School-Based Body Mass Index Screening and Parent Notification A Statewide Natural Experiment

Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California St, Box 0503, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA.
JAMA Pediatrics (Impact Factor: 4.25). 07/2011; 165(11):987-92. DOI: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.127
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) screening with parental notification on weight status for California public school students.
A natural experiment wherein nearly all California school districts conducted annual BMI screening in the fifth, seventh, and ninth grades, but parental notification of BMI screening results was optional.
Data from mandatory fitness testing in California public schools for 2001 through 2008.
A total of 6 967 120 fifth-, seventh-, and ninth-grade youth (73% of enrolled students).
School-based BMI screening with optional parent notification.
Body mass index z score was the main outcome in adjusted mixed-effects linear regression models, assessing whether notifying parents of their child's BMI in a given year predicted BMI z score 2 years hence.
Rates of parental notification of BMI screening results increased from 35% in 2001 to 52% in 2008. Body mass index notification in fifth and/or seventh grade had no impact on subsequent BMI z scores (95% confidence interval, -0.03 to 0.01) compared with no notification. No differences in the impact of notification were seen by race/ethnicity. Results did not vary with sensitivity analyses.
These findings suggest that while BMI screening itself could have benefits, parental notification in its current form may not reduce pediatric obesity. Until effective methods of notification are identified, schools should consider directing resources to policies and programs proven to improve student health.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine whether a single session of motivational interviewing (MI) for feedback of a child's overweight status promotes engagement in treatment following screening. One thousand ninety-three children aged 4-8 years were recruited through primary and secondary care to attend health screening, including assessment of parenting practices and motivation (questionnaire). Families with normal-weight children were informed about their child's weight but had no further involvement. Parents of overweight (body mass index ≥85th percentile) children (n = 271) were randomised to receive weight feedback via MI or best practice care (BPC) using a traffic light concept to indicate degree of health risk. Follow-up interviews were held 2 weeks later to examine intervention uptake, changes to motivation and behaviour, and parental response to feedback. Recruitment into the intervention was high (76%) and not altered by feedback condition (percentage difference 6.6 (95% confidence interval -2.9, 16.0). High scores on the Health Care Climate Questionnaire (rating of the interviewer) indicated satisfaction with how the information was provided to parents. No differences were observed in multiple indicators of harm. However, self-determined motivation for healthy life-styles was significantly higher in the MI condition at follow-up (0.18: 0.00, 0.35), after only a single session of MI. MI and BPC were both successful in encouraging parents to participate in a family-based intervention, with MI offering little significant benefit over BPC. A traffic light approach to weight feedback is a suitable way of providing sensitive information to parents not expecting such news.
    Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 03/2014; 50(6). DOI:10.1111/jpc.12518 · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND Whereas legislation for body mass index (BMI) surveillance and screening programs has passed in 25 states, the programs are often subject to ethical debates about confidentiality and privacy, school-to-parent communication, and safety and self-esteem issues for students. Despite this debate, no comprehensive analysis has been completed that compares and contrasts how these issues differentially affect schools, parents, and students.METHODSA keyword search from electronic databases a review of state legislation related to BMI surveillance screening was used to identify relevant literature data focused on surveillance screening policies, BMI report cards, parental perceptions of BMI screenings their child's weight status.RESULTSThis article addresses the gap of previous literature by outlining the ethical considerations and implications that BMI screening programs and report cards have for schools, parents, and students, and links these with outcome studies to address whether these controversies are supported by research.CONCLUSIONS Despite the controversies surrounding these programs, this review shows that they can be valuable for all parties and demonstrates BMI screening programs to be vital to the development of robust school-based obesity prevention programs and promotion of healthy lifestyles in schools.
    Journal of School Health 01/2015; 85(1). DOI:10.1111/josh.12222 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: After decades of increases, the prevalence of childhood obesity has declined in the past decade in New York City, as measured in children participating in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and public school students, with the greatest reductions occurring in the youngest children. Possible explanations were changes in demographics; WIC, day care, and school food policies; citywide obesity prevention policies, media messages; and family and community food consumption. Although the decreases cannot be attributed to any one cause, the most plausible explanation is changes in food consumption at home, prompted by media messages and reinforced by school and child care center policy changes. Continued media messages and policy changes are needed to sustain these improvements and extend them to other age groups. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print July 17, 2014: e1-e5. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302015).
    American Journal of Public Health 07/2014; 104(9):e1-e5. DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302015 · 4.23 Impact Factor


Available from