Fill the table (synopsis) everything is given + sample

Article

Features Comment by College of Health Science and Human Services: Enter article information in this column.

1.

Publication year

2010

2.

Article title

Outcomes From a Culturally Tailored Diabetes Prevention Program in Hispanic Families From a Low-Income School Horton Hawks Stay Healthy (HHSH)

3.

Journal

Diabetes Educator

4.

Volume (Issue)

36 (5)

5.

Page numbers

784-792

Characteristics

Features Comment by College of Health Science and Human Services: It is possible the article does not report a feature. In such case, write N/A. However, such occasion should be limited to a small number. You shall make your best judgment when needed.

1.

Purpose

Examine the effectiveness of a minimal, tailored diabetes prevention program for families that was delivered in elementary school settings. Comment by College of Health Science and Human Services: Brief statement of the purpose.

2.

Level(s) of prevention Comment by College of Health Science and Human Services: Select the level(s) of prevention. Review the first lecture note if needed. To check, double click on the box.

|_|Primary |X|Secondary |_|Tertiary

3.

Research method(s) Comment by College of Health Science and Human Services: Choose one of the 3 mutually exclusive method. True experimental design uses single or double blinding, randomization, and manipulation of intervention. Quasi-experimental design is all other non-true experiments. Observational design has no intervention.

|_|True experimental |X|Quasi-experimental |_|Observational

4.

Inclusion criteria Comment by College of Health Science and Human Services: Briefly describe the inclusion criteria.

Families that had at least 1 child aged 8 to 12 years old attending the elementary school who was at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus. High risk was defined as

(1) being of Hispanic or African American ethnicity/race,

(2) having family members with T2DM, and/or

(3) the child being at or above the 85th percentile body mass index (BMI) for his or her gender and age.

5.

Randomization of sample

|_|Yes |X|No

6.

Sample size

Control: No Intervention #1: 82 parents, 62 children

7.

Sample characteristics Comment by College of Health Science and Human Services: Depending on the study, you may describe various of characteristics.

Gender-

Parents: Female: 98% Male: 2%

Children: Female: 53% Male: 47%

Race/ethnicity-

Hispanic/Latino: 100%

Age-37.5 ± 8.6 years old (parents)

8.

Health behavior(s) aimed to be changed

Increase physical activity, healthy food preparation

9.

Theory (-ies) involved Comment by College of Health Science and Human Services: It is possible the article does not state a theory. You will need to think about at least one theory as the backbone of the intervention.

Health Belief Model, Social Learning Theory, Theory of Planned Behavior, and Ecological Model.

10.

Theoretical constructs Comment by College of Health Science and Human Services: It is possible the article does not state a construct. You will need to think about at least one construct as the rational of the intervention.

Knowledge, attitudes, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, cues to action, perceived control, observational learning, reciprocal determination, self-efficacy, incentive motivation, social modeling

11.

Intervention method(s)

Physical activity: being doable in home

Food preparation activities: demonstration and discussion of healthy foods and their accessibility and affordability

Adult lectures: interactive discussion

Child lectures: educational materials and activities

12.

Language

Spanish

13.

Duration of intervention

Ten 90-minute sessions. Each session has 30-mimute exercise, 30-minute cooking demonstrations, and healthy lifestyle lessons, and 30-minute discussion about topics learned and make plan for the future sessions.

14.

Intervention material(s)

Common household items for physical activity

Recipes and a cookbook for food demonstration

Educational materials adopted from Project Dulce

15.

Place(s) of intervention

Elementary schools

16.

Effectiveness indicator(s)

Parents: height, weight, and self-reported behavior

Children: height and weight

17.

Data collection method(s)

Actual measure of body weight and height

Survey

Structured interviews with parents

18.

Measurement indicator(s) and their instrument(s)

(1) Body weight and height: digital scale and tape measure

(2) Parent health behaviors: questionnaire based on existing credible surveys

(3) Parent’s perception about their child’s behavior: author’s creation

(4) Parent’s knowledge: author’s creation

19.

Frequency of measurement

|X|Pre-test

|X| Post-test

20.

Analytical method(s)

Quantitative: Descriptive statistics, paired t-test, McNemar test

Qualitative: general theme identification

21.

Statistical significance Comment by College of Health Science and Human Services: State only statistical significant results.

Parents:

(1) parents had significant increase of self-reported engaging in leisure-time physical activity (14% vs. 64%; p < .01);

(2) More parents believe that their child’s weight led to serious chronic illnesses (17% vs 33%; p < .001);

(3) eating more servings of vegetables after participating in the program (7% vs 42%; p < .01)

Children: no change on body mass index percentile or z score

22.

Significant qualitative findings

Parents: walked with families after dinner, used olive oil for cooking, bought less junk food, reduced portion size, let child play outside more often, drank water instead of sods, had greater sense of control in the foods for child, felt empowered to change family health, no fear about diabetes

23.

Critical comments Comment by College of Health Science and Human Services: At least 3 critical comments is required.

1. no control group

2. no randomization on the participants

3. instruments are not validated

4. high discontinuation during intervention

5. relatively small sample size

6. no follow-up measurement