Enhancing self-regulation as a strategy for obesity prevention in Head Start preschoolers: the growing healthy study

Abstract Background Nearly one in five 4-year-old children in the United States are obese, with low-income children almost twice as likely to be obese as their middle/upper-income peers. Few obesity prevention programs for low-income preschoolers and their parents have been rigorously tested, and effects are modest. We are testing a novel obesity prevention program for low-income preschoolers built on the premise that children who are better able to self-regulate in the face of psychosocial stressors may be less likely to eat impulsively in response to stress. Enhancing behavioral self-regulation skills in low-income children may be a unique and important intervention approach to prevent childhood obesity. Methods/design The Growing Healthy study is a randomized controlled trial evaluating two obesity prevention interventions in 600 low-income preschoolers attending Head Start, a federally-funded preschool program for low-income children. Interventions are delivered by community-based, nutrition-education staff partnering with Head Start. The first intervention (n = 200), Preschool Obesity Prevention Series (POPS), addresses evidence-based obesity prevention behaviors for preschool-aged children and their parents. The second intervention (n = 200) comprises POPS in combination with the Incredible Years Series (IYS), an evidence-based approach to improving self-regulation among preschool-aged children. The comparison condition (n = 200) is Usual Head Start Exposure. We hypothesize that POPS will yield positive effects compared to Usual Head Start, and that the combined intervention (POPS + IYS) addressing behaviors well-known to be associated with obesity risk, as well as self-regulatory capacity, will be most effective in preventing excessive increases in child adiposity indices (body mass index, skinfold thickness). We will evaluate additional child outcomes using parent and teacher reports and direct assessments of food-related self-regulation. We will also gather process data on intervention implementation, including fidelity, attendance, engagement, and satisfaction. Discussion The Growing Healthy study will shed light on associations between self-regulation skills and obesity risk in low-income preschoolers. If the project is effective in preventing obesity, results can also provide critical insights into how best to deliver obesity prevention programming to parents and children in a community-based setting like Head Start in order to promote better health among at-risk children. Trial registration number Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01398358http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112539/1/12889_2012_Article_4758.pd

Burn Surgeon and Palliative Care Physician Attitudes Regarding Goals of Care Delineation for Burned Geriatric Patients

Palliative care specialists (PCS) and burn surgeons (BS) were surveyed regarding: 1) importance of goals of care (GoC) conversations for burned seniors; 2) confidence in their own specialty\u27s ability to conduct these conversations; and 3) confidence in the ability of the other specialty to do so. A 13-item survey was developed by the steering committee of a multicenter consortium dedicated to palliative care in the injured geriatric patient and beta-tested by BS and PCS unaffiliated with the consortium. The finalized instrument was electronically circulated to active physician members of the American Burn Association and American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Forty-five BS (7.3%) and 244 PCS (5.7%) responded. Palliative physicians rated being more familiar with GoC, were more comfortable having a discussion with laypeople, were more likely to have reported high-quality training in performing conversations, believed more palliative specialists were needed in intensive care units, and had more interest in conducting conversations relative to BS. Both groups believed themselves to perform GoC discussions better than the other specialty perceived them to do so. BS favored leading team discussions, whereas palliative specialists preferred jointly led discussions. Both groups agreed that discussions should occur within 72 hours of admission. Both groups believe themselves to conduct GoC discussions for burned seniors better than the other specialty perceived them to do so, which led to disparate views on perceptions for the optimal leadership of these discussions

Burn Surgeon and Palliative Care Physician Attitudes Regarding Goals of Care Delineation for Burned Geriatric Patients

Palliative care specialists (PCS) and burn surgeons (BS) were surveyed regarding: 1) importance of goals of care (GoC) conversations for burned seniors; 2) confidence in their own specialty\u27s ability to conduct these conversations; and 3) confidence in the ability of the other specialty to do so. A 13-item survey was developed by the steering committee of a multicenter consortium dedicated to palliative care in the injured geriatric patient and beta-tested by BS and PCS unaffiliated with the consortium. The finalized instrument was electronically circulated to active physician members of the American Burn Association and American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Forty-five BS (7.3%) and 244 PCS (5.7%) responded. Palliative physicians rated being more familiar with GoC, were more comfortable having a discussion with laypeople, were more likely to have reported high-quality training in performing conversations, believed more palliative specialists were needed in intensive care units, and had more interest in conducting conversations relative to BS. Both groups believed themselves to perform GoC discussions better than the other specialty perceived them to do so. BS favored leading team discussions, whereas palliative specialists preferred jointly led discussions. Both groups agreed that discussions should occur within 72 hours of admission. Both groups believe themselves to conduct GoC discussions for burned seniors better than the other specialty perceived them to do so, which led to disparate views on perceptions for the optimal leadership of these discussions

Trauma Surgeon and Palliative Care Physician Attitudes Regarding Goals-of-Care Delineation for Injured Geriatric Patients

Background: The value of defining goals of care (GoC) for geriatric patients is well known to the palliative care community but is a newer concept for many trauma surgeons. Palliative care specialists and trauma surgeons were surveyed to elicit the specialties’ attitudes regarding (1) importance of GoC conversations for injured seniors; (2) confidence in their own specialty’s ability to conduct these conversations; and (3) confidence in the ability of the other specialty to do so. Methods: A 13-item survey was developed by the steering committee of a multicenter, palliative care-focused consortium and beta-tested by trauma surgeons and palliative care specialists unaffiliated with the consortium. The finalized instrument was electronically circulated to active physician members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Results: Respondents included 118 trauma surgeons (8.8%) and 244 palliative care specialists (5.7%). Palliative physicians rated being more familiar with GoC, were more likely to report high-quality training in performing conversations, believed more palliative specialists were needed in intensive care units, and had more interest in conducting conversations relative to trauma surgeons. Both groups believed themselves to perform GoC discussions better than the other specialty perceived them to do so and favored their own specialty leading team discussions. Conclusions: Both groups believe themselves to conduct GoC discussions for injured seniors better than the other specialty perceived them to do so, which led to disparate views on the optimal leadership of these discussions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved

Trauma Surgeon and Palliative Care Physician Attitudes Regarding Goals-of-Care Delineation for Injured Geriatric Patients

Background: The value of defining goals of care (GoC) for geriatric patients is well known to the palliative care community but is a newer concept for many trauma surgeons. Palliative care specialists and trauma surgeons were surveyed to elicit the specialties’ attitudes regarding (1) importance of GoC conversations for injured seniors; (2) confidence in their own specialty’s ability to conduct these conversations; and (3) confidence in the ability of the other specialty to do so. Methods: A 13-item survey was developed by the steering committee of a multicenter, palliative care-focused consortium and beta-tested by trauma surgeons and palliative care specialists unaffiliated with the consortium. The finalized instrument was electronically circulated to active physician members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Results: Respondents included 118 trauma surgeons (8.8%) and 244 palliative care specialists (5.7%). Palliative physicians rated being more familiar with GoC, were more likely to report high-quality training in performing conversations, believed more palliative specialists were needed in intensive care units, and had more interest in conducting conversations relative to trauma surgeons. Both groups believed themselves to perform GoC discussions better than the other specialty perceived them to do so and favored their own specialty leading team discussions. Conclusions: Both groups believe themselves to conduct GoC discussions for injured seniors better than the other specialty perceived them to do so, which led to disparate views on the optimal leadership of these discussions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved