4.1 Article

Key stakeholders' perspectives towards childhood obesity treatment: A qualitative study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHILD HEALTH CARE
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 230-244

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1367493511404722

关键词

qualitative; stakeholder views; childhood obesity treatments

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past three decades, there has been a dramatic global increase in childhood obesity. A better understanding of stakeholders' perceptions of intervention requirements could contribute to developing more effective interventions for childhood obesity. This study provides a qualitative, in-depth, analysis of stakeholders' (children, parents and health professionals) perspectives toward the efficacy of childhood obesity treatment interventions. Twenty-six stakeholders were recruited using purposive sampling; semi-structured interviews were adopted to explore stakeholders' perceptions with data analysed using a framework approach. Stakeholders concurred that treatment should be family-based incorporating physical activity, nutrition and psychological components, and be delivered in familiar environments to recipients. However, incongruence existed between stakeholders towards the sustainability of obesity treatment interventions. Parents and children reported needing ongoing support to sustain behavioural changes made during treatment, while health professionals suggested interventions should aim to create autonomous individuals who exit treatment and independently sustain behaviour change. This study provides an insight into issues of stakeholder involvement in the obesity intervention design and delivery process. To promote long-term behaviour change, there needs to be increased congruence between the delivery and receipt of childhood obesity treatment interventions. Interventions need to incorporate strategies that promote autonomous and self-regulated motivation, to enhance families' confidence in sustaining behaviour change independent of health professional support.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据