Validation of remote child weight and height measurements within a weight management trial

Objective The aim of this substudy within the Treatment Efforts Addressing Child Weight Management by Unifying Patients, Parents, and Providers (TEAM UP) pragmatic clinical trial was to compare the validity of anthropometric measurements collected remotely versus in person (≤7 days apart) among yout...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) Vol. 32; no. 4; pp. 660 - 666
Main Authors: Button, Alyssa M., Staiano, Amanda E., Beyl, Robbie A., Stein, Richard I., Newton, Robert L., Baker, Alison, Lima, Angela, Lindros, Jeanne, Conn, Anne‐Marie, Welch, R. Robinson, Cook, Stephen R., Wilfley, Denise E.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.04.2024
Subjects:
Adolescent
Body Height
Body Mass Index
Body Weight
Child
Children & youth
Families & family life
Humans
Obesity
Parents
Parents & parenting
Telemedicine
Validity
Video teleconferencing
Weight control
ISSN:1930-7381, 1930-739X, 1930-739X
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective The aim of this substudy within the Treatment Efforts Addressing Child Weight Management by Unifying Patients, Parents, and Providers (TEAM UP) pragmatic clinical trial was to compare the validity of anthropometric measurements collected remotely versus in person (≤7 days apart) among youth with obesity who were 6 to 15 years of age. Methods Child (n = 37) weight and height were measured in person by a trained data assessor. These were compared with measurements taken remotely by the child's parent with live videoconferencing observation by a study data assessor. In‐person and remote measurements were compared using Bland–Altman plots, Pearson correlations, and two one‐sided paired t tests. A priori bounds of acceptability were set at ±0.68 kg to allow for typical weight fluctuations within the 7‐day comparison period. Results Measurements were highly correlated (height: r = 0.991, p < 0.0001; weight: r = 0.999; p = 0.03). For height, two one‐sided t tests for upper, t(36) = 3.95, and lower, t(36) = −2.63, bounds (−1, 1) revealed an overall p = 0.006; absolute error was 3.5 cm. For weight, two one‐sided t tests for upper, t(36) = 1.93, and lower, t(36) = −7.91, bounds (−0.68, 0.68) revealed an overall p = 0.03; absolute error was 1.7 kg. Conclusions The present findings support the utility and interpretation of remotely assessed weight management outcomes for both research and clinical purposes. These procedures may offer greater accessibility to evidence‐based measurement.
Bibliography:Stephen R. Cook and Denise E. Wilfley are dual principal investigators.
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:1930-7381
1930-739X
1930-739X
DOI:10.1002/oby.23972