Response to ‘Systematic reviews do not always capture context of real-world intervention programmes for childhood obesity’ by Wild et al., 2021 in BMC Public Health

BMC Public Health

Oliver J. Canfell¹  Robyn Littlewood²  Jacqueline L. Walker³ 

[1] Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, 4006, Herston, QLD, Australia;UQ Business School, Faculty of Business, Economics and Law, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia;Digital Health Cooperative Research Centre, Australian Government, Sydney, NSW, Australia;Health and Wellbeing Queensland, Queensland Government, The State of Queensland, Milton, QLD, Australia;Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia;School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia;

关键词: Oceanic ancestry group;    Obesity;    Systematic review;    Intervention;    Child;    Adolescent;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12889-021-10487-4

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

In a correspondence to BMC Public Health, Wild et al. respond to our systematic review that synthesised results of interventions to prevent or treat childhood obesity in Māori and Pacific Islanders. Our review included the Whānau Pakari study as one of six included studies – a multidisciplinary intervention for Māori children and adolescents living with obesity led by their research team. Our review suggested that future research can incorporate stronger co-design principles when designing culturally-tailored interventions to maximise cultural specificity, enhance engagement, facilitate program ownership and contribute to improved health and weight-related outcomes. We commend Whānau Pakari and the team of Wild et al. on their sustained commitment to addressing obesity in priority populations and agree that systematic reviews struggle to capture real-world context of interventions for complex diseases such as obesity. In this article, we respond sequentially to the comments made by Wild et al. and (1) clarify the scope of our review article (2) reiterate our commendation of mixed-methods approaches that capture real-world context (3) explain a referencing error that caused a misinterpretation of our results (4) clarify our interpretation of some Whānau Pakari characteristics (5) welcome partnership to facilitate shared learning with Wild et al.

【 授权许可】

CC BY