Which outcome measurement instruments are used to measure core infant feeding outcomes in children up to 1 year of age? A scoping review protocol

Karen Matvienko-Sikar; Linda Adair; Lucinda K Bell; Catherine S Birken; Vicki Brown; Darren Dahly; Ann S Doherty; Rebecca K. Golley; Patricia Leahy-Warren; Marian McBride; Elizabeth McCarthy; Andrew W Murphy; Sarah Redsell; Caroline B Terwee

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13797.1

Home Browse Which outcome measurement instruments are used to measure core infant...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

54

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Which outcome measurement instruments are used to measure core infant feeding outcomes in children up to 1 year of age? A scoping review protocol

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Karen Matvienko-Sikar ¹, Linda Adair², Lucinda K Bell³, [...] Catherine S Birken⁴, Vicki Brown⁵, Darren Dahly^1,6, Ann S Doherty⁷, Rebecca K. Golley³, Patricia Leahy-Warren⁸, Marian McBride⁹, Elizabeth McCarthy⁸, Andrew W Murphy¹⁰, Sarah Redsell¹¹, Caroline B Terwee^12,13

Karen Matvienko-Sikar ¹, Linda Adair², [...] Lucinda K Bell³, Catherine S Birken⁴, Vicki Brown⁵, Darren Dahly^1,6, Ann S Doherty⁷, Rebecca K. Golley³, Patricia Leahy-Warren⁸, Marian McBride⁹, Elizabeth McCarthy⁸, Andrew W Murphy¹⁰, Sarah Redsell¹¹, Caroline B Terwee^12,13

PUBLISHED 27 Nov 2023

Author details Author details

¹ School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, County Cork, Ireland
² Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
³ Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
⁴ Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Sickkids Research Institute and the Department of Paediatrics, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
⁵ Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
⁶ HRB Clinical Research Facility Cork, University College Cork, Cork, County Cork, Ireland
⁷ Department of General Practice, University College Cork, Cork, County Cork, Ireland
⁸ School of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, Cork, County Cork, Ireland
⁹ Health & Wellbeing, Strategy & Research, Healthcare Strategy, Health Service Executive, County Dublin, County Dublin, Ireland
¹⁰ Health Research Board Primary Care Clinical Trials Network Ireland, University of Galway, Galway, County Galway, Ireland
¹¹ School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England, UK
¹² Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, The Netherlands
¹³ Methodology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Karen Matvienko-Sikar
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Linda Adair
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Lucinda K Bell
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Catherine S Birken
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Vicki Brown
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Darren Dahly
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Ann S Doherty
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Rebecca K. Golley
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Patricia Leahy-Warren
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Marian McBride
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Elizabeth McCarthy
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Andrew W Murphy
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Sarah Redsell
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Caroline B Terwee
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Maternal and Child Health collection.

Abstract

Background

How, what, and when infants are fed plays a role in the aetiology of childhood obesity. Heterogeneity in how infant feeding outcomes are measured in trials of interventions to prevent childhood obesity limits evidence syntheses and understanding of intervention effectiveness. An infant feeding core outcome set (COS) was previously developed to standardised outcome measurement and reporting. The COS represents what to measure; determining how best to measure these outcomes is the next essential step to improve intervention evaluations. The aim of this scoping review is therefore to identify what outcome measurement instruments have been used in trials, and how they have been used, to measure the core infant feeding outcomes.

Methods

A scoping review will be conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, OpenGrey and GreyNet will be searched from inception. Papers are eligible for inclusion if they report trials involving primary data collection that measure and report at least one core infant feeding outcome in infants ≤one year of age. Following searching and screening, eligible studies will be categorised into the following four overarching categories for data extraction, synthesis and write-up: caregiver-related outcomes; diet-related outcomes; feeding environment outcomes; child weight outcomes. Data will be narratively described and presented in tabular format, with findings presented in four separate review papers delineated by the four overarching categories.

Discussion

This scoping review forms part of the Standardised measurement for Childhood Obesity Prevention (SCOPE) study (www.eiascope.com). Evidence from this scoping review on what measurement instruments are used, and how they are used, represents an essential first step in developing recommendations and guidance about how best to measure core infant feeding outcomes for childhood obesity prevention. This can improve evidence syntheses and understanding of what infant feeding interventions are most effective for childhood obesity prevention.

Keywords

Infant feeding, childhood obesity, measurement, evidence synthesis, scoping review, core outcome set

Corresponding author: Karen Matvienko-Sikar

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: Health Research Board (HRB EIA-2022-005) Emerging Investigator Award awarded to Karen Matvienko-Sikar. This work was also supported by the Centre of Research Excellence in Translating the Early Prevention of Obesity in Childhood (GNT2006999) where Rebecca Golley, Vicki Brown, Lucinda Bell, and Karen Matvienko-Sikar are researchers.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2023 Matvienko-Sikar K et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Matvienko-Sikar K, Adair L, Bell LK et al. Which outcome measurement instruments are used to measure core infant feeding outcomes in children up to 1 year of age? A scoping review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2023, 6:67 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13797.1) First published: 27 Nov 2023, 6:67 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13797.1) Latest published: 27 Nov 2023, 6:67 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13797.1)

Introduction

An estimated thirty-nine million children under the age of five years are living with childhood overweight or obesity worldwide¹. Childhood obesity is associated with obesity in adulthood and a range of other adverse outcomes including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, asthma², and mental health issues such as anxiety and depression^3,4. While the aetiology of childhood obesity is complex, evidence suggests that infant feeding plays a role^5–8.

Infant feeding relates to what, when, and how infants are fed during infancy (birth to one year of age). It includes behaviours such as breastfeeding, responding in a timely and developmentally appropriate manner to infant hunger and satiety cues, and the timing of solid food introduction. Complex obesity prevention interventions have been developed and evaluated that target infant feeding but the evidence base is inconsistent^9–12. Some of this inconsistency might be due to heterogeneity in what, and how, infant feeding outcomes are measured and reported across studies^13,14. This outcome heterogeneity impedes evidence synthesis, making it difficult to determine what interventions work, and for whom and in what circumstances^15–17. A review of infant feeding outcomes identified 236 reported outcomes across 126 studies¹³. To address this heterogeneity, a core outcome set (COS) of infant feeding outcomes was developed for use in trials of early childhood obesity prevention interventions^14,18.

Core outcome sets are standardised sets of outcomes for measurement and reporting in trials in specific health areas¹⁹. By reducing or eliminating outcome heterogeneity across studies, COS can prevent research waste and enhance evidence syntheses¹⁹. The infant feeding COS was developed following a systematic process involving evidence syntheses and a stakeholder consensus process involving caregivers, healthcare professionals, researchers and childcare professionals^14,18. The final COS includes 26 outcomes considered by stakeholders to be most important for inclusion in trials of early childhood obesity prevention interventions¹⁸. It includes outcomes related to breastfeeding and commercial milk formula feeding, age of introduction of solids, dietary intake, the feeding environment, child weight and growth, and parents’ knowledge, beliefs, perceptions and feeding practices¹⁸.

While the COS¹⁸ helps us understand what is most important to measure, the critical next step is identifying how to best measure core outcomes^19,20. Existing heterogeneity in measurement approaches can impede trialists decision-making about how best to measure outcomes, and choosing and including poor-quality measurement instruments that may not be fit-for-purpose can introduce bias in trial findings²¹. Further, evidence on factors influencing COS use by trialists has highlighted that lack of knowledge on how best to measure COS outcomes is a barrier to trialists using COS^22–24. Thus, not knowing how best to measure core outcomes can lead to reduced use of COS, which can contribute to outcome heterogeneity and research waste. Currently, there are multiple measurement approaches for measuring outcomes in infant feeding interventions, including surveys, psychometric questionnaires, clinical assessment tools, diary methods, and observation²⁵. In addition, measurements can be conducted in a variety of different ways across settings (e.g., research, practice, community settings) by different people (e.g., caregivers, healthcare professionals, researchers, childcare professionals).

Providing clear recommendations and guidance on how best to measure the core infant feeding outcomes for early childhood obesity prevention is essential to improve evaluation of intervention effectiveness. Recommendations and guidance should be appropriate for all contexts in which data for early childhood obesity prevention interventions are collected. The aim of the Standardised measurement for Childhood Obesity Prevention (SCOPE) project, of which the review outlined herein forms part, is to develop these recommendations and guidance (www.eiascope.com). To do so, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and COMET Initiatives guidance via identifying, evaluating, and selecting outcome measurement instruments for COS^21,26–28 will be used. The first step involves identifying what measurement instruments are currently used²⁶.

Some previous reviews have looked at measurement of infant feeding outcomes in the context of childhood obesity prevention, including those outcomes identified as core in the infant feeding COS¹⁸. The reviews that have been conducted^25,29 tend to focus on assessment in children spanning a broader age range than the infant feeding COS of up to one year old¹⁸. For instance, one review of outcome measurement instruments used to evaluate childhood obesity treatments examined measurements used with children up to 18 years old²⁵. While measurement instruments were identified for some core infant feeding outcomes, these were considered in a grouping of children aged up to 36 months²⁵. Similarly, a review of dietary assessment methods in children specified an age range of 0–18 years, with only two included studies examining outcomes in children under one year of age²⁹. Thus, there remains a gap in knowledge of what measurement instruments are used to measure core infant feeding outcomes for early childhood obesity prevention in children up to one year of age.

Given the range of potential measurement instruments available to measure core infant feeding outcomes, knowing what measurement instruments are used in trials, and how they are used (e.g., when and in what contexts), is the essential first step before evaluations of these measurement instruments and recommendations for use can be made. The aim of this scoping review is therefore to identify what outcome measurement instruments have been used in trials, and how they have been used, to measure the 26 outcomes included in the infant feeding COS¹⁸ for childhood obesity prevention interventions in children up to one year of age.

Methods

A scoping review will be conducted to identify what measurement instruments have been used in trials, and how they have been used, to measure core infant feeding outcomes. A scoping review is appropriate given the broad range of potential measurement instruments, and our aim to conduct a comprehensive examination of these instruments³⁰. This scoping review will be conducted following guidance from the Johanna Briggs Institute on scoping reviews³¹. The protocol is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)³².

Study eligibility

As this review will identify outcome measurement instruments, study eligibility will be informed by the population, constructs of interest, and type of measurement instrument (see Table 1). The population eligibility criteria are informed by an overview of core infant feeding outcome measurement aspects developed as part of the SCOPE study (see extended data). The construct eligibility criteria are derived from the infant feeding core outcomes set¹⁸. The types of measurement instruments were informed by a non-systematic review of measurement approaches identified in a previous review conducted during development of the infant feeding COS¹³, as well as studies included in a scoping review that informed development of a COS for childhood obesity prevention interventions in children aged up to five years³³. Types of measurement instruments include the what (e.g., questionnaire), the who (e.g., self-reported by parent), the how (e.g., online), and the where (e.g., at home). The SCOPE team see, who include experts in childhood obesity, infant feeding, measurement and dietary assessment, initially reviewed and discussed these types of measurement instruments. This was followed by a subsequent stakeholder meeting with healthcare professionals, researchers and caregivers, conducted to finalise the measurement aspects used to inform this review. Stakeholders (n=6) involved in the stakeholder meeting were based in Ireland (n=3), England (n=1), Israel (n=1), and Canada (n=1).

Table 1. Population, construct, and instrument eligibility criteria.

Population	Infants ≤one year of age born full term and not less than 37 weeks
Construct (Core infant feeding outcomes presented by outcome domain*)	Breastfeeding and formula feeding outcomes: 1. Duration of breastfeeding from mother 2. Duration of exclusive breastfeeding 3. Feeding method (breastfeeding directly, breastmilk feeding using a bottle, commercial milk formula, solids, combination) 4. Amount/volume of commercial milk formula fed to infant 5. Type of commercial milk formula fed to infant 6. Breastfeeding self-efficacy Introduction of solid foods outcome: 7. Age of introduction of solids Parents knowledge and beliefs outcomes: 8. Knowing what foods should be offered 9. Knowing how to offer solid foods Feeding practices and styles outcomes: 10. Pressuring the child to eat 11. Caregiver modelling of eating behaviours 12. Responsive infant feeding Practical feeding outcome: 13. Child self and/or assisted feeding Food environment outcomes: 14. Feeding environment 15. Offering healthy foods Dietary intake outcomes: 16. Types of food consumed 17. Portion size 18. Offering age-appropriate foods and beverages 19. Infant eating home-made food 20. Infant eating ready-made foods 21. Types of ‘other’ drinks consumed Parent perceptions of infant behaviour and preferences outcomes: 22. Caregiver perceptions of food preferences 23. Caregiver perceptions of infant satiety-responsiveness Weight related outcomes: 24. Child weight 25. Weight gain over time 26. Body composition
Measurement instruments	All measurement instruments/approaches, including but not limited to: questionnaires, individual survey items, diary approaches, healthcare records, dietary recall, direct observational methods, anthropometric measures (e.g., scales, growth charts, bioelectrical impedance analysis; dual energy x-ray absorptiometry)
Study designs	All trial designs

*Outcome names are presented as labelled in the infant feeding COS¹⁸ and by COS domains

Inclusion criteria: Studies must measure and report at least one core infant feeding outcome in infants ≤ one year of age who were born at full-term and not less than 37 weeks (see Table 1). All measurement approaches are eligible for inclusion due to the range of different approaches potentially used to measure different feeding outcomes. In addition, infant feeding outcomes in eligible studies can be measured and/or reported by caregivers of infants, researchers, healthcare professionals, and/or childcare professionals. They can also be measured in any setting and at any timepoint(s) in the first year. Studies reporting on trials of any design (e.g., pilot trials, randomised controlled trials, factorial trials) are eligible for inclusion.

Exclusion criteria: Studies are not eligible for inclusion if they examine outcomes in infants over one year of age; do not report at least one infant feeding outcome from the core outcome set; do not have childhood obesity prevention as either a primary or secondary focus; or do not report on measurement of a core infant feeding outcome. Non-trial designs, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and non-systematic reviews are not eligible for inclusion.

Search strategy

The following databases will be searched from inception: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Reference lists of eligible studies will be searched for additional relevant articles. Where relevant reviews (e.g., 25,29) are identified in searches, these will not be included in the review but reference lists will also be searched for additional relevant articles. A grey literature search will also be conducted using sources such as OpenGrey and GreyNet. There are no restrictions on date, language or location of publication. The search strategy in Table 2 will be used, with the search re-run prior to final analysis.

Table 2. Search terms.

	Terms
Population Infants up to one year of age	Infant OR infancy OR child OR children OR paediatri* OR pediatri* OR newborn* OR new-born* OR baby OR babies AND
Construct (infant feeding) Duration of breastfeeding from mother (directly or indirectly) Duration of exclusive breastfeeding Feeding method Amount/volume of formula fed to infant Breastfeeding self-efficacy	Breastfeed* OR “breast feed” OR breastfed OR breastmilk OR “breast milk” OR “human milk” “expressed milk” OR “formula milk” OR “formula feed” OR ‘Infant formula’ OR ‘baby formula’ OR “formula fed” OR “bottle fed” OR “bottle feed*” OR bottle-fed OR bottle-feeding feeding OR “Infant feeding” OR “baby feeding” OR “mixed feeding” “commercial milk formula” OR CFM
Age of introduction of solids	“introduction of solid” OR “introduction to solid” OR “weaning” OR “complementary food” OR “complementary feed” OR “first food” OR “first solid” OR “supplementary feed” OR “transition* to solid*”
Knowing what foods should be offered Knowing how to offer solid foods	“parent* knowledge” OR “caregiver knowledge” OR “parent* belief” OR “caregiver belief” OR “parent* understanding” OR “caregiver understanding” OR “parent* information” OR “caregiver information”
Pressuring the child to eat Caregiver modelling of eating behaviours
Responsive infant feeding	“feeding practice” OR “feeding style” OR “feeding pattern” OR “feeding behaviour” OR “feeding behavior” OR “feeding strategy” OR “feeding approach” OR “feeding habit” OR “feeding dynamics” OR “eating behaviour” OR “eating behavior” OR “parent* model” OR “caregiver model” OR role model” OR responsiv OR pressure* OR
Child self and/or assisted feeding	“self-feed” OR “baby led weaning” OR “baby-led weaning” OR “baby led feeding” OR “baby-led feeding” OR “self wean” OR self-wean” OR “spoon fed” OR “spoon feed” OR “finger food*”
Feeding environment Offering healthy foods	“food environment” OR “feeding environment” OR “eating environment” OR “meal environment” OR “nutrition environment” OR “food context” OR “foodscape” OR “social environment” OR “food availability” OR food choice* OR “food options” OR “food variety” OR “food culture” OR “feeding culture” OR “food norm” OR “feeding norm” OR “food proximity”
Types of food consumed Portion size Offering age-appropriate foods and beverages Infant eating home-made food Infant eating ready-made foods (e.g., commercial baby/infant weaning foods) Types of ‘other’ drinks consumed	diet* OR food OR eating OR fruit* OR vegetable* OR fat OR salt OR “fast food” OR “discretionary food” OR confectionary “junk food” OR meal OR snack* OR “diet* pattern” OR portion” OR “serving size” OR beverage* OR drink* OR juice OR “fizzy drink” OR “soft drink” OR home-made OR “homemade” or “home made” OR “home-prepared” OR “home prepared” OR “ready-made” or “ready made” OR
Caregiver perceptions of food preferences Caregiver perceptions of infant satiety-responsiveness	“parent* perception” Or “caregiver perception” OR “food preference” OR “taste preference” OR “diet preference” OR “diet preference” OR “eating preference” OR “hunger cue” OR “satiety cue” OR “fullness cue” OR feeding cue OR “eating cue*”
Child weight Weight gain over time Body composition	Weight OR “infant size” OR “body size” OR growth OR “body mass index” OR bmi OR skinfold OR “skin fold” OR “waist circumference” OR “waist-hip ratio” OR “waist hip ratio” OR adipos* OR overweight OR obes* OR OR anthropometric OR “body composition” OR “body fat” OR “fat mass” OR “lean mass” OR adipos OR “growth pattern” OR “growth trajectory” OR “body proportion” OR AND
Measurement instruments	None (to maximise identification of all approaches)
Study designs	RCT OR “Randomised control* trial” OR “Randomized control* trial” OR trial

In addition, two existing reviews will be used to supplement database searches to ensure that all relevant articles are identified: (1) the systematic review conducted as part of the infant feeding COS development¹³, (2) the scoping review conducted as part of development of the Centre of Research Excellence Early Prevention of Childhood Obesity (CRE-EPOCH) COS³³. The TOPCHILD¹¹ collaboration registry of early obesity prevention interventions will also be used as a resource to ensure that all relevant articles are identified.

Study screening and selection

Rayyan software will be used for study screening. Zotero software is also freely available and can perform equivalent functions for screening. Following deduplication of identified studies, the titles and abstracts of all studies will be independently screened in duplicate against eligibility criteria by two reviewers. Full text articles of remaining studies will then be screened independently in duplicate by two reviewers. Discrepancies in screening at title and abstract and/or full text screening stages will be resolved by discussion or recourse to a third reviewer as needed. Studies eligible for inclusion will then be categorised into the following four overarching categories for data extraction, synthesis and write-up:

1. Caregiver-related outcomes (knowing what foods should be offered; knowing how to offer solid foods; pressuring the child to eat; caregiver modelling of eating behaviours, responsive infant feeding; caregiver perceptions of food preferences; caregiver perceptions of infant satiety-responsiveness; child self and/or assisted feeding)
2. Diet-related outcomes (duration of breastfeeding from mother; duration of exclusive breastfeeding; feeding method; amount/volume of commercial milk formula fed to infant; type of commercial milk formula fed to infant; breastfeeding self-efficacy; age of introduction of solids; types of food consumed; portion size; offering age-appropriate foods and beverages; infant eating home-made food; infant eating ready-made foods; types of ‘other’ drinks consumed)
3. Feeding environment outcomes (feeding environment; offering healthy foods)
4. Child weight outcomes (child weight (include weight relative to length); weight gain over time; body composition)

Data extraction

The following data will be extracted for all studies independently and in duplicate by two reviewers: article details (author, title, year of publication, country of origin), study details (study design, setting), population characteristics (target population), construct details (infant feeding outcomes measured), outcome measurement instrument details (name of instrument/approach, type of measurement, mode of administration, response format, number of items where appropriate), and details of outcome measurement instrument use (timing of measurement, recall period where appropriate, where measurement took place, who conducted and/or completed the measurement, child’s age at measurement(s), frequency of measurement, any additional contextual measurement details). Pilot data extraction will be conducted with a subset of randomly selected papers prior to full data extraction to ensure the data extraction form is fit for purpose, and any modifications to the extraction process will be recorded and reported.

Quality assessment

Quality assessment will not be conducted as the aim of this study is to identify what measurement instruments are used, and how they are used, rather than to synthesise and interpret findings of studies³⁰. As such, quality assessment is not related to the aim of this research study.

Data summary

Findings will be narratively described and presented in tabular format for each core outcome. The tables will include details of the measurement instruments used, as well as details of the frequency of use of different measurement approaches for each outcome in the identified studies. Where there is variability in details extracted across studies (e.g., one study reporting use of a 12-question survey and another reporting that 'survey questions' were asked), these will be categorised by the project team for presentation in the narrative descriptions and/or tables. Where approaches are used to measure more than one feeding outcome (e.g., a single questionnaire measuring multiple parental feeding practices) this will also be presented. Findings will be presented in four separate review papers delineated by the four overarching categories: (1) caregiver-related outcomes, (2) diet-related outcomes, (3) feeding environment outcomes, and (4) child weight outcomes.

Discussion

This protocol outlines the first step in developing recommendations and guidelines for how to measure core infant feeding outcomes for childhood obesity prevention as part of the SCOPE study. Developing these recommendations and guidelines is essential to reducing heterogeneity in outcome measurement, increasing use of the infant feeding core outcome set¹⁸, and improving evaluation of childhood obesity prevention interventions.

Ethical considerations

As this is a scoping review, there are no potential ethical issues and ethical approval is not required.

Dissemination

Findings from this study will be disseminated as four review publications based on the four overarching feeding categories: caregiver-related outcomes, diet-related outcomes, feeding environment outcomes, and child weight outcomes. Findings will also be disseminated as presentations at academic conferences.

Data availability statement

Extended data

OSF: Which outcome measurement instruments are used to measure core infant feeding outcomes in children up to one year of age? A scoping review protocol https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PWA46.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons BY 4.0 Deed- Attribution 4.0 International. (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the stakeholders who contributed to the stakeholder meeting to finalise the core outcome measurement aspects that inform this review protocol: Catherine S. Birken, Ann Doherty, Elizabeth McCarthy, Laura McHugh, Ellinor Olander, Mary Rudolph. We would also like to thank Eibhlín Looney for technological assistance and minute-taking at the stakeholder meeting.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Obesity and overweight [Fact Sheet]. Geneva: World Health Organisation. 2019. Reference Source
2. Sharma V, Coleman S, Nixon J, et al.: A systematic review and meta‐analysis estimating the population prevalence of comorbidities in children and adolescents aged 5 to 18 years. Obes Rev. 2019; 20(10): 1341–1349. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Quek YH, Tam WWS, Zhang MWB, et al.: Exploring the association between childhood and adolescent obesity and depression: a meta-analysis. Depression and obesity in childhood and adolescence. Obes Rev. 2017; 18(7): 742–754. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Lindberg L, Hagman E, Danielsson P, et al.: Anxiety and depression in children and adolescents with obesity: a nationwide study in Sweden. BMC Med. 2020; 18(1): 30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Monasta L, Batty GD, Cattaneo A, et al.: Early-life determinants of overweight and obesity: a review of systematic reviews: Early-life determinants of obesity. Obes Rev. 2010; 11(10): 695–708. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Gibbs BG, Forste R: Socioeconomic status, infant feeding practices and early childhood obesity.^†: SES infant feeding and child obesity. Pediatr Obes. 2014; 9(2): 135–146. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Woo Baidal JA, Locks LM, Cheng ER, et al.: Risk Factors for Childhood Obesity in the First 1,000 Days: A Systematic Review. Am J Prev Med. 2016; 50(6): 761–779. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Horta BL, Rollins N, Dias MS, et al.: Systematic review and meta‐analysis of breastfeeding and later overweight or obesity expands on previous study for World Health Organization. Acta Paediatr. 2023; 112(1): 34–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Lioret S, Harrar F, Boccia D, et al.: The effectiveness of interventions during the first 1,000 days to improve energy balance‐related behaviors or prevent overweight/obesity in children from socio‐economically disadvantaged families of high‐income countries: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2023; 24(1): e13524. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
10. Redsell SA, Edmonds B, Swift JA, et al.: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of interventions that aim to reduce the risk, either directly or indirectly, of overweight and obesity in infancy and early childhood. Matern Child Nutr. 2016; 12(1): 24–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. Hunter KE, Johnson BJ, Askie L, et al.: Transforming Obesity Prevention for CHILDren (TOPCHILD) Collaboration: protocol for a systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis of behavioural interventions for the prevention of early childhood obesity. BMJ Open. 2022; 12(1): e048166. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. Matvienko-Sikar K, Toomey E, Delaney L, et al.: Effects of healthcare professional delivered early feeding interventions on feeding practices and dietary intake: A systematic review. Appetite. 2018; 123: 56–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Matvienko-Sikar K, Griffin C, McGrath N, et al.: Developing a core outcome set for childhood obesity prevention: A systematic review. Matern Child Nutr. 2019; 15(1): e12680. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
14. Matvienko-Sikar K, Byrne M, Kelly C, et al.: Development of an infant feeding core outcome set for childhood obesity interventions: study protocol. Trials. 2017; 18(1): 463. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
15. Jones PW, Kaplan RM: Methodological issues in evaluating measures of health as outcomes for COPD. Eur Respir J Suppl. 2003; 41: 13S–18s. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Schmucker C, Schell LK, Portalupi S, et al.: Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries. PLoS One. 2014; 9(12): e114023. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Matvienko-Sikar K, Terwee CB, Gargon E, et al.: The value of core outcome sets in health psychology. Br J Health Psychol. 2020; 25(3): 377–389. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Matvienko-Sikar K, Griffin C, Kelly C, et al.: A core outcome set for trials of infant-feeding interventions to prevent childhood obesity. Int J Obes (Lond). 2020; 44(10): 2035–2043. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, et al.: The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017; 18(Suppl 3): 280. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
20. Gorst SL, Prinsen CAC, Salcher-Konrad M, et al.: Methods used in the selection of instruments for outcomes included in core outcome sets have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 125: 64–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Bouter LM, et al.: The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther. 2016; 20(2): 105–113. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
22. Bellucci C, Hughes K, Toomey E, et al.: A survey of knowledge, perceptions and use of core outcome sets among clinical trialists. Trials. 2021; 22(1): 937. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
23. Hughes KL, Williamson PR, Young B: In-depth qualitative interviews identified barriers and facilitators that influenced chief investigators’ use of core outcome sets in randomised controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022; 144: 111–120. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
24. Matvienko-Sikar K, Avery K, Blazeby JM, et al.: Use of core outcome sets was low in clinical trials published in major medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022; 142: 19–28. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Bryant M, Ashton L, Brown J, et al.: Systematic review to identify and appraise outcome measures used to evaluate childhood obesity treatment interventions (CoOR): evidence of purpose, application, validity, reliability and sensitivity. Health Technol Assess. 2014; 18(51): 1–380. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
26. Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al.: How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” - a practical guideline. Trials. 2016; 17(1): 449. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al.: COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27(5): 1147–1157. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
28. Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, et al.: COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27(5): 1159–1170. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
29. Burrows T, Goldman S, Rollo M: A systematic review of the validity of dietary assessment methods in children when compared with the method of doubly labelled water. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2020; 74(5): 669–681. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
30. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, et al.: Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1): 143. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
31. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. (JBI), 2020. Publisher Full Text
32. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467–473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Brown V, Moodie M, Sultana M, et al.: A scoping review of outcomes commonly reported in obesity prevention interventions aiming to improve obesity-related health behaviors in children to age 5 years. Obes Rev. 2022; 23(5): e13427. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 27 Nov 2023