Skip to main content

Table 4 Intervention effectiveness based on reported results with effect sizes where available

From: Systematic review of interventions in the childcare setting with direct parental involvement: effectiveness on child weight status and energy balance-related behaviours

Study

BMI/BMI z-score

Physical activity

Sedentary behaviour

Nutrition behaviour

Adamo et al. (2017) [51]

Short term follow-up:

No change in BMI in the intervention group (0.0 kg/m2) compared to a decrease in the control group (− 0.5 kg/m2) (p = 0.155) ES 0.24

Larger increase of fat mass in the intervention group (0.6 kg) compared to the control group (0.2 kg) (p = 0.234) ES 0.30

Increase in fat-free mass in both the intervention (0.7 kg) and the control group (0.7 kg) (p = 0.876) ES 0

Increase in fat percent in the intervention group (1.7%) compared to a decrease in the control group (− 0.6%) (p = 0.253) ES 0.39

Short term follow-up:

Increase in total physical activity in both the intervention group (1.6 min/h) and the control group (1.6 min/h) (p = 0.995) ES 0

Increase in MVPA in both the intervention group (1.3 min/h) and the control group (1.3 min/h) (p = 0.932) ES 0

Increase in LPA in both the intervention (0.3 min/h) and control group (0.3 min/h) (p = 0.955) ES 0

Short term follow-up:

Decrease in sedentary time in both the intervention (− 1.6 min/h) and the control group (− 1.6 min/h) (p = 0.995) ES 0

NA

Cespedes et al. (2013) [37]

Short term follow-up:

Smaller increase in BMI in the intervention (0.58 kg/m2) compared to the control group (0.63 kg/m2) (p = 0.193) ES − 0.59

Long term measurement:

No significant differences between the intervention and control group (p = 0.5, no data provided).

NA

NA

NA

Cruz et al. (2016) [52]

NA

Short term follow-up:

Increase in proportion ‘often’ ball playing in intervention group (+ 8.2%) compared to a decrease in the control group (− 4.5%) (ns)

Increase in proportion ‘often’ dancing in intervention group (+ 16.1%) compared to a decrease in the control group (− 10.6%) (p < 0.01)

Larger increase in proportion ‘often’ playing active games in intervention group (+ 10.8%) compared to the control group (+ 5.9%) (ns)

Larger increase in proportion ‘often’ jumping in intervention group (+ 11.8%) compared to the control group (+ 5.4%) (ns)

Increase in proportion ‘often’ walking in intervention group (+ 2.5%) compared to a decrease in the control group (− 1.3%) (ns)

NA

NA

Davis et al. (2016) [56]

Short term follow-up:

Larger increase in BMI z-score in the intervention group (0.17) compared to the control group (0.11) (p = 0.34) ES 0.036

NA

NA

NA

De Bock et al. (2013) [38]

Short term follow-up:

No differences in mean change in BMI (0.064 kg/m2) between intervention and control group (p = 0.41) ES 0.01

No differences in mean change in body fat (0.21%) between intervention and control group (p = 0.32)

Short term follow-up:

Increase of mean counts per 15-s interval (+ 1.38) in intervention group compared to control group (p = 0.019) ES 0.08

No difference in MVPA (+ 0.97 min) between intervention and control group (p > 0.1) ES 0.06

Short term follow-up:

Decrease in time in sedentary behaviour (− 11 min) in the intervention group compared to control group (p = 0.014) ES − 0.06

NA

Gao et al. (2016) [53]

NA

NA

NA

Short term follow-up:

Increase in daily breakfast frequency in the intervention group (+ 1.1%) compared to a decrease in the control group (− 1.9) (p = 0.02)

Increase in quantity of food for breakfast in the intervention group compared to a decrease in the control group (p < 0.001)

More high-in-nutrient food types in breakfast in the intervention group compared to more high-in-energy food types in the control group (p < 0.001)

Hu et al. (2010) [54]

NR

NA

NA

Short term follow-up:

Some unhealthy diet-related behaviours were significantly different between the intervention and control groups (p < 0.05), while others showed no significant difference.

Improvement in healthy diet-related behaviours in the intervention group (p

< 0.05).

Kaufman-Shriqui et al. (2016) [39]

Follow-up not indicated:

Reduction of BMI z-score (− 0.1) in total study population (p = 0.003). No group-specific scores reported.

Follow-up not indicated:

Decrease of mean PA time in control group (− 0.42 h) compared to intervention group (− 0.21 h, p = 0.03) ES 0.18

Follow-up not indicated:

Increase of screen time in control group (+ 0.54 h) compared to no change in intervention group (p = 0.001) ES − 0.4

Short term follow-up:

Greater increase in food variety (intervention + 26.5%, control + 7.6%); daily vegetable consumption (intervention + 24.7%, control + 9.2%), and habitual water drinking (intervention + 21.3%, control + 10.8%) in the intervention group compared to the control group, all p < 0.05.

Greater decrease in daily consumption of SSB in the intervention group (− 19.2%) compared to the control group (− 13.6%, p = 0.02).

Non-significant smaller decrease in daily consumption of sweet and candies in the intervention group (− 17.7%) compared to the control group (− 18.2%, p = 0.08)

Long term follow-up:

Greater increases in food variety (intervention + 25.3%, control + 8.1%), daily vegetable consumption (Intervention + 22.3%, control + 8.8%), and habitual water drinking (intervention + 19%, control + 11.9%) in intervention group compared to control group (all p < 0.05).

Decrease in daily consumption of SSB in the intervention group (− 15.3%) compared to control group (− 8.3%) (p = 0.05)

No significant difference between intervention group (− 22.9%) and control group (− 15.2%) in consumption of sweet and candies on daily basis (p = 0.13).

Klein et al. (2015) [40]

Short term follow-up:

Significant decrease in BMI in group KiMo (− 0.1 kg/m2), NF-P (− 0.1 kg/m2) and NF-NP (− 0.2 kg/m2) compared to an increase in control group (all p < 0.001) ES − 0.13, − 0.12, − 0.19, respectively

Short term follow-up:

Motor tests:

Non-significant differences in Shuttle Run between groups (KiMo − 1.1 s, NF-P − 0.8 s, NF-NP − 1.0 s and CG − 1.3 s) ES 0.06, 0.17, 0.1, respectively

Non-significant differences in Standing Long Jump between groups (KiMo + 12.6 cm, NF-P + 10.8 cm, NF-NP + 13.1 cm, CG + 8.8 cm) ES 0.15, 0.08, 0.17, respectively

Significant differences in Sit and Reach between KiMo (+ 0.7 cm, p < 0.001), NF-P (+ 0.3, p = 0.007), NF-NP (+ 0.6 cm, p < 0.001) and control group (− 0.6 cm) ES 0.27, 0.20, 0.27, respectively

Significant negative difference in One Leg Stand between KiMo (− 2.0 ground contacts, p < 0.001), NF-P (− 2.8 ground contacts, p = 0.035) and control group (− 3.2 ground contacts) ES 0.16, 0.05, respectively

Non-significant difference between NF-NP (− 3.2 ground contacts) and control group (− 3.2 ground contacts) ES 0

Non-significant differences in Lateral Jumping between KiMo (+ 4.4 jumps), NF-P (+ 4.7 jumps), NF-NP (+ 4.8 jumps), and control group (+ 4.2 jumps) ES 0.02, 0.05, 0.06, respectively

NA

NA

Lumeng et al. (2017) [41]

Short term follow-up:

Non-significant difference in percentage overweight or obese between HS + POPS (− 2.3%, p = 0.35), HS + POPS+IYS (− 0.6%, p = 0.77) and HS (+ 0.6%)

Non-significant differences in percentage obese between HS + POPS (− 2.9%, p = 0.16), HS + POPS+IYS (− 2.1%, p = 0.33) and HS (+ 0.8%)

Non-significant differences in BMI z-score in children overweight or obese at baseline between HS + POPS (− 0.11, p = 0.98), HS + POPS+IYS (− 0.16, p = 0.44) and HS (− 0.11) ES 0, − 0.12, respectively

Short term follow-up:

Non-significant differences in outdoor play between HS + POPS (− 0.82 h/d, p = 0.48), HS + POPS+IYS (− 0.47 h/d, p = 0.25) and HS (− 0.68 h/d) ES − 0.08, 0.12, respectively

Short term follow-up:

Non-significant difference in screen time between HS + POPS (+ 0.55 h/d, p = 0.75), HS + POPS+IYS (+ 0.24 h/d, p = 0.11) and HS (+ 0.5 h/d) ES 0.03, − 0.17, respectively

Short term follow-up:

Non-significant differences in vegetable servings/day between HS + POPS (− 0.02, p = 0.90), HS + POPS+IYS (− 0.05, p = 0.88) and HS (− 0.03) ES 0.01, − 0.02, respectively

Non-significant differences in whole fruit servings/day between HS + POPS (+ 0.05, p

0.86), HS + POPS+IYS (− 0.02, p = 0.60) and HS (+ 0.03) ES 0.02, − 0.04, respectively

Non-significant differences in fruit juice servings/day between HS + POPS (− 0.21, p = 0.77), HS + POPS+IYS (− 0.06, p = 0.39) and HS (− 0.17) ES − 0.03, 0.10, respectively

Non-significant difference in SSB servings/day between HS + POPS (+ 0.01, p = 0.12) and HS (+ 0.14) ES − 0.20

Significant difference in SSB servings/day between HS + POPS+IYS (− 0.07, p = 0.005) and HS (+ 0.14) ES − 0.32

Natale, Lopez-Mitnik et al. (2014) [42]

Short term follow-up:

Less increase in BMI z-score in the intervention group (+ 0.05) compared to the control group (+ 0.16) (NS) ES − 0.04

Short term follow-up:

No significant differences between intervention and control group (no data reported).

Follow-up not indicated:

Significantly more time spent on the computer (p < 0.01) and watching TV (p < 0.0001) in the control group compared to the intervention group at school (no data reported).

Follow-up not indicated:

During school time:

Intervention group decreased mean junk food consumption, while the control group increased consumption.

Intervention group increased mean fresh fruit and vegetable consumption.

Intervention groups decreased juice consumption.

Intervention group increased 1% milk consumption.

Control group decreased water consumption. For all outcomes no data were reported.

Natale, Messiah et al. (2014) [55]

NA

NA

Short term follow-up:

The intervention group decreased sedentary behaviour, compared to an increase in the control group (p < 0.004).

Short term follow-up:

No change in fruit/vegetable consumption in the intervention group, compared to a decrease in the control group (p < 0.05).

The intervention group decreased the consumption of junk food, compared to an increase in the control group (p = 0.01).

Natale et al. (2017) [57]

Short term follow-up:

The intervention group had a negative slope (β = − 1.95, p = 0.04) in BMI percentile growth curve, indicating a significant positive change in PBMI over time.

NA

NA

Short term follow-up:

No significant difference between groups in change over time in children’s fruit/vegetable consumption (β = 0.04, p = 0.34) and children’s unhealthy food consumption (β = 0.01, p = 0.80).

Nyberg et al. (2015) [43]

Short term follow-up:

No significant difference in BMIsds between intervention (∆-0.11) and control group (∆-0.06) ES − 0.04.

No significant difference in change of prevalence of underweight (∆ = 1.6, p = 0.53), normal weight (∆ = − 1.9, p = 0.65), overweight (∆ = 2.3, p = 0.54), obese (∆ = − 1.8, p = 0.16).

Long term follow-up:

No significant difference in change of prevalence of underweight (∆-0.8, p = 0.69), normal weight (∆ + 0.9, p = 0.61), overweight (∆ + 4.7, p = 0.43), and obesity (∆-1.8, p = 0.37) between the intervention and control group.

Outcomes on BMIsds not reported.

Short term follow-up:

No significant differences between the intervention and control group in TPA (cpm, β = − 21.2, p = 0.58) or MVPA (minutes, β = − 4.9, p = 0.33) ES − 0.12, − 0.13 resp.

Non-significant difference in ‘child taken to activity in the last week’ (time/week) between intervention and control group (β = − 0.48, p = 0.07) ES − 0.33

Long term follow-up:

No significant differences between the intervention group and control group in TPA (cpm, β = − 15.0, p = 0.51) or MVPA (minutes, β = + 2.7, p = 0.60) ES − 0.09, 0.07 resp.

No significant difference in ‘child taken to activity in the last week’ (time/week) between intervention and control group (β = − 0.27, p = 0.22) ES − 0.18

Short term follow-up:

No significant difference in % time spent sedentary (β = 0.4, p = 0.59) between the intervention and the control group ES 0.07.

No significant difference between the intervention and the control group in screen time viewing (min/day, β = − 3.59, p = 0.76) ES − 0.06.

Long term follow-up:

No significant differences in % time spent sedentary (β = − 0.8, p = 0.27) between the intervention and control group. ES − 0.13

No significant difference in screen time viewing (min/day) between intervention and control group (β = − 8.23, p = 0.29) ES − 0.14

Short term follow-up:

No significant differences of ‘servings in the precious weekday’ between intervention and control group for fruit juice (β = − 0.20, p = 0.38) ES − 0.25; soft drink/sugar syrup (β = − 0.37, p = 0.23) ES − 0.88; milk (β = 0.04, p = 0.71) ES 0.04; flavoured milk (β = 0.04, p = 0.92) ES 0.09; vegetables (β = 0.09, p = 0.44) ES 0.08; snacks (β = − 0.28, p = 0.44) ES − 0.48; fruit (β = 0.11, p = 0.26) ES 0.08; sweets (β = − 0.003, p = 0.99) ES − 0.004; cakes/buns/cookies (β = − 0.25, p = 0.24) ES − 0.30; ice-cream (β = 0.08, p = 0.69) ES 0.09.

Significant difference between the intervention and the control group for ‘usual servings of vegetables per day’ (β = 0.26, p = 0.003) ES 0.40

Long term follow-up:

No significant difference of ‘servings in the previous weekday, between intervention or control group for fruit juice (β = − 0.21, p = 0.41) ES − 0.26; soft drink/sugar syrup (β = + 0.20, p = 0.63) ES 0.45; milk (β = − 0.01, p = 0.95) ES − 0.01; flavoured milk (β = − 0.18, p = 0.67) ES − 0.43; vegetables (β = + 0.05, p = 0.67) ES 0.05; snacks (β = − 0.67, p = 0.30) ES − 1.35; fruit (β = + 0.13, p = 0.23) ES 0.10; sweets (β = + 0.49, p = 0.23) ES 0.61; cakes/buns/cookies (β = + 0.38, p = 0.24) ES 0.47; ice-cream (β = + 0.41, p = 0.18) ES 0.46.

No significant difference in usual servings of vegetables per day between the intervention and control group (β = + 0.14, p = 0.14) ES 0.21

Nyberg et al. (2016) [44]

Short term follow-up:

No significant differences in BMI sds scores between intervention and control group (β = − 0.03, p = 0.46) ES − 0.02

Long term follow-up:

No significant differences in BMI sds scores between the intervention and control group (β = 0.013, p = 0.79) ES 0.01

Short term follow-up:

No significant differences between the intervention and the control group for TPA (cpm, β = − 30.1, p = 0.18) or MVPA (minutes, β = − 1.5, p = 0.55) ES − 0.16, − 0.06 resp.

Long term follow-up:

No significant differences between the intervention group and control group in TPA (cpm, β = − 34.8, p = 0.13) or MVPA (minutes, β = − 3.6, p = 0.19) ES − 0.18, − 0.15 resp.

Short term follow-up:

No significant difference in sedentary time in minutes between intervention and control group (β = 1.5, p = 0.68) ES 0.03

No significant difference in screen time (min/day) between the intervention and the control group (β = − 2.6, p = 0.79) ES − 0.03

Long term follow-up:

A significant difference on sedentary time in minutes (β = − 9.2, p = 0.03) between the intervention and control group ES − 0.21.

No significant difference in screen time (min/day) between the intervention and the control group (β = − 16.5, p = 0.10) ES − 0.22.

Short term follow-up:

No significant differences of ‘servings in the previous weekday’ between intervention and control group for fruit juice (β = − 0.24, p = 0.16) ES − 0.37; soft drink/sugar syrup (β = − 0.28, p = 0.25) ES − 0.60; flavoured milk (β = − 0.47, p = 0.15) ES − 0.93; vegetables (β = 0.15, p = 0.22) ES 0.20; snacks (β = − 0.57, p = 0.08) ES − 1.06; fruits (β = − 0.15, p = 0.13) ES − 0.16; sweets/chocolate (β = − 0.38, p = 0.10) ES − 0.58; cakes/buns/cookies (β = 0.00, p = 1.00) ES 0; ice cream (β-0.22, p = 0.22) ES − 0.29

Significant difference on aggregated variables ‘unhealthy food’ (β = − 0.32, p = 0.01); ‘unhealthy drink’ (β = − 0.51, p = 0.01) between intervention and control group. No significant difference in aggregated variable ‘healthy food’ (β = − 0.02, p = 0.79) between the intervention and control group.

Long term follow-up:

No significant differences of ‘servings in the previous weekday’ between intervention and control group for fruit juice (β = − 0.09, p = 0.70) ES − 0.14; soft drink/sugar syrup (β = + 0.02, p = 0.95) 0.04; flavoured milk (β = − 0.04, p = 0.92) ES − 0.07; vegetables (β = + 0.02, p = 0.85) ES 0.03; snacks (β = − 0.46, p = 0.19) ES − 0.82; fruits (β = + 0.03, p = 0.76) ES 0.03; sweets/chocolate (β = − 0.26, p = 0.29) ES − 0.39; cakes/buns/cookies (β = − 0.33, p = 0.12) ES − 0.43; ice-cream (β = − 0.22, p = 0.30) ES − 0.29.

No significant differences on aggregated variables ‘unhealthy food’ (β = − 0.15, p = 0.42); ‘unhealthy drink’ (β = 0.05, p = 0.83); and ‘healthy food’ (β = − 0.03, p = 0.68) between the intervention and the control group.

Puder et al. (2011) [45]

Short term follow-up:

No significant difference in BMI change between the intervention and control group (∆-0.07, p = 0.31). ES 0.07

Significant reductions in percentage body fat (∆-1.1, p = 0.02) and sum of skinfolds (∆-2.78, p = 0.001) in the intervention group compared to the control group. ES

− 0.15, − 0.02, respectively

Significantly lower increase in waist circumference (∆-1.0, p = 0.001) in the intervention group compared to the control group. ES − 0.24

Short term follow-up:

Significantly higher increase in aerobic fitness in the intervention group compared to the control group (∆ + 0.32, p = 0.01). ES 0.22

Significant improvement in motor agility (time to perform an obstacle course) in the intervention group compared to the control group (∆-0.54, p = 0.004). ES − 0.13

No significant difference in dynamic balance (∆ + 0.2, p = 0.35) and static balance (∆ = + 19.4, p = 0.18) between the intervention and control group. ES 0.06, 0.04, respectively

No significant difference in TPA (cpm, ∆-12.3, p = 0.54) between the intervention and control group. ES 0.012

Short term follow-up:

Significant difference in media use (min/day) between the intervention and control group (∆-13.4, p = 0.03). ES − 0.22

Short term follow-up:

Significant difference in proportion healthy eaters between the intervention and the control group (∆ + 1.9, p = 0.04).

Roth et al. (2015) [46]

Short term follow-up:

No significant difference between the intervention and control group on BMI (centile, ∆ + 0.244, p = 0.857); and sum of four skinfolds (mm, ∆ + 1.548, p = 0.272). ES 0.023, − 0.06 respectively

Long term follow-up:

No significant difference between the intervention and the control group on BMI (centile, ∆ + 0.103, p = 0.949); and sum of four skinfolds (mm, ∆ + 0.305, p = 0.846). ES 0.05, 0.03, respectively

Short term follow-up:

No significant (Bonferroni adjusted α) difference in MVPA between the intervention and the control group (∆ + 0.005, p = 0.049).

Significant increase in motor skills performance (z-score) in children in the intervention group compared to the control group (∆ + 0.623, p = 0.001).

Significant improvements in explosive leg strength (cm, ∆ + 3.209, p = 0.004) ES − 0.07; jumping coordination (jumps, ∆ + 1.451, p = 0.019) ES 0.20; and static balance (tips, ∆-1.474, p = 0.032) ES − 0.13, in the intervention group compared to the control group.

No significant improvements in agility (seconds, ∆-0.628, p = 0.060) ES − 0.09; dynamic balance (% failure, ∆-0.015, p = 0.617); and throwing ability (% failure, ∆-0.020, p = 0.465).

Long term follow-up

No significant difference in MVPA between the intervention and the control group (∆ + 0.006, p = 0.859).

Significant increase in motor skills performance (z-score) in children in the intervention group compared to the control group (∆ = + 0.590, p = 0.007).

Significantly better improvements in the intervention group in agility (seconds, ∆-0.689, p = 0.034) ES − 0.11 and explosive leg strength (cm, ∆ = + 4.041, p = 0.007) ES 0.23.

No significant differences between the intervention group and control group in static balance (tips, ∆-0.306, p = 0.629) ES − 0.05; jumping coordination (jumps, ∆ + 1.276, p = 0.089) ES 0.18; dynamic balance (% failure, ∆ + 0.051, p = 0.220); and throwing ability (% failure, ∆ + 0.006, p = 0898).

NA

NA

Story et al. (2012) [47]

Short term follow-up:

No significant difference between the intervention and the control group in BMI (kg/m2, ∆ + 0.34, p = 0.057) ES 0.07; BMI z (∆ + 0.01, p = 0.904) ES 0; triceps (mm, ∆ + 0.02, p = 0.978) ES 0.003; subscapular (mm, ∆ + 0.05, p = 0.909) ES 0.005; % body fat (∆0.90, p = 0.122) ES 0.07; and % obese (∆ + 2.11, p = 0.503) ES 0.04.

A significant difference in % overweight (∆-10.14, p = 0.019) between the intervention and the control group. ES − 0.24

Short term follow-up:

A greater mean in PA (combined from recess and PE class in min/week) in the intervention group compared to the control group (NS).

NA

Short term follow-up:

Nutrients from school menus:

A significant difference between the intervention and control group in % total fat calories (∆-8.00, p = 0.004); and % calories saturated fat (∆-4.08, p = 0.002).

No significant difference between the intervention and control group in kilocalories (∆-37.3, p = 0.691) ES − 0.0007; carbohydrate (g, ∆ + 11.5, p = 0.487) ES 1.4; protein (g, ∆-0.26, p = 0.933) ES − 0.13; fat (g, ∆-7.81, p = 0.085) ES − 2.22; iron (mg, − 0.16, p = 0.877) ES − 0.33; magnesium (mg, ∆ + 3.9, p = 0.740) ES − 0.79; calcium (mg, ∆ + 64, p = 0.827) ES 0.39; sodium (mg, ∆-96, p = 0.624) ES − 0.84; vitamin A (RAE, ∆ = + 36.6, p = 0.643) ES 1.01; vitamin D IU (∆ = + 0.28, p = 0.505) ES 1.33; folate (mg, ∆ = + 13.6, p = 0.581) ES 1.01; and sugar added (g, ∆-2.66, p = 0.763) ES − 0.36

Food intake reported by parents:

Significant difference in intake times per day of sweetened beverages (∆-0.28, p = 0.024); whole milk (∆-0.22, p = 0.011); and chocolate milk (∆-0.17, p = 0.025) between the intervention and control group.

No significant difference in intake times per day of vegetables (∆ + 0.02, p = 0.788); fruits (∆ + 0.07, p = 0.269); skim milk (∆ + 0.12, p = 0.138); 100% juice (∆-0.03, p = 0.689); bottled water (∆ + 0.09, p = 0.413); and fast food (∆ + 0.04, p = 0.374.

Wasenius et al. (2018) [58]

NR

Short term follow-up:

Significant difference in locomotor skills between intervention and control group (∆ + 2.4, p < 0.001) ES 1.31.

No significant difference between intervention and control group on object control skills (∆ + 0.5, p = 1.0) ES 0.53, sum of raw scores (∆ + 2.8, p = 0.333) ES 1.48 or Gross Motor Quotient (∆ + 3.2, p = 0.498) ES 1.30.

TPA: NR

NA

NA

Williams et al. (2014) [48]

NA

NA

NA

Short term follow-up:

Significant difference between the intervention and control group in proportion of children that used low fat/fat-free milk at home (OR1.39, p < 0.05) ES 0.19; and cups of vegetables child consumed at home (∆ + 0.12, p < 0.05) ES 0.12.

No significant difference in cups of fruit child consumed at home (∆ + 0.06, NS) ES 0.04; and cups of fruits and vegetables child consumed at home (∆ + 0.19, NS) ES 0.10 between the intervention and control group.

Significant difference between the intervention and control group in no. of days the child helped self/requested vegetable as snack (∆0.34, p < 0.05) ES 0.14.

No significant difference between intervention and control group in no. of days the child helped self/requested fruit as snack (∆ + 0.24, NS) ES 0.09; no. of days parent offered vegetable as snack (∆ + 0.25, NS) ES 0.11; and no. of days parent offered fruit as snack (∆0.00, NS) ES 0.

Yin et al. (2014) [49]

Short term follow-up:

No significant difference between intervention group and control group in BMI z-score (∆-0.09, p < 0.09) ES − 0.04.

Short term follow-up:

Significant difference between the intervention and control group in gross motor development (∆1.15, p < 0.001) ES 0.03

A significantly higher level of active play in the intervention group compared to the control group (data not available).

NA

Short term follow-up:

Significantly more fruit and vegetables consumption in the intervention group (0.19 serving, p < 0.05) and low-fat milk (0.06 serving, p < 0.006) than in the control group. No reporting on grain products. No significant change in meat consumption.

Zhou et al. (2014) [50]

Short term follow-up:

No significant difference between intervention and control group for BMI (kg/m2, ∆0.19, NS) ES 0.10; and BMI z-score (∆0.15, NS) ES 0.10.

Significant difference between intervention and control group for % body fat (∆-1.2, p = 0.0001) ES − 0.34; fat mass (kg, ∆-0.55, p = 0.0001) ES − 0.61; and muscle mass (kg, ∆ + 0.48, p = 0.0001) ES 0.32.

Short term follow-up:

Significant difference between the intervention and control group in 20 m agility run (seconds, ∆-0.74, p = 0.0001) ES − 0.39; broad jump (cm, ∆8.09, p = 0.0001) ES 0.46; tennis ball throw (m, ∆ + 0.52, p = 0.006); sit-and-reach (cm, ∆ + 0.88, p = 0.03) ES 0.35; balance beam walk (seconds, ∆-2.02, p = 0.0001) ES − 0.15; 20 m crawl (seconds, ∆-3.36, p = 0.0001) ES − 0.55; and 30 m sprint (seconds, ∆-0.45, p = 0.02) ES − 0.21

NA

NA

  1. BMI = Body Mass Index; CPM = Counts Per Minute; HS + POPS = Head Start + Preschool Obesity Prevention Series; IYS = Incredible Years Series; KiMo = Kindergarten Mobile; LPA = Light Physical Activity; MVPA = Moderato-to-Vigorous-Physical-Activity; NA = Not Applicable; NF-P = Nursery Fit-Participated; NF-NP=Nursery Fit-Not Participated; NR = Not Reported; PA = physical activity; TPA = total Physical activity
  2. Effect sizes are only provided for studies and outcomes for which effect sizes could be calculated. The positive or negative indicator shows the direction of effect. Depending on the outcome this favours the intervention group or the control group