About this article
Published Online: Feb 14, 2020
Page range: 123 - 128
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/connections-2019.017
Keywords
© 2020 Sabina B. Gesell et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
| Response rate | The most conservative ‘intent-to-treat’ response rates, based on the full sample denominator, regardless of retention or administration issues or face-to-face intervention dose: |
| Baseline: | |
| Month 3: | |
| Month 12: | |
| Month 36: | |
| Week 3: | |
| Week 6: | |
| Month 3: | |
| [Trial retention at 3 years was 550/610 (90.2%) based on primary outcome, child BMI] | |
| Non-respondent bias | Differential SN completion rates: |
| Baseline: | |
| Intervention | |
| Control | |
| Month 3: | |
| Intervention | |
| Control | |
| Month 12: | |
| Intervention | |
| Control | |
| Month 36: | |
| Intervention | |
| Control | |
| [Trial differential dropout based on primary outcome (child BMI) was 91.4% ( | |
| Theoretical grouping | These data were collected as part of a community-based pediatric obesity prevention intervention. At baseline, 304/610 parents were randomized to the intervention group and assigned to one of 30 small groups of approximately 10 participants. The intervention was delivered in these small groups of the same participants who met weekly for 12 weeks |
| Publications using this data | |
| Data context | Randomized controlled trial |
| Respondents | Low-income parents with children 3 to 5 years of age, predominantly Hispanic |
| Longitudinal | Yes |
4 timepoints over 3 years 3 timepoints over 3 months | |
| Temporality | In the Full Network Dataset the network is sparse, with a notable trend for participants in the intervention arm to form ties with other intervention participants (increased from 16.4% at baseline to 28.1 and 37.6% at 12 and 36 months, respectively), whereas participants in the control group formed ties at a notably slower rate and had comparatively fewer ties to participants in the intervention (increased from 10.1% at baseline to 12.0 and 17.1% at 12 and 36 months, respectively). (Paper under review) |
| In the Discussion and advice network dataset, 34% of participants did not seek advice from anyone, 22% sought advice from one person, and 44% sought advice from two or more people. Seven participants listed the maximum of seven possible advice nominations | |
| Analytical or pedagogical utility | Analysis of social network and health behavior data collected at the same time points Analysis of development of new social ties within the context of a group intervention, including comparison of intervention and control group, and comparison among 30 small intervention subgroups Analysis of multiplex ties |
| Known issues | |
Rolling recruitment and data collection over 1.5 years affected the utility of the Full Network dataset. It limited potential bidirectionality (e.g., earlier recruits could not nominate later recruits at baseline), and the temporal proximity of outcome collection between nominator and nominee is not always guaranteed |