Trial Outcomes & Findings for Enhancing Child Dietary Self-monitoring (NCT NCT06193967)
NCT ID: NCT06193967
Last Updated: 2025-12-03
Results Overview
I.e., number of days with any logging. DSM frequency has been shown to predict success in family-based based childhood overweight and obesity programs. A day will be counted as "tracked" if any food or beverage is logged on that day or, if no food or beverage is logged, the "Logging Complete" button is clicked.
COMPLETED
NA
19 participants
4 weeks
2025-12-03
Participant Flow
Numbers for Protocol Enrollment, Number Started, and Number Completed reflect dyads
Participant milestones
| Measure |
BASIC
Children will be asked to track their intake of fruits, vegetables, sweet and salty snack foods, and sugary drinks in the web-based dietary self-monitoring (DSM) log for 4 weeks. Each child will be provided with a personal URL to access their log, which can be accessed from any internet-capable device (computer, phone, etc.). Caregivers will be asked to review their child's log each day and complete a caregiver check-in in the DSM log.
|
PRAISE
In addition to conditions of the BASIC group, caregivers will also be asked to provide praise to their child for engaging in DSM over the 4 weeks. Additionally, when the caregiver completes caregiver check-ins in the DSM log, they will receive a prompt to also complete a praise check-in.
Caregiver Praise: Caregivers will provide praise for child's engagement in dietary self-monitoring behaviors as a form of positive reinforcement
|
GAME
In addition to the conditions of the BASIC group, the child's log will also include a virtual pet that evolves over time as he/she uses the log. As the child earns points, the pet will level up and grow over time.
Gamification: DSM logs will include gamification (points, levels, virtual pets) as positive reinforcement for child's engagement in dietary self-monitoring behaviors
|
PRAISE+GAME
In addition to conditions of the BASIC group, caregivers will also be asked to provide praise to their child for engaging in DSM over the 4 weeks. Additionally, when the caregiver completes caregiver check-ins in the DSM log, they will receive a prompt to also complete a praise check-in. The child's log will also include a virtual pet that evolves over time as he/she uses the log. As the child earns points, the pet will level up and grow over time.
Caregiver Praise: Caregivers will provide praise for child's engagement in dietary self-monitoring behaviors as a form of positive reinforcement
Gamification: DSM logs will include gamification (points, levels, virtual pets) as positive reinforcement for child's engagement in dietary self-monitoring behaviors
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
|
Overall Study
Children
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
|
Overall Study
Caregivers
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Reasons for withdrawal
Withdrawal data not reported
Baseline Characteristics
Child only measure
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
BASIC
n=10 Participants
Children will be asked to track their intake of fruits, vegetables, sweet and salty snack foods, and sugary drinks in the web-based dietary self-monitoring (DSM) log for 4 weeks. Each child will be provided with a personal URL to access their log, which can be accessed from any internet-capable device (computer, phone, etc.). Caregivers will be asked to review their child's log each day and complete a caregiver check-in in the DSM log.
|
PRAISE
n=10 Participants
In addition to conditions of the BASIC group, caregivers will also be asked to provide praise to their child for engaging in DSM over the 4 weeks. Additionally, when the caregiver completes caregiver check-ins in the DSM log, they will receive a prompt to also complete a praise check-in.
Caregiver Praise: Caregivers will provide praise for child's engagement in dietary self-monitoring behaviors as a form of positive reinforcement
|
GAME
n=10 Participants
In addition to the conditions of the BASIC group, the child's log will also include a virtual pet that evolves over time as he/she uses the log. As the child earns points, the pet will level up and grow over time.
Gamification: DSM logs will include gamification (points, levels, virtual pets) as positive reinforcement for child's engagement in dietary self-monitoring behaviors
|
PRAISE+GAME
n=8 Participants
In addition to conditions of the BASIC group, caregivers will also be asked to provide praise to their child for engaging in DSM over the 4 weeks. Additionally, when the caregiver completes caregiver check-ins in the DSM log, they will receive a prompt to also complete a praise check-in. The child's log will also include a virtual pet that evolves over time as he/she uses the log. As the child earns points, the pet will level up and grow over time.
Caregiver Praise: Caregivers will provide praise for child's engagement in dietary self-monitoring behaviors as a form of positive reinforcement
Gamification: DSM logs will include gamification (points, levels, virtual pets) as positive reinforcement for child's engagement in dietary self-monitoring behaviors
|
Total
n=38 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Continuous
|
43.0 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.6 • n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
43.0 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.1 • n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
44.0 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.6 • n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
41.0 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.7 • n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
42.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.9 • n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
3 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
3 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
5 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
4 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
15 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
2 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
2 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
4 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
|
5 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
5 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
5 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
4 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
19 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
|
5 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
3 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
5 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
2 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
15 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
2 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Child BMI Percentile
|
37.0 percentile
STANDARD_DEVIATION 17.8 • n=5 Participants • Child only measure
|
76.8 percentile
STANDARD_DEVIATION 30.9 • n=5 Participants • Child only measure
|
68.6 percentile
STANDARD_DEVIATION 33.7 • n=5 Participants • Child only measure
|
60.0 percentile
STANDARD_DEVIATION 31.8 • n=4 Participants • Child only measure
|
60.6 percentile
STANDARD_DEVIATION 30.8 • n=19 Participants • Child only measure
|
|
Caregiver marital status
Married
|
5 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
5 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
4 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
3 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
17 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Caregiver marital status
Never married
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Caregiver marital status
Refused to answer
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Caregiver education level
Grade 12 or GED (high school graduate)
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Caregiver education level
College 1 year to 3 years (some college or technical school)
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Caregiver education level
College 4 years or more (college graduate)
|
5 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
4 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
4 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
4 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
17 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Household income
Less than $10,000
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Household income
$10,000 to $19,999
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Household income
$20,000 to $29,999
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Household income
$30,000 to $39,999
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Household income
$40,000 to $49,999
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Household income
$50,000 to $59,999
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Household income
$60,000 to $69,999
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Household income
$70,000 to $79,999
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Household income
$80,000 to $89,999
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Household income
$90,000 to $99,999
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Household income
$100,000 to $149,999
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
2 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
4 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Household income
$150,000 or more
|
5 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
3 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
3 Participants
n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1 Participants
n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
12 Participants
n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Caregiver Parenting Styles & Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ) score
Authoritative domain
|
4.1 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.1 • n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
4.2 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.5 • n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
4.1 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.2 • n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
4.2 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.3 • n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
4.1 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.3 • n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Caregiver Parenting Styles & Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ) score
Authoritarian domain
|
1.5 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.2 • n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1.5 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.3 • n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1.8 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.3 • n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1.7 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.5 • n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
1.6 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.3 • n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
|
Caregiver Parenting Styles & Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ) score
Permissive domain
|
2.0 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6 • n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
2.1 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.7 • n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
2.6 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.7 • n=5 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
2.0 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.3 • n=4 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
2.2 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6 • n=19 Participants • Caregiver only measure
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 4 weeksPopulation: Dyads were randomized by condition (BASIC, PRAISE, GAME, or PRAISE+GAME). However, factorial analysis was used to calculate the main effects of the independent variables, i.e. assignment to praise and assignment to gamification. Therefore, the table presents results for the same 19 enrolled children twice: 1) as assigned to praise versus not assigned to praise and 2) as assigned to gamification versus not assigned to gamification.
I.e., number of days with any logging. DSM frequency has been shown to predict success in family-based based childhood overweight and obesity programs. A day will be counted as "tracked" if any food or beverage is logged on that day or, if no food or beverage is logged, the "Logging Complete" button is clicked.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No Caregiver Praise
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from BASIC and GAME)
|
Caregiver Praise
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from PRAISE and PRAISE+GAME)
|
No Gamification
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from BASIC and PRAISE)
|
Gamification
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from GAME and PRAISE+GAME)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dietary Self-monitoring Frequency, Overall
|
23.0 days
Standard Error 1.4
|
24.3 days
Standard Error 1.4
|
22.0 days
Standard Error 1.3
|
25.3 days
Standard Error 1.4
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 4 weeksPopulation: Dyads were randomized by condition (BASIC, PRAISE, GAME, or PRAISE+GAME). However, factorial analysis was used to calculate the main effects of the independent variables, i.e. assignment to praise and assignment to gamification. Therefore, the table presents results for the same 19 enrolled children twice: 1) as assigned to praise versus not assigned to praise and 2) as assigned to gamification versus not assigned to gamification.
I.e., number of days with any logging per week
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No Caregiver Praise
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from BASIC and GAME)
|
Caregiver Praise
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from PRAISE and PRAISE+GAME)
|
No Gamification
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from BASIC and PRAISE)
|
Gamification
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from GAME and PRAISE+GAME)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dietary Self-monitoring Frequency, Weekly
Week 2
|
6.0 days
Standard Error 0.4
|
6.5 days
Standard Error 0.4
|
5.9 days
Standard Error 0.4
|
6.6 days
Standard Error 0.4
|
|
Dietary Self-monitoring Frequency, Weekly
Week 3
|
5.4 days
Standard Error 0.5
|
6.5 days
Standard Error 0.5
|
5.4 days
Standard Error 0.5
|
6.5 days
Standard Error 0.5
|
|
Dietary Self-monitoring Frequency, Weekly
Week 4
|
4.8 days
Standard Error 0.7
|
4.6 days
Standard Error 0.8
|
4.0 days
Standard Error 0.7
|
5.4 days
Standard Error 0.8
|
|
Dietary Self-monitoring Frequency, Weekly
Week 1
|
6.8 days
Standard Error 0.1
|
6.8 days
Standard Error 0.1
|
6.7 days
Standard Error 0.1
|
6.9 days
Standard Error 0.1
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 4 weeksPopulation: Dyads were randomized by condition (BASIC, PRAISE, GAME, or PRAISE+GAME). However, factorial analysis was used to calculate the main effects of the independent variables, i.e. assignment to praise and assignment to gamification. Therefore, the table presents results for the same 19 enrolled children twice: 1) as assigned to praise versus not assigned to praise and 2) as assigned to gamification versus not assigned to gamification.
Proportion of food/beverage items that were tracked on the day of intake across the 4-week DSM period
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No Caregiver Praise
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from BASIC and GAME)
|
Caregiver Praise
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from PRAISE and PRAISE+GAME)
|
No Gamification
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from BASIC and PRAISE)
|
Gamification
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from GAME and PRAISE+GAME)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proportion of Items Tracked on Day of Intake, Overall
|
0.73 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.05
|
0.69 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.06
|
0.70 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.05
|
0.73 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.06
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 4 weeksPopulation: Dyads were randomized by condition (BASIC, PRAISE, GAME, or PRAISE+GAME). However, factorial analysis was used to calculate the main effects of the independent variables, i.e. assignment to praise and assignment to gamification. Therefore, the table presents results for the same 19 enrolled children twice: 1) as assigned to praise versus not assigned to praise and 2) as assigned to gamification versus not assigned to gamification.
Proportion of food/beverage items that were tracked on the day of intake by week
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No Caregiver Praise
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from BASIC and GAME)
|
Caregiver Praise
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from PRAISE and PRAISE+GAME)
|
No Gamification
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from BASIC and PRAISE)
|
Gamification
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from GAME and PRAISE+GAME)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proportion of Items Tracked on Day of Intake, Weekly
Week 1
|
0.84 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.06
|
0.82 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.07
|
0.82 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.06
|
0.84 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.07
|
|
Proportion of Items Tracked on Day of Intake, Weekly
Week 2
|
0.71 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.09
|
0.68 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.09
|
0.68 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.09
|
0.71 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.09
|
|
Proportion of Items Tracked on Day of Intake, Weekly
Week 3
|
0.69 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.09
|
0.61 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.09
|
0.64 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.09
|
0.66 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.09
|
|
Proportion of Items Tracked on Day of Intake, Weekly
Week 4
|
0.67 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.12
|
0.52 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.13
|
0.59 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.12
|
0.59 proportion of items tracked
Standard Error 0.13
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 4 weeksPopulation: Dyads were randomized by condition (BASIC, PRAISE, GAME, or PRAISE+GAME). However, factorial analysis was used to calculate the main effects of the independent variables, i.e. assignment to praise and assignment to gamification. Therefore, the table presents results for the same 19 enrolled children twice: 1) as assigned to praise versus not assigned to praise and 2) as assigned to gamification versus not assigned to gamification.
The average number of logging sessions per day. Sessions were considered distinct tracking events if they occurred \>15 minutes apart.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No Caregiver Praise
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from BASIC and GAME)
|
Caregiver Praise
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from PRAISE and PRAISE+GAME)
|
No Gamification
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from BASIC and PRAISE)
|
Gamification
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from GAME and PRAISE+GAME)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of Logging Sessions, Overall
|
24.6 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 2.8
|
21.5 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 2.9
|
22.4 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 2.8
|
23.7 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 2.9
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 4 weeksPopulation: Dyads were randomized by condition (BASIC, PRAISE, GAME, or PRAISE+GAME). However, factorial analysis was used to calculate the main effects of the independent variables, i.e. assignment to praise and assignment to gamification. Therefore, the table presents results for the same 19 enrolled children twice: 1) as assigned to praise versus not assigned to praise and 2) as assigned to gamification versus not assigned to gamification.
The average number of logging sessions per day. Sessions were considered distinct tracking events if they occurred \>15 minutes apart.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No Caregiver Praise
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from BASIC and GAME)
|
Caregiver Praise
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from PRAISE and PRAISE+GAME)
|
No Gamification
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from BASIC and PRAISE)
|
Gamification
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from GAME and PRAISE+GAME)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of Logging Sessions, Weekly
Week 1
|
7.0 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 0.6
|
7.2 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 0.7
|
7.1 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 0.6
|
7.1 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 0.7
|
|
Number of Logging Sessions, Weekly
Week 2
|
8.1 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 1.2
|
5.2 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 1.3
|
7.2 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 1.2
|
6.1 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 1.3
|
|
Number of Logging Sessions, Weekly
Week 3
|
5.0 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 0.8
|
5.6 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 0.9
|
5.0 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 0.8
|
5.6 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 0.9
|
|
Number of Logging Sessions, Weekly
Week 4
|
4.5 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 0.7
|
3.3 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 0.7
|
3.1 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 0.7
|
4.7 logging sessions/day
Standard Error 0.7
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 4 weeksPopulation: Dyads were randomized by condition (BASIC, PRAISE, GAME, or PRAISE+GAME). However, factorial analysis was used to calculate the main effects of the independent variables, i.e. assignment to praise and assignment to gamification. Therefore, the table presents results for the same 19 enrolled children twice: 1) as assigned to praise versus not assigned to praise and 2) as assigned to gamification versus not assigned to gamification.
Gamification and caregiver praise may differentially affect child motivation to engage in DSM. The Task Evaluation Questionnaire of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) was used to determine whether there were differences in pre-post changes in child intrinsic motivation. This questionnaire consists of 22 items and utilizes a 5-point Likert scale (not at all true to very true) to assess interest/enjoyment, perceived choice, perceived competence, and pressure/tension. At baseline, the measure was administered after the child has practiced using the log with the research assistant so that he or she had some familiarity with the behavior before completing the measure. Scales range from 1 to 7, with a higher score indicating a greater degree of the respective motivation subdomain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No Caregiver Praise
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from BASIC and GAME)
|
Caregiver Praise
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from PRAISE and PRAISE+GAME)
|
No Gamification
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from BASIC and PRAISE)
|
Gamification
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from GAME and PRAISE+GAME)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Child Intrinsic Motivation
Perceived competence
|
5.4 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.4
|
4.7 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.5
|
4.4 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.4
|
5.6 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.4
|
|
Child Intrinsic Motivation
Interest/enjoyment
|
4.7 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.6
|
3.9 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.6
|
3.3 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.6
|
5.2 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.6
|
|
Child Intrinsic Motivation
Perceived choice
|
4.8 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.4
|
5.5 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.4
|
5.4 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.4
|
4.8 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.4
|
|
Child Intrinsic Motivation
Pressure/tension
|
1.8 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.3
|
3.5 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.3
|
1.9 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.3
|
2.4 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.3
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 4 weeksPopulation: Dyads were randomized by condition (BASIC, PRAISE, GAME, or PRAISE+GAME). However, factorial analysis was used to calculate the main effects of the independent variables, i.e. assignment to praise and assignment to gamification. Therefore, the table presents results for the same 19 enrolled children twice: 1) as assigned to praise versus not assigned to praise and 2) as assigned to gamification versus not assigned to gamification.
Child's motivation to change eating habits will be measured, as this may influence engagement in DSM. Children will be asked to complete the 8-item diet subscale of the Motivation to Exercise and Diet Questionnaire-Adapted for Children (MED-C), which is based on self-determination theory. The MED-C diet subscale utilizes a 5-point Likert scale (never to always) and includes 5 items related to motivation and 3 items related to self-determination theory needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness). This validity of the questionnaire has been tested in children aged 7 to 11 years. Scale ranges from 0 to 32, with a higher score indicating greater motivation to change eating habits.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No Caregiver Praise
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from BASIC and GAME)
|
Caregiver Praise
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from PRAISE and PRAISE+GAME)
|
No Gamification
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from BASIC and PRAISE)
|
Gamification
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from GAME and PRAISE+GAME)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Child Motivation to Change Eating Behaviors
|
30.9 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.7
|
30.4 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.8
|
30.1 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.7
|
31.2 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.8
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 4 weeksPopulation: Dyads were randomized by condition (BASIC, PRAISE, GAME, or PRAISE+GAME). However, factorial analysis was used to calculate the main effects of the independent variables, i.e. assignment to praise and assignment to gamification. Therefore, the table presents results for the same 19 enrolled children twice: 1) as assigned to praise versus not assigned to praise and 2) as assigned to gamification versus not assigned to gamification.
The act of self-monitoring a behavior may result in reactivity, or improvements in the monitored behavior in the absence of other intervention. Thus, child dietary intake will also be assessed at baseline and follow-up using the Block Food Screener for Ages 2-17 2007. The instrument asks about intake in the "last week" and focuses on take of fruit, fruit juices, vegetables, potatoes (including French fries), whole grains, animal-based proteins, dairy, legumes, saturated fat, added sugars (in sweetened cereals, sugar sweetened beverages), glycemic load and glycemic index. It takes approximately 10-12 minutes to complete.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No Caregiver Praise
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from BASIC and GAME)
|
Caregiver Praise
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from PRAISE and PRAISE+GAME)
|
No Gamification
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from BASIC and PRAISE)
|
Gamification
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from GAME and PRAISE+GAME)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Child Dietary Intake, Fruit
|
1.2 cup equivalents
Standard Error 0.2
|
0.9 cup equivalents
Standard Error 0.2
|
0.9 cup equivalents
Standard Error 0.2
|
1.2 cup equivalents
Standard Error 0.2
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 4 weeksPopulation: Dyads were randomized by condition (BASIC, PRAISE, GAME, or PRAISE+GAME). However, factorial analysis was used to calculate the main effects of the independent variables, i.e. assignment to praise and assignment to gamification. Therefore, the table presents results for the same 19 enrolled children twice: 1) as assigned to praise versus not assigned to praise and 2) as assigned to gamification versus not assigned to gamification.
The act of self-monitoring a behavior may result in reactivity, or improvements in the monitored behavior in the absence of other intervention. Thus, child dietary intake will also be assessed at baseline and follow-up using the Block Food Screener for Ages 2-17 2007. The instrument asks about intake in the "last week" and focuses on take of fruit, fruit juices, vegetables, potatoes (including French fries), whole grains, animal-based proteins, dairy, legumes, saturated fat, added sugars (in sweetened cereals, sugar sweetened beverages), glycemic load and glycemic index. It takes approximately 10-12 minutes to complete.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No Caregiver Praise
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from BASIC and GAME)
|
Caregiver Praise
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from PRAISE and PRAISE+GAME)
|
No Gamification
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from BASIC and PRAISE)
|
Gamification
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from GAME and PRAISE+GAME)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Child Dietary Intake, Vegetables Excluding Potatoes
|
.6 cup equivalents
Standard Error .1
|
.6 cup equivalents
Standard Error .1
|
.4 cup equivalents
Standard Error .1
|
.8 cup equivalents
Standard Error .1
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 4 weeksPopulation: Dyads were randomized by condition (BASIC, PRAISE, GAME, or PRAISE+GAME). However, factorial analysis was used to calculate the main effects of the independent variables, i.e. assignment to praise and assignment to gamification. Therefore, the table presents results for the same 19 enrolled children twice: 1) as assigned to praise versus not assigned to praise and 2) as assigned to gamification versus not assigned to gamification.
The act of self-monitoring a behavior may result in reactivity, or improvements in the monitored behavior in the absence of other intervention. Thus, child dietary intake will also be assessed at baseline and follow-up using the Block Food Screener for Ages 2-17 2007. The instrument asks about intake in the "last week" and focuses on take of fruit, fruit juices, vegetables, potatoes (including French fries), whole grains, animal-based proteins, dairy, legumes, saturated fat, added sugars (in sweetened cereals, sugar sweetened beverages), glycemic load and glycemic index. It takes approximately 10-12 minutes to complete.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No Caregiver Praise
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from BASIC and GAME)
|
Caregiver Praise
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from PRAISE and PRAISE+GAME)
|
No Gamification
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from BASIC and PRAISE)
|
Gamification
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from GAME and PRAISE+GAME)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Child Dietary Intake, Potatoes
|
.2 cup equivalents
Standard Error .04
|
.2 cup equivalents
Standard Error .04
|
.1 cup equivalents
Standard Error .03
|
.3 cup equivalents
Standard Error .04
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 4 weeksPopulation: Dyads were randomized by condition (BASIC, PRAISE, GAME, or PRAISE+GAME). However, factorial analysis was used to calculate the main effects of the independent variables, i.e. assignment to praise and assignment to gamification. Therefore, the table presents results for the same 19 enrolled children twice: 1) as assigned to praise versus not assigned to praise and 2) as assigned to gamification versus not assigned to gamification.
The act of self-monitoring a behavior may result in reactivity, or improvements in the monitored behavior in the absence of other intervention. Thus, child dietary intake will also be assessed at baseline and follow-up using the Block Food Screener for Ages 2-17 2007. The instrument asks about intake in the "last week" and focuses on take of fruit, fruit juices, vegetables, potatoes (including French fries), whole grains, animal-based proteins, dairy, legumes, saturated fat, added sugars (in sweetened cereals, sugar sweetened beverages), glycemic load and glycemic index. It takes approximately 10-12 minutes to complete.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No Caregiver Praise
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from BASIC and GAME)
|
Caregiver Praise
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from PRAISE and PRAISE+GAME)
|
No Gamification
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from BASIC and PRAISE)
|
Gamification
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from GAME and PRAISE+GAME)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Child Dietary Intake, Sweet & Salty Snack Foods
|
36.5 g
Standard Error 7.9
|
46.5 g
Standard Error 8.4
|
38.3 g
Standard Error 8.0
|
44.7 g
Standard Error 8.5
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 4 weeksPopulation: Dyads were randomized by condition (BASIC, PRAISE, GAME, or PRAISE+GAME). However, factorial analysis was used to calculate the main effects of the independent variables, i.e. assignment to praise and assignment to gamification. Therefore, the table presents results for the same 19 enrolled children twice: 1) as assigned to praise versus not assigned to praise and 2) as assigned to gamification versus not assigned to gamification.
The act of self-monitoring a behavior may result in reactivity, or improvements in the monitored behavior in the absence of other intervention. Thus, child dietary intake will also be assessed at baseline and follow-up using the Block Food Screener for Ages 2-17 2007. The instrument asks about intake in the "last week" and focuses on take of fruit, fruit juices, vegetables, potatoes (including French fries), whole grains, animal-based proteins, dairy, legumes, saturated fat, added sugars (in sweetened cereals, sugar sweetened beverages), glycemic load and glycemic index. It takes approximately 10-12 minutes to complete.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No Caregiver Praise
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from BASIC and GAME)
|
Caregiver Praise
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive caregiver praise (i.e., participants from PRAISE and PRAISE+GAME)
|
No Gamification
n=10 Participants
Children not assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from BASIC and PRAISE)
|
Gamification
n=9 Participants
Children assigned to receive gamification (i.e., participants from GAME and PRAISE+GAME)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Child Dietary Intake, Sugar-sweetened Beverages
|
28.1 kilocalories
Standard Error 7.8
|
26.0 kilocalories
Standard Error 8.2
|
33.2 kilocalories
Standard Error 7.7
|
20.9 kilocalories
Standard Error 8.2
|
Adverse Events
Children: BASIC
Children: PRAISE
Children: GAME
Children: PRAISE+GAME
Parent: BASIC
Parent: PRAISE
Parent: GAME
Parent: PRAISE+GAME
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place