Key result
Home-based Kids PowerUP program proves feasible with participants completing ~14 activity kits.
Why the study?
Childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes are rising in rural communities, but traditional school-based interventions have had limited success.
Does a home-based learning program improve feasibility and acceptability of diet and activity interventions in rural children?
RCT (n=67)
randomized
Yes
Does a home-based learning program improve feasibility and acceptability of diet and activity interventions in rural children?
A multi-component, family-centered home-based learning program is feasible for delivering diet and activity interventions to rural children.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
High completion supports feasibility of home-based programs in rural children; extends evidence for scalable lifestyle interventions.
Introduction and Objective: Rates of childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes are rising in rural communities, yet traditional school-based interventions have had limited success. We utilized a multi-component, family-centered approach to support children through personalized engagement with a home-based learning program. Our objective was to assess reach, feasibility, and acceptability of the intervention and control programs, and of virtual data collection. Methods: We recruited children age 7 to 10 years living in rural Colorado and North Carolina using flyers, community events, social media outreach, and medical record messaging. The intervention provided 16 parent-guided activity kits and 9 virtual support sessions over 6 months. The control program provided 6 monthly STEM activity kits. Participants completed pre- and post-program surveys, self-measured anthropometrics, self-sampling of capillary blood, and accelerometry, and were invited to do a post-program qualitative interview. Results: We received 187 interest surveys; 72 participants consented, and 67 completed baseline data collection and were randomized (35 intervention, 32 control). Eleven intervention and five control participants withdrew during the program, and 44 completed post-program data collection thus far, including 14 qualitative interviews. Intervention participants completed a median of 14 kits (IQR 6-16) and 2 coaching sessions (IQR 1-4) over a median duration of 34 weeks. Qualitative data indicated that emphasizing family involvement would support engagement for both programs, and that reducing study duration and number of kits of intervention kits may further facilitate completion. Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrates that the home-based Kids PowerUP program and STEM control programs are feasible, with successful completion of remote data collection procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ONTIVEROS et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes (n=67). Kids PowerUP program vs. STEM activity kits was evaluated on reach, feasibility, and acceptability. The home-based Kids PowerUP program was feasible, with intervention participants completing a median of 14 activity kits and 2 coaching sessions over a median duration of 34 weeks.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: