U.S. polls taken from 1990 to mid-2003 that measured support for health reform proposals. Outcome data are four-tiered Likert counts; independent variables are dummies representing the presence or absence of operationalizations of each behavioral variable, along with an integer representing policy process stage. Marginal effects of each independent variable predict how support levels change on triggering that variable. Model estimation results indicate a vanishingly small likelihood that all coefficients are zero and all variables have signs expected from model theory. Three hypotheses were tested: support will drain from health reform policy as it becomes increasingly well-articulated and approaches enactment; reforms appealing to fairness through universal health coverage will enjoy a higher degree of support than those targeted more narrowly; health reforms calling for government operation of the health finance system will achieve lower support than those that do not. Model results support the first and last hypotheses. Contrary to expectations, universal health care proposals did not provide incremental support beyond those targeted to “deserving” populations—children, elderly, working families. In addition, loss of autonomy (e.g. restrictions on choice of care giver) is found to be the “third rail” of health reform with significantly-reduced support. When applied to a hypothetical health reform in which an employer-mandated Medical Savings Account policy is the centerpiece, the model predicts support that may be insufficient to enactment. These results indicate that the method developed in the paper may prove valuable to health policy designers