Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T15:14:37.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A pilot study of a telephone-based parental intervention to increase fruit and vegetable consumption in 3–5-year-old children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2011

Rebecca Wyse*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, Australia
Luke Wolfenden
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, Australia
Elizabeth Campbell
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Area Health Service, Newcastle, Australia Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, Australia
Karen Campbell
Affiliation:
Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia
Leah Brennan
Affiliation:
Centre for Obesity Research and Education, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, School of Psychology and Psychiatry, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Amanda Fletcher
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, Australia
Jenny Bowman
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science and Information Technology, School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, Australia
Todd Heard
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Area Health Service, Newcastle, Australia Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, Australia
John Wiggers
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Area Health Service, Newcastle, Australia Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, Australia
*
*Corresponding author: Email rebecca.wyse@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To examine the potential efficacy of a brief telephone-based parental intervention in increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged 3–5 years and to examine the feasibility of intervention delivery and acceptability to parents.

Design

A pre–post study design with no comparison group. Telephone surveys were conducted approximately 1 week before and following intervention delivery.

Setting

Participants were recruited through pre-schools in the Hunter region, New South Wales, Australia.

Subjects

Thirty-four parents of 3–5-year-olds received four 30-min interventional telephone calls over 4 weeks administered by trained telephone interviewers. The scripted support calls focused on fruit and vegetable availability and accessibility within the home, parental role modelling of fruit and vegetable consumption and on implementing supportive family eating routines.

Results

Following the intervention, the frequency and variety of fruit and vegetable consumption increased (P = 0·027), as measured by a subscale of the children's dietary questionnaire. The intervention was feasible to be delivered to parents, as all participants who started the intervention completed all four calls, and all aspects of the interventional calls, including the number, length, content, format and relevance, were considered acceptable by more than 90 % of parents.

Conclusions

A brief telephone-based parental intervention to encourage fruit and vegetable consumption in pre-school-aged children may be effective, feasible and acceptable. Further investigation is warranted in a randomised controlled trial.

Type
Short communication
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2011

Adequate consumption of fruit and vegetables during childhood is an issue of public health importance as a diet that includes plenty of fruit and vegetables helps children achieve optimal growth and development(1) and maintain a healthy weight(Reference Lin and Morrison2Reference Wosje, Khoury and Claytor4); it can also protect against chronic diseases in adulthood(Reference Ness, Maynard and Frankel5, Reference Maynard, Gunnell and Emmett6). Despite this, internationally, many children consume insufficient quantities of fruit and vegetables(Reference Yngve, Wolf and Poortvliet7). Initiatives to increase the consumption of fruit and vegetables in childhood may therefore represent an effective strategy in the prevention of childhood obesity and future chronic disease.

Early childhood represents a critical period in the formation of children's dietary behaviours(Reference Birch and Fisher8) and parents are particularly influential in this process(Reference Benton9). A number of parent-modifiable factors within the home environment have been found to be consistently associated with increased consumption of fruit and vegetables in children. These factors include the availability and accessibility of fruit and vegetables(Reference Pearson, Biddle and Gorely10Reference van der Horst, Oenema and Ferreira12), parental role modelling of fruit and vegetable consumption(Reference Pearson, Biddle and Gorely10, Reference van der Horst, Oenema and Ferreira12) and the presence of supportive family eating routines(Reference Pearson, Biddle and Gorely10, Reference Rasmussen, Krolner and Klepp11). As such, supporting parents to make positive changes to the home environment may represent an appropriate focus for interventions attempting to increase fruit and vegetable consumption in young children.

Parents report the need for support in overcoming skill and knowledge barriers(Reference Pagnini, Wilkenfeld and King13Reference Hesketh, Waters and Green16) in order to facilitate healthy eating behaviours in their children. Methods of providing parental support that are effective in increasing fruit and vegetable consumption, that can be feasibly delivered to a large number of parents at a relatively low cost and that are considered acceptable to parents represent public health approaches likely to benefit children's nutrition(Reference Glasgow, Vogt and Boles17). Against these criteria, the provision of support by means of telephone calls appears to compare favourably with other modes of delivering support to parents. Telephone-based interventions have been identified as effective(Reference Eakin, Lawler and Vandelanotte18), efficient(Reference Graves, Barnett and Halton19), feasible(Reference Djuric, Ellsworth and Ren20) and acceptable(Reference Tzelepis, Paul and Walsh21) in changing physical activity, smoking and dietary behaviours in adults. The telephone provides a potential means of accessing most parents having pre-school-aged children and currently has a broader reach than interventions delivered through the Internet(22); it can also be delivered more feasibly to a large number of parents compared with face-to-face strategies(Reference Eakin, Lawler and Vandelanotte18).

Despite the potential advantages of support delivered by means of the telephone, systematic reviews of obesity prevention interventions for children aged 0–5 years(Reference Campbell and Hesketh23), of parental interventions targeting children's nutrition and physical activity(Reference Golley, Hendrie and Slater24) and of interventions to increase children's fruit and vegetable consumption(Reference Knai, Pomerleau and Lock25) have failed to identify any telephone-based interventions for parents targeting fruit and vegetable consumption in their pre-school-aged children. Given the lack of published data, best practice models of intervention development and evaluation recommend that new interventions be developed systematically on the basis of relevant theory and research and then pilot tested to assess acceptability, compliance, delivery of intervention, recruitment and retention before initiating a randomised controlled evaluation(Reference Craig, Dieppe and Macintyre26). As such, the aim of the present pilot study was to assess the potential efficacy of a brief telephone-based parental intervention in increasing the consumption of fruit and vegetables among 3–5-year-old children, as well as to assess the feasibility of the intervention and its acceptability to parents.

Experimental methods

Design

The present pilot study used a pre–post study design without a comparison group. Volunteer parents of 3–5-year-old children attending pre-schools were recruited to participate in the intervention. Telephone surveys were conducted with parents approximately 1 week before and 1 week following the intervention.

Setting and participants

Eligibility

Parents were recruited through non-government pre-schools in the Hunter region, New South Wales, Australia. Pre-schools provide programmes for children in the 2 years before starting full-time education and 89 % within the state are operated by non-governmental organisations(27). In all, 64 % of 4-year-old children in New South Wales attend pre-school(27). Parents were eligible to participate if they had a child aged 3–5 years attending a participating pre-school, if they resided with that child for at least 4 d/week (in order for the child to be sufficiently exposed to the interventional strategies that the parent may implement) and if they understood English. Parents of children with conditions requiring specialised dietary information or advice, as determined by a dietitian, were excluded.

Recruitment

Eight pre-schools were randomly selected from a list of all forty-seven non-government pre-schools in the region, and pre-school supervisors were contacted via mail and telephone to obtain permission to recruit parents. A research assistant visited consenting pre-schools on two occasions to distribute study information and consent forms to parents as they dropped off or picked up their child. The research assistant visited the pre-schools on a third occasion to distribute reminder letters to parents. All parents were encouraged to complete the consent form regardless of their intention to participate. The consent form consisted of three items related to study eligibility: whether the parent resided with their child; the child's age; and allergies or dietary restrictions pertaining to the child. Questions were also included regarding the parents’ residential postcode, the child's gender, the child's usual consumption of fruit and vegetables and whether the parents consented to participate in the study. An accredited practising dietitian reviewed the information provided by parents about child allergies and dietary restrictions and determined whether entry into the study was appropriate. All other eligibility items were confirmed by means of telephone before collection of baseline data.

Intervention

Intervention development was guided by a family-based interventional model drawing on socio-ecological theory and focusing on introducing new familial norms associated with healthy eating(Reference Golan and Weizman28). Other interventions based on this model have successfully introduced environmental change in the family home to support healthy eating habits(Reference Golan, Kaufman and Shahar29) and reduce poor eating habits in overweight and obese children(Reference Golan, Fainaru and Weizman30). The current intervention consisted of four weekly telephone support calls, each of approximately 30 min duration, and a series of instructional resources including a workbook, a cookbook and a pad of meal planners, as well as water bottles for all family members. The support calls were scripted and were delivered by interviewers by means of a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI)(Reference Choi31). The scripts were used to facilitate structured conversations between interviewers and parents, and the CATI system controls the delivery of the script by requiring the interviewer to enter the participant's response before the next section of the script is displayed on the computer screen. Scripts were developed in consultation with psychologists, dietitians and health promotion practitioners experienced in parenting, dietary or telephone interventions and were extensively pre-tested. Scripting ensured a common structure and content across each call while multiple scripted pathways facilitated the provision of tailored information on the basis of parents’ individual practices and the home food environment. Table 1 provides an overview of the interventional call content, including behavioural change techniques(Reference Abraham and Michie32) on which the script was based and examples of how these techniques were applied(Reference Golan and Weizman28, Reference Satter33).

Table 1 Overview of intervention content

Using the script, interviewers helped parents to set goals, identify opportunities to improve family routines or characteristics of the home environment associated with children's healthy eating and identify barriers to change. They also assisted with problem solving and encouraged parents to engage in behavioural change strategies. During the 4-week intervention, participants completed a basic 3 d food diary for their child and were encouraged to try a range of additional activities depending on their existing household routines. During the calls interviewers provided parents with tailored information and strategies to support the implementation of these activities. If parents agreed to attempt any of the suggested activities, the script prompted the interviewer to ask about their attempt in the subsequent call and interviewers provided feedback, highlighted achievements and discussed ideas and strategies for improving future attempts. Activities and information were focused on the following three domains.

  1. 1. Availability and accessibility of foods within the home: Parents were encouraged to ensure that fruit and vegetables were available in the home and stored in a form that facilitated their consumption (i.e. washed and chopped)(Reference Hearn, Baranowski and Baranowski34). They were also encouraged to reduce the home availability and accessibility of non-core foods such as confectionery(Reference Spurrier, Magarey and Golley35).

  2. 2. Role modelling of fruit and vegetable consumption(Reference Pearson, Biddle and Gorely10): Parents were encouraged to increase their consumption of fruit and vegetables in front of their child and to display behaviours supportive of fruit and vegetable consumption.

  3. 3. Supportive family eating routines: Parents were encouraged to eat meals as a family(Reference Rasmussen, Krolner and Klepp11), eat meals without the television on(Reference Rasmussen, Krolner and Klepp11), establish and enforce family rules around eating(Reference Pearson, Biddle and Gorely10) and develop boundaries around when and how food should be offered to their child(Reference Satter33).

The intervention was delivered by six interviewers with no formal health qualifications but with experience in conducting health-related telephonic interviews. All interviewers had completed secondary education and vocational training and one had completed a university degree in a non-health field. They were selected on the basis of their competency in undertaking role plays and small group activities, such as answering questions commonly posed by parents, during a 2 d training workshop delivered by health promotion practitioners, an accredited practising dietitian and a psychologist specialising in parenting. Selected interviewers then completed a further 10 h of self-paced practice including mock intervention calls with members of the research team to ensure that they were adhering to the script and were confident in their delivery. During the period of intervention, members of the research team monitored interviewers for consistency, confidence and ease of script delivery, and two group sessions were held to provide feedback on performance and discuss any issues arising from monitoring.

Data collection and measures

Baseline and follow-up data were collected from parents by means of the CATI approximately 1 week before and 1 week following intervention. For each participant, data collection was conducted by an interviewer who was not involved in intervention delivery. Additional data to assess intervention feasibility were obtained from the CATI system, which automatically recorded information about each interventional call attempt and all responses provided.

Demographics

The baseline survey included demographic items assessing parents’ gender, age, education, income and household composition, as well as children's gender and age. Demographic items were sourced from the New South Wales Population Health Survey(36).

Intervention efficacy

Subscales of the children's dietary questionnaire (CDQ) were used to assess children's diet at baseline and follow-up. This parent-reported questionnaire compares children's dietary patterns with Australian recommendations(Reference Magarey, Golley and Spurrier37), with higher scores indicating a greater variety and/or frequency of foods consumed (hereafter referred to as consumption). The Fruit and Vegetable subscale was used to assess change in children's fruit and vegetable consumption. The scale has established reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0·75) and validity against 7 d food checklists (Spearman's correlation = 0·58) and is sensitive to change in fruit and vegetable consumption at a group level(Reference Magarey, Golley and Spurrier37). Scores on this subscale can range from 0 to 28, with a score of ≥14 indicating a pattern of consumption consistent with dietary guidelines(Reference Magarey, Golley and Spurrier37). A 1-point increase on this subscale equates to, for example, a child consuming on average an additional type of fruit or vegetable each day (variety) or consuming fruit or vegetables at an additional eating occasion each day (frequency). The Non-Core Foods subscale assesses consumption of food items such as potato crisps, soft drinks and confectionery, with scores ranging from 0 to 10 and a score of ≤2 consistent with dietary guidelines(Reference Magarey, Golley and Spurrier37). This subscale was included to assess broader changes in the children's diet associated with the intervention.

Intervention feasibility and acceptability

Measures of intervention feasibility included the proportion of participants completing all four calls, and the average call length, the average number of days elapsed between calls and the average number of call attempts. To assess acceptability, the number of participants who agreed to and then attempted interventional activities was calculated from parents’ answers to standardised questions asked of parents as part of the scripted telephonic intervention. This information was entered by the interviewer according to predetermined response options and recorded by the CATI system. In addition, the follow-up survey included eight Likert scale items (on a 5-point scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’) assessing the acceptability of the number, length, content, format and relevance of the interventional calls, as well as the relevance and ease of understanding of the interventional resources and whether programme participation was worthwhile. Responses of ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ to Likert scale items of acceptability were combined and reported as a proportion of all responses.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was undertaken using the SAS statistical software package version 9·2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Descriptive statistics were reported as mean, sd and percentage. Median and range were reported for skewed variables. Intervention efficacy was assessed by comparing baseline and follow-up mean Fruit and Vegetable and Non-Core Foods subscale scores using paired t tests (α set at 0·05, two-tailed test) adjusted for clustering on the basis of pre-school through the use of the Proc Surveymeans command.

Results

Four of the eight pre-schools approached (50 %) consented to participate in the study and approximately 305 recruitment packs were distributed to families. There were approximately 300 families with children enrolled in the four pre-schools on the days of recruitment. A total of seventy-two parents (24 %) returned the consent form, thirty-seven (12 %) consented to participate, thirty-five (12 %) completed the baseline survey and thirty-four (11 % of total families) completed the first interventional call and the follow-up survey. Among those who returned the consent form, those who consented to participate and the thirty-five who did not were similar with regard to children's age, children's fruit and vegetable consumption and the disadvantage level of their suburb of residence(38). However, a higher proportion of parents who consented had boys (65 %) compared with those who did not consent (48 %). The demographic characteristics of those who started the intervention are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Demographic characteristics of the sample

TAFE, technical and further education.

*Data are presented as mean and sd.

The parent sample consisted predominantly of mothers, but the majority of children who were the focus of the intervention were boys. Compared with a survey (with a response rate of 66 %) of parents of 2–5-year-old children attending randomly selected childcare centres in the broader study region, the current sample had higher levels of maternal education (44 % v. 36 % with a university education) and household income (44 % v. 20 % with a household income exceeding AUD100 000)(Reference Wolfenden, Hardy and Milat39).

Intervention efficacy

There was a significant increase in the mean score on the Fruit and Vegetable subscale and a non-significant decrease in the Non-Core Foods score, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Dietary outcomes pre- and post-intervention

CDQ, children's dietary questionnaire.

Before the intervention, 32 % of the children of participants were not meeting fruit and vegetable dietary guidelines (CDQ scores <14); however, following the intervention this decreased to 18 %.

Intervention feasibility and acceptability

All participants who started the intervention completed all four calls. The average call length was 30·8 (sd 7·5) min, the median number of days between calls was seven (range: 2–19) and the median number of attempts to complete each call was two (range: 1–13 attempts). In all, 97 % of participants completed the intervention within the 4-week proposed schedule.

Table 4 displays the proportion of participants who agreed to and attempted interventional activities. All participants set a programme goal regarding their children's fruit and vegetable intakes. The most common goals related to increasing the amount (23 %) or variety (19 %) of vegetables that their child consumed, providing healthier snacks (19 %) and being a healthy role model for their child (14 %).

Table 4 Number of parents offered, who agreed to attempt and who actually attempted interventional tasks

*Participants were offered a task only if they were not already regularly doing it, and if it was relevant to their situation.

†Strategies could include giving verbal praise instead of food rewards, trying a new meal, or serving a sample of vegetable if blending vegetables into a meal.

‡Missing data from one participant.

§Goal attempted and achieved by the week-4 support call.

Table 5 displays the proportion of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with intervention acceptability items.

Table 5 Intervention acceptability

*Question inverted. Actual question was ‘The calls contained too much information’; 91 % disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Discussion

The pilot findings show that the variety and/or frequency of children's fruit and vegetable consumption significantly increased following delivery of a parental intervention consisting of four telephone support calls and print resources. The increase in vegetable and fruit consumption also corresponded with a non-significant decrease in the variety and frequency of children's consumption of non-core foods. Furthermore, assessments of intervention feasibility and acceptability indicated that parents actively engaged in interventional tasks, participated in all telephonic contacts and perceived the programme as highly acceptable. Altogether, the findings suggest that the intervention may have considerable public health merit and is worthy of more rigorous evaluation to determine intervention effectiveness in the broader population.

The significant increase in the mean fruit and vegetable score is difficult to contextualise given the lack of research utilising telephone-based parental interventions to target dietary outcomes in young children. The study findings are in contrast to a telephone-delivered interactive voice recording intervention, which consisted of up to ten contacts for parents of older, school-aged children and failed to show a consistent impact on fruit and vegetable consumption(Reference Estabrooks, Shoup and Gattshall40). The findings are, however, supported by the results of a randomised controlled trial in which an eight-contact telephone-based parental intervention was efficacious in improving a variety of dietary indices in school-aged children, although fruit and vegetable consumption was not assessed(Reference Paineau, Beaufils and Boulier41). Findings of this pilot study are also consistent with the positive impact of telephone-based nutritional interventions in adults(Reference Djuric, Ellsworth and Ren20, Reference Vale, Jelinek and Best42Reference Newman, Flatt and Pierce48).

The intervention attrition rate was lower than rates previously reported in dietary interventions utilising the Internet(Reference Baranowski, Baranowski and Cullen49, Reference Cullen and Thompson50) or conducted through face-to-face(Reference Golley, Magarey and Baur51, Reference Sacher, Wolman and Chadwick52) support programmes for parents and is consistent with similar telephone-based interventions for adults(Reference Kris-Etherton, Taylor and Smiciklas-Wright44). Such findings indicate that parents are willing to receive and continue with an intervention by means of this delivery format. Encouragingly, process data indicate that, after receiving the four telephone calls, parents engaged in interventional tasks, suggesting that parents perceived the interventional content to be appropriate. Evidence of active parental participation combined with ratings of parental acceptability in excess of 90 % suggests that this intervention was well received by parents of pre-school children.

Although the results of the present pilot study are promising, a number of limitations should be acknowledged. First, the absence of a comparison group and a short follow-up period indicate that changes in consumption may not be attributable to the intervention and that suggested efficacy is limited to immediate impact. However, given the significant increase in fruit and vegetable consumption in this small sample, investigation into the longer-term effects in a controlled study is warranted. Second, although the CDQ is a valid and reliable measure of children's dietary patterns and is recommended for interventional research(Reference Magarey, Golley and Spurrier37), more rigorous assessments of children's dietary intake such as 24 h dietary recalls would represent a more robust measure capable of quantifying actual fruit and vegetable intakes and should be considered for use in future research. Third, most parents in the sample had children whose dietary patterns were already consistent with recommended guidelines for fruit and vegetable intakes. However, a post hoc analysis of the eleven participants whose children were not meeting fruit and vegetable dietary guidelines at baseline revealed a significant increase of 5·0 points on the fruit and vegetable score (P = 0·014), suggesting that the intervention is potentially efficacious among at-risk children. Finally, the response rate of 11 % is lower than previous estimates of parental interest in telephone-based support services to encourage children's healthy eating and physical activity (39 %)(Reference Wolfenden, Bell and Wiggers53). Participants in this sample were more likely to be university educated, to have higher household income and to have children consuming greater quantities of fruit and vegetables compared with random samples of parents in the study area(36, Reference Wolfenden, Hardy and Milat39). However, subgroup analyses of parents with lower educational levels and lower household income revealed that the intervention significantly increased children's fruit and vegetable scores by 3·8 points (P = 0·025), suggesting that the intervention might be efficacious among these under-represented participants. Nevertheless, such limitations signify that the generalisability of the intervention findings is restricted to parents and children sharing characteristics of the study sample. Using more comprehensive recruitment strategies(Reference Wolfenden, Kypri and Freund54) may improve study participation rates and the external validity of findings from future trials.

Despite these limitations, the results from the present pilot study are encouraging. The public health application of a relatively brief, four-contact intervention, delivered by trained telephone interviewers rather than by health professionals, is likely to be particularly appealing to health services given the limited resources and access to specialist staff. Such interventions may provide feasible healthy eating support within the community. The findings of this trial warrant further investigation in an adequately powered randomised controlled trial with an extended follow-up period, as well as additional research into intervention efficacy in lower-income and less-educated samples.

Acknowledgements

The present study was supported by the University of Newcastle (Grant no. G0189064) with in-kind and infrastructure support provided by Hunter New England Population Health and the Hunter Medical Research Institute. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. R.W. led the development of the manuscript; L.W. conceived the interventional concept and secured the funding source; R.W., A.F., L.W. and L.B. contributed to the development of the intervention scripts and printed material; R.W., L.W., K.C. and J.W. determined the measures to be used and the analyses to be conducted. All authors contributed to the research design and methodology and contributed to, read and approved the final version of the manuscript. The authors wish to thank Lynn Francis, the CATI interviewers and all participating preschools and parents.

References

1.National Health and Medical Research Council (2003) Dietary Guidelines for Children and Adolescents in Australia Incorporating the Infant Feeding Guidelines for Health Workers. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
2.Lin, B & Morrison, RM (2002) Higher fruit consumption linked with lower body mass index. Food Rev 25, 2832.Google Scholar
3.Tohill, BC (2005) Dietary Intake of Fruit and Vegetables and Management of Body Weight. Atlanta, GA: WHO.Google Scholar
4.Wosje, KS, Khoury, PR, Claytor, RP et al. (2010) Dietary patterns associated with fat and bone mass in young children. Am J Clin Nutr 92, 294303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Ness, AR, Maynard, M, Frankel, S et al. (2005) Diet in childhood and adult cardiovascular and all cause mortality: the Boyd Orr cohort. Heart 91, 894898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Maynard, M, Gunnell, D, Emmett, P et al. (2003) Fruit, vegetables, and antioxidants in childhood and risk of adult cancer: the Boyd Orr cohort. J Epidemiol Community Health 57, 218225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Yngve, A, Wolf, A, Poortvliet, E et al. (2005) Fruit and vegetable intake in a sample of 11-year-old children in 9 European countries: the Pro Children Cross-sectional Survey. Ann Nutr Metab 49, 236245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Birch, LL & Fisher, JO (1998) Development of eating behaviors among children and adolescents. Pediatrics 101, 539549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Benton, D (2004) Role of parents in the determination of the food preferences of children and the development of obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 28, 858869.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Pearson, N, Biddle, SJ & Gorely, T (2009) Family correlates of fruit and vegetable consumption in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 12, 267283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Rasmussen, M, Krolner, R, Klepp, KI et al. (2006) Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among children and adolescents: a review of the literature. Part I: quantitative studies. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 3, 22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.van der Horst, K, Oenema, A, Ferreira, I et al. (2007) A systematic review of environmental correlates of obesity-related dietary behaviors in youth. Health Educ Res 22, 203226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Pagnini, DL, Wilkenfeld, RL, King, LA et al. (2007) Mothers of pre-school children talk about childhood overweight and obesity: the Weight Of Opinion Study. J Paediatr Child Health 43, 806810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Reed, DB (1996) Focus groups identify desirable features of nutrition programs for low-income mothers of preschool children. J Am Diet Assoc 96, 501503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Spear, BA (2006) The need for family meals. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 218219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Hesketh, K, Waters, E, Green, J et al. (2005) Healthy eating, activity and obesity prevention: a qualitative study of parent and child perceptions in Australia. Health Promot Int 20, 1926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Glasgow, RE, Vogt, TM & Boles, SM (1999) Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 89, 13221327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Eakin, EG, Lawler, SP, Vandelanotte, C et al. (2007) Telephone interventions for physical activity and dietary behavior change: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 32, 419434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Graves, N, Barnett, AG, Halton, KA et al. (2009) Cost-effectiveness of a telephone-delivered intervention for physical activity and diet. PLoS One 4, e7135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Djuric, Z, Ellsworth, JS, Ren, J et al. (2010) A randomized feasibility trial of brief telephone counseling to increase fruit and vegetable intakes. Prev Med 50, 265271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Tzelepis, F, Paul, CL, Walsh, RA et al. (2009) Active telephone recruitment to quitline services: are nonvolunteer smokers receptive to cessation support? Nicotine Tob Res 11, 12051215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.International Telecommunications Union (2009) Information society statistical profiles: Asia and the Pacific. http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/ind/D-IND-RPM.AP-2009-R1-PDF-E.pdf (accessed October 2010).Google Scholar
23.Campbell, KJ & Hesketh, KD (2007) Strategies which aim to positively impact on weight, physical activity, diet and sedentary behaviours in children from zero to five years. A systematic review of the literature. Obes Rev 8, 327338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Golley, RK, Hendrie, GA, Slater, A et al. (2010) Interventions that involve parents to improve children's weight-related nutrition intake and activity patterns – what nutrition and activity targets and behaviour change techniques are associated with intervention effectiveness? Obes Rev 12, 114130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Knai, C, Pomerleau, J, Lock, K et al. (2006) Getting children to eat more fruit and vegetables: a systematic review. Prev Med 42, 8595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Craig, P, Dieppe, P, Macintyre, S et al. (2008) Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 337, a1655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (2008) Report on Government Services 2008, Volume 1: Early Childhood, Education and Training; Justice; Emergency Management. Canberra: Productivity Commission.Google Scholar
28.Golan, M & Weizman, A (2001) Familial approach to the treatment of childhood obesity: conceptual mode. J Nutr Educ 33, 102107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Golan, M, Kaufman, V & Shahar, DR (2006) Childhood obesity treatment: targeting parents exclusively v. parents and children. Br J Nutr 95, 10081015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Golan, M, Fainaru, M & Weizman, A (1998) Role of behaviour modification in the treatment of childhood obesity with the parents as the exclusive agents of change. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 22, 12171224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Choi, BC (2004) Computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) for health surveys in public health surveillance: methodological issues and challenges ahead. Chronic Dis Can 25, 2127.Google ScholarPubMed
32.Abraham, C & Michie, S (2008) A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychol 27, 379387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Satter, E (1995) Feeding dynamics: helping children to eat well. J Pediatr Health Care 9, 178184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Hearn, MD, Baranowski, T, Baranowski, J et al. (1998) Environmental influences on dietary behavior among children: availability and accessibility of fruit and vegetables enable consumption. J Health Educ 29, 2632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Spurrier, NJ, Magarey, AA, Golley, R et al. (2008) Relationships between the home environment and physical activity and dietary patterns of preschool children: a cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 5, 31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Centre for Epidemiology and Research (2009) 2008 Report on Adult Health from the New South Wales Population Health Survey. Sydney, NSW: NSW Department of Health.Google Scholar
37.Magarey, A, Golley, R, Spurrier, N et al. (2009) Reliability and validity of the Children's Dietary Questionnaire; a new tool to measure children's dietary patterns. Int J Pediatr Obes 4, 257265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006) Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) (2033.0.55.001). Canberra: ABS.Google Scholar
39.Wolfenden, L, Hardy, LL, Milat, A et al. (2011) Prevalence and socio-demographic associations of overweight and obesity among children attending childcare services in rural and regional New South Wales Australia. Nutr Diet 68, 1520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40.Estabrooks, PA, Shoup, JA, Gattshall, M et al. (2009) Automated telephone counseling for parents of overweight children: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med 36, 3542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Paineau, DL, Beaufils, F, Boulier, A et al. (2008) Family dietary coaching to improve nutritional intakes and body weight control: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 162, 3443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Vale, MJ, Jelinek, MV, Best, JD et al. (2003) Coaching Patients on Achieving Cardiovascular Health (COACH): a multicenter randomized trial in patients with coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med 163, 27752783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43.Burke, LE, Dunbar-Jacob, J, Orchard, TJ et al. (2005) Improving adherence to a cholesterol-lowering diet: a behavioral intervention study. Patient Educ Couns 57, 134142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44.Kris-Etherton, PM, Taylor, DS, Smiciklas-Wright, H et al. (2002) High-soluble-fiber foods in conjunction with a telephone-based, personalized behavior change support service result in favorable changes in lipids and lifestyles after 7 weeks. J Am Diet Assoc 102, 503510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.Pakiz, B, Flatt, SW, Mills, KC et al. (2005) Quality of life and diet intervention in individuals at risk for recurrence of colorectal adenomas. Psychooncology 14, 8593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46.Pierce, JP, Newman, VA, Flatt, SW et al. (2004) Telephone counseling intervention increases intakes of micronutrient- and phytochemical-rich vegetables, fruit and fiber in breast cancer survivors. J Nutr 134, 452458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Djuric, Z, Vanloon, G, Radakovich, K et al. (2008) Design of a Mediterranean exchange list diet implemented by telephone counseling. J Am Diet Assoc 108, 20592065.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48.Newman, VA, Flatt, SW & Pierce, JP (2008) Telephone counseling promotes dietary change in healthy adults: results of a pilot trial. J Am Diet Assoc 108, 13501354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49.Baranowski, T, Baranowski, JC, Cullen, KW et al. (2003) The Fun, Food, and Fitness Project (FFFP): the Baylor GEMS pilot study. Ethn Dis 13, Suppl. 1, S30S39.Google ScholarPubMed
50.Cullen, KW & Thompson, D (2008) Feasibility of an 8-week African American web-based pilot program promoting healthy eating behaviors: family eats. Am J Health Behav 32, 4051.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51.Golley, RK, Magarey, AM, Baur, LA et al. (2007) Twelve-month effectiveness of a parent-led, family-focused weight-management program for prepubertal children: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics 119, 517525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52.Sacher, P, Wolman, J, Chadwick, P et al. (2008) Mini-MEND: MEND's early years healthy lifestyle programme for 24 year olds and their families. Nutr Bull 33, 364367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53.Wolfenden, L, Bell, C, Wiggers, J et al. (2010) Engaging parents in child obesity prevention: support preferences of parents. J Paediatr Child Health (Epublication ahead of print version).Google ScholarPubMed
54.Wolfenden, L, Kypri, K, Freund, M et al. (2009) Obtaining active parental consent for school-based research: a guide for researchers. Aust N Z J Public Health 33, 270275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1 Overview of intervention content

Figure 1

Table 2 Demographic characteristics of the sample

Figure 2

Table 3 Dietary outcomes pre- and post-intervention

Figure 3

Table 4 Number of parents offered, who agreed to attempt and who actually attempted interventional tasks

Figure 4

Table 5 Intervention acceptability