R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E

Parent‐directed intervention in promoting knowledge ofpediatric nutrition and healthy lifestyle among low‐SES familieswith toddlers: A randomized controlled trial

Danielle LoRe1 | Christy Y. Y. Leung2 | Louisa Brenner2 | Dana L. Suskind2

1 Department of Pediatrics, Morgan Stanley

Children's Hospital of NewYork‐Presbyterian,Columbia University Medical Center, New

York, NY

2 TMW Center for Early Learning and Public

Health, Department of Surgery, The University

of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois

Correspondence

Danielle LoRe, TMW Center for Early Learning

and Public Health, The University of Chicago

Medicine, Maryland Ave, MC 1035, Chicago, IL

60637.

Email: [email protected]

Funding information

Hemera Foundation; PNC Foundation

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study is to determine the efficacy of an interactive,

home visiting curriculum tailored to low socio‐economic status families in improving

parental knowledge of paediatric nutrition and healthy lifestyle.

Methods: Parents of toddlers aged 13–16 months living with a household income

below 200% of the federal poverty line were randomized into healthy lifestyle inter-

vention and control home visiting curriculum groups. Each curriculum consisted of 12

one‐on‐one educational sessions with parents facilitated by a trained home‐visitor

that were administered over a 6‐month intervention period. Knowledge assessments

were administered before and after the intervention period.

Results: Results of a one‐way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis showed

that parents in the intervention group (M = 26.05, SD = 4.24) scored significantly

higher than control parents (M = 23.84, SD = 4.26) post‐intervention, controlling for

parent education level, F (1, 102) = 7.494 (95% confidence interval [−3.68, −0.59]).

One‐way ANCOVA analysis showed no significant mean difference between the par-

ents in the intervention group (M = 24.13, SD = 4.37) and the control group

(M = 23.93, SD = 4.16) at baseline, controlling for parent education level, F (1,

163) = 0.002 (95% confidence interval [−1.28, 1.22]).

Conclusions: An interactive healthy lifestyle intervention focused on low‐SES fam-

ilies significantly improved parental knowledge of paediatric healthy lifestyle.

Changes in parental knowledge is a key preliminary step in behaviour change to ulti-

mately affect behaviour. Informing and encouraging parents of toddlers to guide

healthy lifestyle development early remains a promising point of intervention for pre-

vention, rather than remediation, of childhood obesity.

KEYWORDS

child development, child public health, obesity

1 | INTRODUCTION

Childhood obesity remains a serious public health issue in the United

States that develops early in life, with 7.0% of infants and toddlers

ages 6–23 months having high weight‐for‐length based on Center

for Disease Control growth charts (Akinbami, Kit, Carroll, Fakhouri, &

Ogden, 2017). Infants and toddlers from low‐income families have a

higher prevalence of high weight‐for‐length than their higher income

Received: 17 January 2019 Revised: 24 April 2019 Accepted: 25 April 2019

DOI: 10.1111/cch.12682

518 © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Child Care Health Dev. 2019;45:518–522.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cch

counterparts (Freedman et al., 2017). High weight‐for‐length in

infancy has been linked to an increased risk of obesity in adulthood

(Baird et al., 2005). Consequently, weight disparities during childhood

persist into adulthood, leading to increased risk of developing diabe-

tes, hypertension, and heart disease among low‐SES populations

(Paeratakul, Lovejoy, Ryan, & Bray, 2002).

Weight disparities can be attributed to a multitude of factors

affecting dietary and lifestyle choices. Low‐SES populations encounter

particular barriers to healthy eating, with inequalities including high

cost of healthy eating, lack of time due to work commitments, and

influence of family and friends (Inglis, Ball, & Crawford, 2005). Food

shopping habits also differ between low‐SES populations and higher‐

SES populations, as transportation and store accessibility affect shop-

ping frequency (Wiig & Smith, 2009). Low‐income families more fre-

quently shop at convenience stores and mid‐sized grocery stores,

rather than supermarkets (Shannon, 2014). In analysing promoters

and barriers to healthy lifestyles among low‐income, urban popula-

tions, cost and finances were identified as barriers to healthy food

consumption, whereas convenience and availability promoted fast

food consumption (Lucan, Barg, & Long, 2010). These factors may

contribute to consumption of an overall poorer quality diet; research

shows low‐SES populations consume more refined grains and added

fats and consume less lean protein, low‐fat dairy products, fresh veg-

etables, and fruit than higher SES populations (Darmon &

Drewnowski, 2008). Additionally, low‐SES children are less physically

active than high‐SES children (Humbert et al., 2006). Neighbourhood

safety, proximity to facilities, and cost of facilities limit physical activity

among low‐SES children (Humbert et al., 2006; Molnar, Gortmaker,

Bull, & Buka, 2004). Nutrition education is particularly important

among the low‐SES population, as studies have shown that low‐SES

parents have demonstrated significantly lower levels of nutritional

knowledge than more affluent parents (Morton & Guthrie, 1997;

Parmenter, Waller, & Wardle, 2000). Understanding of health impacts

can be key to shifting behaviour, as health concerns were identified as

a key promoter of fruit and vegetable consumption among low‐income

populations (Lucan et al., 2010).

Shifting the focus of obesity prevention interventions to early edu-

cation of parents has the potential to greatly affect child dietary habits

but has not been studied extensively to date in low‐SES populations.

The majority of childhood obesity interventions target school‐aged

children when unhealthy habits are already established and produce

minimal effects (Stice, Shaw, & Marti, 2006). Conversely, parenting

interventions as young as infancy have impacted infant dietary pat-

terns (Hohman, Savage, Paul, & Birch, 2016). However, research

regarding when or how to best target parent knowledge and behav-

iour is limited (Skouteris et al., 2011).

We designed an interactive healthy lifestyle development curricu-

lum to educate parents of toddlers about child healthy nutritional

and physical activity behaviours and strategies to best promote these

behaviours. This curriculum is unique in its tailored approach to low‐

SES parents by extending beyond knowledge of the general principles

of healthy eating and physical activity to also focus on knowledge of

strategies to address barriers affecting this population. These topics

included meal planning, grocery shopping on a budget, and increasing

physical activity with limited facilities. Additionally, the curriculum

emphasizes parent knowledge of child healthy habit development

and their influence on this development.

The curriculum is a 6‐month intervention being tested in a 5‐year

ongoing longitudinal study. Consistent with theory of behaviour

change, we expect changes in knowledge to be a key first step in

behaviour change. Therefore, preliminary testing of programme effi-

cacy and the aim of this paper is focused on changes in parent knowl-

edge following the 6‐month intervention period. We hypothesize that

this curriculum will significantly increase parent knowledge about pae-

diatric healthy eating and knowledge of healthy behavioural strategies.

2 | METHODS

2.1 | Participant recruitment

Sample size was determined by power calculations performed using

estimated effect size and standard deviation from existing research

on home interventions seeking to improve parent knowledge.

Research assistants recruited parent–child dyads through postings at

day care centres, libraries, health clinics, local stores, public transporta-

tion, and community organizations serving low‐income populations

around the Chicagoland area. Inclusion criteria required parents to

be at least 18 years old, have a child aged 13–16 months without sig-

nificant cognitive or physical impairments, and have a household

income level below 200% of the federal poverty line. Parents were

excluded if they had earned a graduate or professional degree, did

not have legal custody of their child, did not live with their child, or

did not spend at least two full days per week with their child. Written

informed consent was obtained from each parent.

2.2 | Study design

A trained research assistant who was blinded to the assigned condi-

tion of the parent–child dyad collected data from each parent–child

Key messages

• Obesity, particularly in low‐SES young children, remains a

public health epidemic.

• The majority of interventions focus on school‐aged

children, after eating habits are already formed.

• An intervention focused on parent knowledge and

promotion of paediatric nutritional needs significantly

improved parental understanding of these needs.

• Improvements in knowledge is a key first step in creation

of early interventions to ultimately target parental

behaviour.

LORE ET AL. 519

dyad during a visit at their home at baseline, and again post‐

intervention. The parent also reported demographics and completed

a knowledge questionnaire.

A matched‐pair randomization procedure was used, following the

baseline data collection, to ensure the two conditions are equivalent

on child age at baseline. All parent–child dyads were paired by child

age (in months). The first parent–child dyad in each age pair was ran-

domly assigned to either the healthy lifestyle intervention condition or

the language development control condition using coin flip. The sec-

ond parent–child dyad in the same age pair was then assigned to the

alternative condition. The project manager generated the matched‐

pair randomization sequence and assigned parent–child dyads to inter-

ventions. Both intervention and control curriculum started within

2 weeks following the baseline data collection. Participant recruitment

began in May 2014, and the trial was ended in March 2017 after

parent–child dyads had completed the 6‐month curriculum and the

post‐intervention knowledge assessment. Participants received $125

compensation in total for their time.

2.3 | Healthy lifestyle intervention condition

Parents in the intervention condition received a 6‐month computer‐

based curriculum designed to promote healthy eating and physical

activity. This curriculum consisted of 12 modules that were imple-

mented in sequence over 12 weekly home visits and facilitated by a

trained research assistant in one‐on‐one educational sessions with

parents. The content of all 12 modules was built upon the recommen-

dations by the American Academy of Pediatrics Bright Futures on pae-

diatric nutritional needs, healthy dietary behaviours, and physical

activities for obesity prevention (see Table 1 for an overview of the

content of each module) (Hagan, Shaw, & Dunca, 2007). In each of

the 12 modules, the home visitor and the parent discussed a specific

topic promoting a healthy lifestyle, reviewed certain practices and/or

activities that could be easily implemented in everyday life, and collab-

oratively developed goals for diet and activity. Moreover, three key

behavioural strategies, referred to as the “3Ms”: Make, Model, and

Mind, were interwoven throughout the curriculum to emphasize the

importance of making healthy meals, modelling healthy behaviours,

and minding healthy dietary decisions. The 3Ms were designed to pro-

vide parents with easy‐to‐understand and easy‐to‐remember strate-

gies to reinforce important concepts.

2.4 | Language development control condition

The control group also received 12 one‐on‐one biweekly home visits,

during which they received a child language intervention.

2.5 | Knowledge questionnaire

At baseline and post‐intervention, each parent completed a 38‐item

questionnaire designed to assess knowledge of paediatric nutrition

and physical activity needs, as well as behaviours and strategies to

promote healthy habits. Questions testing knowledge of paediatric

healthy nutrition included topics such as appropriate serving sizes,

vitamins, and healthy and unhealthy fats. Questions testing knowledge

of healthy behaviours and strategies included topics such as reading

nutrition labels, grocery shopping on a budget, and incorporating

physical activity into daily routine. The 38‐item knowledge question-

naire had an overall Flesch Reading Ease score of 78.6 (ranging 0–

100, with higher scores represent easier reading levels) and typically

read at a 5.2 Flesch Kincaid Grade level (a readability test of the

comprehension difficulty of a standard English passage, scored as

the normative reading level for U.S. school grades) (Williamson &

Martin, 2010). Cronbach's α in the current sample was .76.

2.6 | Data analysis

Preliminary t tests and χ2 tests were first conducted to examine

whether parents in the intervention and the control conditions were

significantly different in terms of their demographic characteristics

including parent race/ethnicity, education level, and employment sta-

tus as well as their knowledge about healthy lifestyle at baseline.

Moreover, one‐way ANOVA and correlation analyses were conducted

to examine demographic characteristics in relation to their knowledge

at baseline. Two one‐way ANCOVAs were conducted to compare

knowledge between the two conditions (intervention vs. control) at

baseline as well as post‐intervention. Demographic characteristics that

were significantly associated with knowledge would be examined as

covariate. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 24.

TABLE 1 Twelve modules of healthy lifestyle curriculum

Modules Description

1. Introduction Empowering parent as role model for healthy

lifestyle development

2. Mind Reading nutrition labels and incorporating

5 food groups into diet

3. Make Cooking fresh food at home and avoiding

processed foods

4. Model Positive food socialization behaviours while

introducing new foods

5. Nutrients Maximizing healthy and minimizing unhealthy

nutrients in diet

6. Cooking on a

budget

Strategies to save money while food shopping

7. Cooking quickly Strategies to plan and prepare meals amid busy

schedule

8. Eating healthy

while out

Selecting healthy options from fast food and

restaurant menus

9. Hidden dangers Food preparation safety, allergies, and choking

hazards

10. Beverages

matter

Limiting intake of sugary drinks and drinking

more water

11. Exercise Ways to incorporate and promote physical

activity with child

12. Dental health Promoting appropriate dental health hygiene

520 LORE ET AL.

3 | RESULTS

3.1 | Cross‐sectional analyses

The demographic characteristics of parents and the control conditions

and their knowledge about healthy lifestyle at baseline are shown in

Table 2. One‐way ANOVA showed that parent race/ethnicity and

employment status were not significantly associated with their knowl-

edge at baseline. However, correlation analyses indicated that parents

who were more educated had higher levels of knowledge, r = .32,

p < .001. Thus, education level was examined as a covariate in the

mixed model analysis.

Results of two one‐way ANCOVAs testing knowledge across con-

dition at baseline and post‐intervention, controlling for parent educa-

tion level, are shown in Table 3. There was no significant mean

difference found between the parents in the intervention group

(M = 24.13, SD = 4.37) and the control group (M = 23.93, SD = 4.16)

at baseline, controlling for parent education level, F (1, 163) = 0.002,

(95% confidence interval [−1.28, 1.22]). However, parents in the inter-

vention group (M = 26.05, SD = 4.24) scored significantly higher than

control parents (M = 23.84, SD = 4.26) post‐intervention, controlling

for parent education level, F (1, 102) = 7.494 (95% confidence interval

[−3.68, −0.59]).

4 | DISCUSSION

Despite significant national efforts, childhood obesity is a critical pub-

lic health issue that disproportionately affects the low‐SES population.

Our study adds to the literature by using this early education approach

to specifically target the low SES population and address the barriers

to development of a healthy lifestyle that this population faces.

Consistent with our hypothesis, our preliminary findings demon-

strate that the healthy lifestyle curriculum significantly increased par-

ent nutritional knowledge and knowledge of healthy dietary

behaviours, as compared with the control group. This improvement

in parent knowledge is similar to that seen from other home visiting

interventions targeting parents (Haire‐Joshu et al., 2008). Our

multisession, long duration, and interactive intervention design is

consistent with other obesity prevention or healthy lifestyle inter-

ventions effective in increasing knowledge (Stice et al., 2006). This

change in knowledge is an important preliminary step towards

behaviour change.

The study has a few limitations. This study has shown improve-

ment in knowledge in the short term, but sustainability of this

improvement in the long term is unknown. The curriculum is tailored

to an urban, low‐SES study population, so generalizability to rural

low‐SES populations may be limited. Additionally, the study popula-

tion is predominantly African American, which could limit generaliz-

ability to other racial groups.

The strengths of our study include tailoring of an early parent edu-

cation intervention to the needs of the high‐risk low‐SES population.

The video‐based modules could feasibly be reliably scaled for wider

dissemination. The longitudinal follow up in this 5‐year trial will pro-

vide key information on sustainability of effects, as well as long‐term

parent and child outcomes. Follow‐up studies are necessary to further

investigate how increases in parental knowledge translate into behav-

ioural changes for both parent and child. Future research may examine

parental knowledge in relation to behavioural outcomes, such as par-

ent and child food intake, activity logs, and parent–child mealtime

behaviours. In conclusion, this study has shown that an intervention

focused on low‐SES parent knowledge of paediatric healthy eating

TABLE 2 Baseline characteristics of the health lifestyle (interven-tion) and the language development (control) participants

Control (49) Intervention (55)

Parent characteristics

Age (year) 28.8, 6.51 28.5, 7.75

Race and Ethnicity

African American 40 (81.6%) 47 (85.5%)

Non‐Hispanic White 2 (4.1%) 2 (3.6%)

Education level

Some high school 5 (10.2%) 4 (7.3%)

High school graduate or GED

equivalent

10 (20.4%) 14 (25.4%)

Some post‐secondary courses 23 (46.9%) 22 (40.0%)

Associate's Degree 4 (8.2%) 8 (14.5%)

Bachelor's Degree 7 (14.3%) 7 (12.7%)

Married or Civil Union 8 (16.3%) 9 (16.4%)

Employed 23 (46.9%) 28 (50.9%)

WIC and/or LINK 40 (81.6%) 50 (90.9%)

Age (month) 12.0, 2.52 11.4, 3.19

Male 26 (53.1%) 27 (49.1%)

Note. Frequency and percentage are reported in Table 2 except as other-

wise noted.

TABLE 3 Results of two one‐way ANCOVAs testing knowledge across condition at baseline and post‐intervention, controlling for parent edu-cation level

Control Intervention One‐way ANCOVA

M (SD) M (SD) F df 95% Confidence interval

Baseline 23.92 4.16 24.13 4.37 0.002 (1, 163) [−1.28, 1.22]

Post‐Intervention 23.84 4.26 26.05 4.24 7.494 (1, 102) [−3.68, −0.59]

Abbreviation: ANCOVA, analysis of covariance.

LORE ET AL. 521

and behavioural strategies to promote development of healthy behav-

iours significantly improved parental knowledge. This study shows the

feasibility of reaching and targeting low‐SES parents early on to pro-

mote healthy behaviours and modelling. Informing and encouraging

parents of toddlers to guide healthy eating remains a promising point

of intervention for prevention, rather than remediation, of childhood

obesity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Biological Sciences Division Institutional Review Board at the Uni-

versity of Chicago Medicine approved the present study (IRB#14‐

0895), and registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02216032). Funding

for this study was provided by the PNC Foundation and the Hemera

Foundation.

ORCID

Danielle LoRe https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4940-161X

REFERENCES

Akinbami, L. J., Kit, B. K., Carroll, M. D., Fakhouri, T. H., & Ogden, C. L.

(2017). Trends in anthropometric measures among US children 6 to

23 months, 1976–2014. Pediatrics, 139, e20163374. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016‐3374

Baird, J., Fisher, D., Lucas, P., Kleijnen, J., Roberts, H., & Law, C. (2005).

Being big or growing fast: Systematic review of size and growth in

infancy and later obesity. BMJ, 331(7522), 929. https://doi.org/

10.1136/bmj.38586.411273.E0

Darmon, N., & Drewnowski, A. (2008). Does social class predict diet qual-

ity? The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 87(5), 1107–1117.https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/87.5.1107

Freedman, D. S., Sharma, A. J., Hamner, H. C., Pan, L., Panzera, A., Smith, R.

B., & Blanck, H. M. (2017). Trends in weight‐for‐length among infantsin WIC from 2000 to 2014. Pediatrics, 139(1), e20162034. https://

doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016‐2034

Hagan, J. F., Shaw, J. S., & Duncan, P. M. (2007). Bright futures: Guidelines

for health supervision of infants, children, and adolescents. American

Academy of Pediatrics. Retrieved from. http://www.aappublications.

org/

Haire‐Joshu, D., Elliott, M. B., Caito, N. M., Hessler, K., Nanney, M. S., Hale,N., … Brownson, R. C. (2008). High 5 for kids: The impact of a homevisiting program on fruit and vegetable intake of parents and their pre-

school children. Preventive Medicine, 47(1), 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.03.016

Hohman, E. E., Savage, J. S., Paul, I. M., & Birch, L. L. (2016). INSIGHT study

parenting intervention to prevent childhood obesity improves patterns

of dietary exposures in infants. The FASEB Journal, 30(1_supplement),

295–292. Retrieved from. https://www.fasebj.org/

Humbert, M. L., Chad, K. E., Spink, K. S., Muhajarine, N., Anderson, K. D.,

Bruner, M. W., & Gryba, C. R. (2006). Factors that influence physical

activity participation among high‐and low‐SES youth. Qualitative

Health Research, 16(4), 467–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305286051

Inglis, V., Ball, K., & Crawford, D. (2005). Why do women of low socioeco-

nomic status have poorer dietary behaviours than women of higher

socioeconomic status? A qualitative exploration. Appetite, 45(3),

334–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.05.003

Lucan, S. C., Barg, F. K., & Long, J. A. (2010). Promoters and barriers to

fruit, vegetable, and fast‐food consumption among urban, low‐incomeAfrican Americans—A qualitative approach. American Journal of PublicHealth, 100(4), 631–635. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.172692

Molnar, B. E., Gortmaker, S. L., Bull, F. C., & Buka, S. L. (2004). Unsafe to

play? Neighborhood disorder and lack of safety predict reduced physi-

cal activity among urban children and adolescents. American Journal of

Health Promotion, 18(5), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890‐1171‐18.5.378

Morton, J. F., & Guthrie, J. F. (1997). Diet‐related knowledge, attitudes,and practices of low‐income individuals with children in the household.Family Economics and Nutrition Review, 10(1), 2.

Paeratakul, S., Lovejoy, J. C., Ryan, D. H., & Bray, G. A. (2002). The relation

of gender, race and socioeconomic status to obesity and obesity

comorbidities in a sample of US adults. International Journal of Obesity,

26(9), 1205–1210. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0802026

Parmenter, K., Waller, J., & Wardle, J. (2000). Demographic variation in

nutrition knowledge in England. Health Education Research, 15(2),

163–174. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/15.2.163

Shannon, J. (2014). What does SNAP benefit usage tell us about food

access in low‐income neighborhoods? Social Science & Medicine, 107,89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.021

Skouteris, H., McCabe, M., Swinburn, B., Newgreen, V., Sacher, P., & Chad-

wick, P. (2011). Parental influence and obesity prevention in pre‐schoolers: A systematic review of interventions. Obesity Reviews,

12(5), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐789X.2010.00751.x

Stice, E., Shaw, H., & Marti, C. N. (2006). A meta‐analytic review of obesityprevention programs for children and adolescents: The skinny on inter-

ventions that work. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 667–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.132.5.667

Wiig, K., & Smith, C. (2009). The art of grocery shopping on a food stamp

budget: Factors influencing the food choices of low‐income women asthey try to make ends meet. Public Health Nutrition, 12(10),

1726–1734. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980008004102

Williamson, J. M. L., & Martin, A. G. (2010). Analysis of patient information

leaflets provided by a district general hospital by the Flesch and

Flesch–Kincaid method. International Journal of Clinical Practice,64(13), 1824–1831. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742‐1241.2010.02408.x

How to cite this article: LoRe D, Leung CYY, Brenner L,

Suskind DL. Parent‐directed intervention in promoting knowl-

edge of pediatric nutrition and healthy lifestyle among low‐

SES families with toddlers: A randomized controlled trial. Child

Care Health Dev. 2019;45:518–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/

cch.12682

522 LORE ET AL.

This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about theaccuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.