Published on in Vol 5, No 5 (2021): May

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at, first published .
An App-Based Parenting Program to Promote Healthy Energy Balance–Related Parenting Practices to Prevent Childhood Obesity: Protocol Using the Intervention Mapping Framework

An App-Based Parenting Program to Promote Healthy Energy Balance–Related Parenting Practices to Prevent Childhood Obesity: Protocol Using the Intervention Mapping Framework

An App-Based Parenting Program to Promote Healthy Energy Balance–Related Parenting Practices to Prevent Childhood Obesity: Protocol Using the Intervention Mapping Framework


1Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands

2Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands

3NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands

4Netherlands Nutrition Centre, The Hague, Netherlands

5Institute of Health Studies, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, Netherlands

6Academic Collaborative Centre AMPHI, Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Levie T Karssen, MSc

Behavioural Science Institute

Radboud University

Postbus 9104

Nijmegen, 6500 HE


Phone: 31 0640969305


Background: The family environment plays an important role in the development of children’s energy balance–related behaviors. As a result, parents’ energy balance–related parenting practices are important targets of preventive childhood obesity programs. Families with a lower socioeconomic position (SEP) may benefit from participating in such programs but are generally less well reached than families with a higher SEP.

Objective: This paper describes the application of the Intervention Mapping Protocol (IMP) for the development of an app-based preventive intervention program to promote healthy energy balance–related parenting practices among parents of children (aged 0-4 years) with a lower SEP.

Methods: The 6 steps of the IMP were used as a theory- and evidence-based framework to guide the development of an app-based preventive intervention program.

Results: In step 1, behavioral outcomes for the app-based program (ie, children have a healthy dietary intake, sufficient sleep, and restricted screen time and sufficient physical activity) and sociocognitive (ie, knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy) and automatic (ie, habitual behaviors) determinants of energy balance–related parenting were identified through a needs assessment. In step 2, the behavioral outcomes were translated into performance objectives. To influence these objectives, in step 3, theory-based intervention methods were selected for each of the determinants. In step 4, the knowledge derived from the previous steps allowed for the development of the app-based program Samen Happie! through a process of continuous cocreation with parents and health professionals. In step 5, community health services were identified as potential adopters for the app. Finally, in step 6, 2 randomized controlled trials were designed to evaluate the process and effects of the app among Dutch parents of infants (trial 1) and preschoolers (trial 2). These trials were completed in November 2019 (trial 1) and February 2020 (trial 2).

Conclusions: The IMP allowed for the effective development of the app-based parenting program Samen Happie! to promote healthy energy balance–related parenting practices among parents of infants and preschoolers. Through the integration of theory, empirical evidence, and data from the target population, as well as the process of continued cocreation, the program specifically addresses parents with a lower SEP. This increases the potential of the program to prevent the development of obesity in early childhood among families with a lower SEP.

Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register NL6727,; Netherlands Trial Register NL7371,

JMIR Form Res 2021;5(5):e24802




Although childhood obesity rates have been reported to stabilize in many developed countries [1], the prevalence of overweight and obesity in young children is still high. In general, 8% of Dutch children around the age of 2 years were overweight or obese in 2018 [2]. However, these rates were considerably higher among children from families with a lower socioeconomic position (SEP) [2]. In addition, a growing body of research indicates that plateauing prevalence rates are predominantly evident among groups with a higher SEP [3]. In groups with a lower SEP, the rates are still rising [4], implying an increase in socioeconomic health disparities. To reduce SEP disparities in childhood obesity, preventive intervention programs should promote healthy energy balance–related behaviors (EBRBs; ie, dietary intake, sleep, physical activity, and screen time) before children have developed fixed patterns of EBRBs [5]. As patterns of EBRBs, such as dietary intake and screen time, develop in the first years of life [6], infancy and preschool (0-4) years present a critical window for childhood obesity prevention.

Parents are considered the main agents of change in effective preventive intervention programs for childhood obesity, especially in the first years of life [7]. Parents’ behaviors, particularly their energy balance–related parenting practices (ie, energy balance–related, specific, discrete, and observable acts of parenting [8]), may significantly influence their children’s EBRBs and body weight [9,10]. Recent reviews have shown that promoting responsive feeding guidance to teach maternal awareness and attention to children’s hunger and satiety cues can support normal child body weight development [11]. Moreover, universal preventive intervention programs targeting early feeding and positive parenting skills, including programs that target sleep, show similar effects on the child’s body weight [12]. In general, current evidence supports starting with promoting responsive feeding and parenting during infancy and incorporating the promotion of structure and rule setting in early childhood [13]. For physical activity parenting, support has been found for the potential importance of parental support and parents’ own behaviors and role modeling [14,15]. However, it should be noted that only a few preventive intervention programs have targeted physical activity parenting [14]. More generally, preventive intervention programs for early childhood obesity that target parenting practices with respect to all relevant child EBRBs are scarce [12]. Moreover, parent-focused prevention programs have been mostly universal (ie, population based) in nature [12,16]. For instance, 3 of 4 parent-focused EPOCH (Early Prevention of Obesity in Children) trials that commenced by early infancy were universal programs [17]. Our parent-focused program to prevent early childhood obesity adds to the literature by addressing parenting practices with respect to all the important child EBRBs [12,18] while simultaneously applying selective prevention to the subgroup of parents with a lower SEP, who generally display more problematic energy balance–related parenting compared with other SEP groups [19].

In addition, our program uses an innovative approach to address 2 frequently reported limitations of traditional (parent focused) obesity prevention programs: the costly, time-intensive face-to-face setting [16,20] and difficulties in reaching people with a lower SEP [21]. To successfully target and reach people with a lower SEP, intervention programs should address both practical (eg, time constraints, lack of transportation, and inflexible working hours [22-24]) and attitudinal (eg, irrelevant and not engaging program elements [25]) barriers for participation [26]. Practical barriers for people with a lower SEP could (at least partly) be overcome by delivering interventions through smartphones, including mobile apps [21,27]. Furthermore, attitudinal barriers can also be overcome because app-based interventions allow for options to increase program engagement through the presentation of bite-sized information in plain language that is accompanied by appealing visuals and through the possibility of personalizing the intervention and the ability for users to monitor their behavior [28,29]. For these reasons, app-based intervention programs have the potential to be cost-effective and reduce the gap in socioeconomic health disparities [29,30]. The apps used in these programs need to be high quality (eg, in terms of engagement, esthetics, and information quality [31]) and encourage behavior change (eg, providing knowledge and information as well as prompting goal setting and planning [32]). To achieve this, app-based interventions should be based on evidence, grounded in behavior change theory, and incorporate the needs and wishes of the target audience through formative research [33].


Therefore, we developed the app-based prevention program Samen Happie! using the Intervention Mapping Protocol (IMP). The IMP is a widely used, standardized intervention planning format that helps intervention developers to incorporate empirical findings from the literature, effective behavioral change methods and their practical applications, and data collected in a representative population [34]. Although it is not specific to app-based program development, the IMP has been successfully applied to the development of digital (including mobile) interventions for youth health promotion [35-41]. The central goal of the app-based preventive parenting program Samen Happie! is to stimulate healthy energy balance–related parenting practices to prevent early childhood obesity among children of families with a lower SEP. In this paper, we inform readers about the development of the Samen Happie! program based on the 6 steps of intervention mapping.

The Dutch title of the app-based parenting program (Samen Happie!) will be used throughout this paper. A possible translation is “Happy Together,” but this does not reflect the play on words the title indicates in Dutch.


The Samen Happie! program was developed through the 6 iterative and nonlinear steps of the IMP: (1) conducting a needs assessment; (2) preparing matrices of change objectives; (3) selecting theoretical methods and practical strategies; (4) developing the intervention program; (5) planning for adoption, implementation, and sustainability; and (6) planning the program evaluation [34]. We collaborated with a workgroup consisting of potential program implementers (ie, youth health care professionals of community health services) and users (ie, parents of young children with a lower SEP). Importantly, for the development and evaluation of the program, we asked only one parent-child dyad per family to participate, thereby focusing on the primary caregiver. In this section, the main tasks of each step of the IMP are explained and, when relevant, the role of the workgroup is exemplified. The outcomes of the IMP, including the choices and actions during each step, are described in the Results section.

Step 1: Conducting a Needs Assessment

The first step of the IMP was to conduct a needs assessment of our target group (ie, parents of children aged 0 to 4 years with a lower SEP) to build a logic model of the health problem [34]. Our needs assessment included a literature search, focus groups with parents with a lower SEP (N=16 mothers in total), and discussions with youth health care professionals (N=6 professionals in total). In the focus groups, the hindering and facilitating factors for healthy parenting and parenting practices in difficult parenting situations were discussed, with a focus on parenting practices regarding food and dietary intake. The focus groups, which were conducted until saturation was reached, were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded for themes and concepts using ATLAS.ti (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH). The discussions with youth health care professionals served to explore key parenting-related themes and issues that existed among the target group and as a sounding board for concrete questions during program development. For example, frequently reported parenting problems, (parental adherence to) national guidelines regarding child EBRBs, and effective, practical strategies to increase healthy child EBRBs through energy balance–related parenting practices were discussed. To build the logic model (based on the PRECEDE [Predisposing, Reinforcing, and Enabling Constructs in Educational Diagnosis and Evaluation] framework [42]), we identified the quality-of-life indicators associated with the health problem, behavioral and environmental risk behaviors for the health problem, and determinants related to these behaviors. On the basis of the knowledge derived from this assessment, we selected behavioral outcomes for the program and formulated the program goal.

Step 2: Preparing Matrices of Change Objectives

In the second step of the IMP, the performance objectives were defined for the behavioral outcomes specified in step 1. These performance objectives constituted behaviors that are expected to contribute to achieving the program goal when performed by the target group [34]. By crossing the performance objectives with the determinants selected in step 1, the change objectives were specified. These change objectives indicate which actions are required to modify the determinants of the behavioral outcomes and reach the performance objectives [34].

Step 3: Selecting Theoretical Methods and Practical Strategies

The third step of the IMP evolved around the selection of theory- and evidence-based change methods to affect the determinants selected in step 1. We aimed to select a limited number of theoretical methods per determinant as interventions that use a small number of behavior change techniques are generally more effective for people with a lower SEP than interventions that use a larger number of techniques [43]. We then translated the selected methods into practical strategies through which they were delivered in the program [34].

Step 4: Developing the Intervention Program

The fourth step of the IMP involved building the program themes and components and drafting, pretesting, and producing the program materials based on the information gathered in the previous steps [34]. The development of the app-based parenting program consisted of 3 phases. In phase 1, qualitative user research was conducted to assess parents’ (N=16 mothers) wishes regarding the content and functionality of the app. In phase 2, a prototype of the app structure, functionalities, content, and visual design was constructed in continuous cocreation with parents (N=4 mothers) and youth health care professionals (N=3) and pretested by parents (N=16 mothers). Finally, phase 3 involved building the final version of the app. For the development of the app, we collaborated with Dio Agency, an agency specialized in deploying software design to facilitate behavioral change.

Step 5: Planning for Adoption, Implementation, and Sustainability

The fifth step of the IMP involved the identification of potential program users (eg, implementers or adopters) and the design of a program implementation plan [34]. We planned to make the app-based intervention available free of charge after program evaluation; nevertheless, the excess supply of health-related apps minimizes the chances that parents will spontaneously find and download the Samen Happie! app. This is one of the reasons that digital health programs in particular need a delivery system (ie, a program adopter) to get the program to its intended participants [34].

Step 6: Planning the Program Evaluation

The sixth and last step of the IMP involved the development of a program evaluation plan [34]. We developed both process and effect evaluation plans to evaluate the quality of the implementation and the effectiveness of the preventive intervention program.

Step 1: Conducting a Needs Assessment

Our logic model of the health problem is presented in Multimedia Appendix 1. The model displays the quality-of-life indicators (eg, cardiovascular diseases, depression, and risk of obesity in adulthood [44-46]) as correlates of health problems (ie, early childhood obesity). Moreover, it shows behavioral (eg, child dietary intake) and environmental (eg, unhealthy home environment) risk factors for health problems and determinants related to these factors (ie, parents’ knowledge about healthy dietary intake). The parental determinants impact child risk behaviors through energy balance–related parenting practices. The child energy balance–related risk behaviors, role of parents, and determinants of healthy parenting are described hereafter.

Child Risk Behaviors and the Role of Parents

Ample research has established the intake of energy-rich foods and sugar-sweetened drinks [47-49] and longer screen time and shorter sleep duration [50-53] as key modifiable risk behaviors of childhood obesity. Notably, these unhealthy EBRBs are more common among children from lower SEPs than among those from families with a higher SEP [54-56]. This led us to select the following behavioral outcomes of our preventive intervention program: (1) children have a healthy dietary intake (ie, food and drinks), (2) children get sufficient sleep, and (3) children have a healthy balance between screen time and physical activity. Especially early in life, child EBRBs are largely shaped by parents and their parenting practices [57]. Hence, the overall program goal was to improve child EBRBs (ie, dietary intake, sleep, physical activity, and screen time) and subsequent body weight through the stimulation of healthy energy balance–related parenting practices.

Energy Balance–Related Parenting Practices

Parenting practices are broadly divided into 3 overarching dimensions of food parenting [10] that can also be observed in a wider range of energy balance–related parenting behaviors [58-62], namely, coercive control (ie, the use of pressure and dominance to control child behavior, such as restriction and threats [63]), structure (ie, the use of noncoercive forms of control, such as rules and routines [63]), and autonomy support (ie, the facilitation of children’s independence, for instance through responsive feeding and praise [64]). Studies have shown that structured and autonomy-supportive parenting practices are mostly related to favorable child energy balance–related outcomes, whereas coercive controlling practices show unfavorable associations with children’s EBRBs and body weight [61,65,66]. However, notably, as compared with parents with a higher SEP, parents with a lower SEP are more likely to use coercive control [56,67-72] and less likely to use structure-related [59,73-76] and autonomy-supportive parenting practices [70,77]. Hence, it is pivotal that preventive intervention programs for childhood obesity, particularly those targeting parents with a lower SEP, promote structure-related and autonomy-supportive practices and discourage coercive controlling parenting practices regarding children’s EBRBs.

General Parenting and Parental Well-being

Both general parenting and parental well-being may moderate the associations between parental energy balance–related parenting practices and child EBRBs. With respect to general parenting (ie, the broader emotional climate in which specific parenting practices are performed [78]), research has, for instance, demonstrated that the prospective associations between parental encouragement and covert control (eg, food availability) and dietary intake were stronger among children who were exposed to a positive parenting style [79]. Hence, desirable (ie, structured and autonomy-supportive) parenting practices performed in an authoritative parenting climate (ie, characterized by both demandingness and responsiveness [80]) might produce the largest intervention effects [9,59,81]. Moreover, research found reciprocal relationships between parental mental well-being and parenting, indicating that positive well-being among parents relates to higher parenting self-efficacy and more beneficial parenting practices [82]. Thus, improving parental well-being and stimulating authoritative parenting appear to be promising conditions for improving child EBRBs. Examining these moderators may not only provide more insight into potential differential intervention effects for subgroups of parents but it could also help identify eminent targets for future (personalized) obesity prevention programs.

Determinants of Healthy Parenting

For the selection of determinants, we were informed by the results of our focus groups and the empirical literature. Moreover, the I-Change model [83] was used as a basis to integrate influential theories on motivation and behavior change (ie, Theory of Planned Behavior [84], Social Cognitive Theory [85], the Transtheoretical Model [86], and the Health Belief Model [87]). The I-Change model explains how knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy play a role in a person’s motivation and intention to perform health behaviors. This model also considers the gap between the intention to perform a behavior and actually performing the behavior (ie, the intention-behavior gap [88]). In the Samen Happie! program, with respect to performing healthy parenting practices related to children’s EBRBs, the following determinants are targeted: parental knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and habitual behavior (ie, habits).


Knowledge plays an important role in changing EBRBs and is a basic component of existing preventive intervention programs for childhood obesity [7]. It is particularly important to include remediation components in interventions for high-risk (eg, lower SEP) populations [89,90]. People with a lower SEP tend to have lower health literacy in general [91] and regarding healthy parenting in particular [92]. Illustratively, some parents in our focus groups held incorrect beliefs about the healthiness of drinks (eg, “Fruit juice is healthy because it contains vitamins”). Importantly, targeting knowledge may also indirectly change other sociocognitive determinants, including attitudes and self-efficacy [93].


Knowledge should be targeted by carefully considering the beliefs of the target group [94]. Some parents in our focus groups held negative attitudes toward specific energy balance–related parenting practices, such as providing water instead of sugar-sweetened drinks (eg, “Drinking water is for dogs”). These parental attitudes toward energy balance–related (parenting) behaviors can influence children’s behaviors, such as physical activity [95] and screen time [96,97]. When targeting attitudes, parents’ beliefs should be taken into consideration, as it has generally been acknowledged that it is difficult to change attitudes with a high affective component. Therefore, it is imperative to balance the stimulation of favorable attitudes about EBRBs with parents’ personal goals [98].


Self-efficacy refers to a parent’s beliefs in their capabilities to organize and execute a course of action (ie, performing energy balance–related parenting practices) in particular situations [99]. In general, children display more healthful behaviors if parents report higher self-efficacy [100], and improving parental self-efficacy also appears to be a promising approach to change young children’s EBRBs [101]. Enhancing self-efficacy might be especially important for parents with a lower SEP, as parents in our focus groups often felt insecure about their capabilities to employ healthy energy balance–related parenting practices (eg, sticking to a maximum amount of screen time).


Parents often report a discrepancy between what they intend to do in terms of energy balance–related parenting practices and what they actually do [88]. For instance, parents in our focus groups found it difficult to form healthy habits and routines, especially when unhealthy habits were already established (eg, eating in front of the television). Habits influence health behaviors [102], and parental energy balance–related habits may impact energy balance–related parenting practices [88]. One previous intervention program that trained parents to perform healthy parenting habits proved to be promising [103]. Thus, targeting the development of healthy habits may assist parents in the long-term adherence to newly developed energy balance–related parenting practices and may bridge the gap between parenting intentions and behaviors [88].

Step 2: Preparing Matrices of Changes Objectives

Table 1 presents 3 examples of performance and change objectives for each behavioral outcome (ie, children have a healthy dietary intake, sufficient sleep, and restricted screen time and sufficient physical activity). Multimedia Appendix 2 [10] presents an overview of all performance objectives and change objectives specified for the app-based preventive intervention program.

Table 1. Change objectives for dietary intake, sleep, and restricted screen time and sufficient physical activity by crossing the determinants with the performance objectives.
Performance objectivesDeterminants

Dietary intake

Parents apply clear rules about the consumption of healthy and unhealthy food products and drinks.Parents explain how they can apply clear rules about the consumption of healthy and unhealthy food products or drinks.Parents express positive feelings toward having clear rules for the consumption of healthy food products or drinks.Parents express confidence in applying clear rules about the consumption of healthy and unhealthy food products or drinks.Parents consistently apply clear rules about the consumption of healthy and unhealthy food products or drinks.

Parents act as a role model by eating or drinking healthy food or drinks themselves.Parents explain how they can act as positive role models by eating or drinking healthy food or drinks themselves.Parents express positive feelings toward acting as a role model by eating or drinking healthy food or drinks themselves.Parents express confidence in acting as a role model by eating or drinking healthy food or drinks themselves.Parents consistently act as a role model by eating or drinking healthy food or drinks themselves.

Parents praise their child when he or she eats healthy food products or drinks water.Parents explain how they can praise their child when he or she eats healthy food products or drinks water.Parents express positive feelings toward praising their child when he or she eats healthy food products or drinks water.a

Parents apply clear rules about bed times.Parents explain how they can apply clear rules about bed times.Parents express positive feelings toward applying clear rules about bed times.

Parents make use of bedtime routines.Parents explain how they can make use of bedtime routines.Parents express positive feelings toward making use of bedtime routines.Parents express confidence in making use of bedtime routines.Parents consistently make use of bedtime routines.

Parents ensure a safe and quiet sleep environment for their child.Parents explain how they can ensure a safe and quiet sleep environment for their child.Parents express positive feelings about ensuring a safe and quiet sleep environment for their child.
Restricted screen time and sufficient physical activity

Parents apply clear rules about screen time.Parents explain how they can apply clear rules about screen time.Parents express positive feelings toward applying clear rules about screen time.Parents express confidence in applying clear rules about screen time.Parents consistently apply clear rules about screen time.

Parents facilitate activities without the use of screens.Parents explain how they can facilitate activities without the use of screens.Parents express positive feelings toward facilitating activities without the use of screens.Parents express confidence in facilitating activities without the use of screens.Parents consistently facilitate activities without the use of screens.

Parents encourage their child to be physically active (eg, playing outside).Parents explain how they can encourage their child to be physically active.Parents express positive feelings toward encouraging their child to be physically active.

aNot all performance objectives were translated into change objectives.

Step 3: Selecting Theoretical Methods and Practical Strategies

The theoretical methods we selected for each of the determinants (ie, knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and habits) were derived from the taxonomies described by Kok et al [104] and Michie et al [105]. Table 2 presents an overview of the methods and examples of their practical application. This table shows that we included both methods involving the provision of information (eg, consciousness raising and persuasive communication) and those that target more automatic processes (eg, implementation intentions and self-nudging). Automatic, nonconscious methods might be particularly effective for people with a lower SEP as these methods are less dependent on literacy capabilities [106].

Table 2. Theoretical methods that were selected to address the determinants and examples of how these methods were applied in the app-based program.
Determinant and methodDefinitionExample of practical application in the app

Consciousness raisingGiving information about the causes and consequences of a problem behavior and providing alternatives to substitute problem behaviors [104]Parents are advised not to comfort or reward their children with food (ie, emotional and instrumental feeding). We explain that in doing so, children might learn to comfort themselves using food later in life or learn that they will be rewarded for demonstrating unwanted behavior. As alternatives for the problem behavior, we suggest to comfort or reward children with attention and affection (eg, giving a compliment, thumbs up, or hug)

Instruction on how to perform a behaviorAdvise on how to perform the behavior [105]We provide both simple and more elaborate advice on how to perform parenting behaviors. For instance, when parents want to encourage water consumption but their child is used to drinking fruit juice, we advise to gradually substitute parts of the fruit juice by water over the course of several weeks. A more elaborate advice is provided when parents want to decide which type of fruit juice is the healthier option. This advice involves 3 steps (ie, grab 2 drinks, turn them around and look at the food label, and pick the option with the least calories). For the second step (reading the food label), we advise parents to look at the amount of sugar and explain how they can calculate the amount of sugar per serving

Persuasive communicationGuiding individuals toward the adoption of an idea, attitude, or action by using arguments or other means [104]To encourage positive attitudes toward the consumption of water, we provide 3 benefits of drinking water (or tea): (1) it does not contain calories and contributes to a healthy body weight, (2) water and tea do not contain sugar, the teeth are not affected and cavities can be prevented, and (3) water supports the functioning of the body and can support learning and playing

FramingUsing gain-framed messages emphasizing the advantages of performing the healthy behavior [104]We focused on providing gain-framed messages that emphasize the benefits for parents and/or children. Examples are “Did you know that you can save up to €150 euros per year if Maria drinks water instead of fruit juice?” and “Using a fixed bedtime routine can help Maria fall asleep faster”

Verbal persuasionUsing messages that suggest that the participant possesses certain capabilities [104]Before making an if-then plan (see Implementation intentions) to stimulate children’s water consumption, parents are asked whether they think drinking water is important and whether they feel confident in making their child drink (more) water. They answer on a scale from 0 (not important or confident at all) to 5 (very important or confident). On the basis of their answer, they receive an encouraging response (eg, “Many parents think they won’t be successful in getting their child to drink water. But you will be surprised to see that practice will eventually pay off. You can do it!”)

Action planningPrompt detailed planning of performance of the behavior [105]To regulate children’s screen time, parents are prompted to make a family screen time plan. For this plan, they first describe in which rooms screens can be used (eg, living room) and then at what times screens can be used (eg, before dinner). The plan should be focused on what is allowed, rather than what is not allowed (see also Framing). Parents are also prompted to write down this plan on paper and display it at a prominent place, and (if applicable) to discuss the plan with other caregivers

Implementation intentionsPrompting making if-then plans that link situational cues with responses that are effective in attaining goals or desired outcomes [104]Parents are prompted to make an if-then plan to stimulate their child’s physical activity. First, we explain what an if-then plan is and why it is important to make them. Next, 3 examples are presented (eg, “If we go outside together, then I will let Maria walk next to the stroller for a couple of minutes”). After that parents are asked to make their own plan by defining first when they can stimulate physical activity for their child (eg, if my child wakes up from her nap) and next how they will achieve this (eg, then I will play an active game with her)

Self-nudgingMaking simple changes in the presentation of choice alternatives that make the desired choice the easy, automatic, or default choice [104]We provide parents tips that can help make healthy eating at home the easy, automatic option: (1) buy mostly healthy food such as fruits and vegetables at the grocery store; (2) buy no or only a small amount of snacks, such as candy and chocolate; (3) display healthy foods in a way that they are easily noticed, eg, by presenting fruit in a bowl on the table; and (4) store unhealthy foods out of sight, for instance, keeping snacks at the back of the storage cabinet

In addition to potentially important theoretical methods, the form in which an intervention is delivered is also a key ingredient in behavior change interventions [107] and might be even more crucial for groups with a lower SEP in terms of comprehensibility and engagement [108]. Considering the literacy capabilities of participants with a lower SEP, research has shown that people with literacy problems can remember written texts more easily when they are supported by (audio)visual aids [109,110]. Therefore, we included both written texts and supporting icons, images, videos, and voice-overs of important information in the app-based prevention program. Moreover, to ensure that the app was comprehensible for parents with varied literacy skills, all textual components were revised by a specialized organization to match language levels A2-B1 according to the Common European Framework of Reference [111]. In addition, the technological features of the app allowed us to tailor the program to individual participants, which might positively impact user engagement [112] and subsequent intervention retention. Illustratively, the app uses data about the name, sex, and birth date of the child (entered by the parent upon registration) to personalize texts with respect to names and pronouns (eg, “Set a good example for Maria. Try to eat healthy when she is around”). Finally, the data on children’s age were used to present parents with developmentally appropriate information via age-based modules (see Step 4: Developing the Intervention Program), which could enhance the perceived relevance of the information, thereby increasing engagement [113].

Step 4: Developing the Intervention Program

In phase 1 of the app development process, the results from our focus groups and discussions with youth health care professionals informed the development of the prototype of the app and the way in which we tailored the materials to our target group. For instance, based on parents’ negative affective attitudes toward water consumption, we asked them whether they would provide their children tea (without sugar) as an alternative, and they affirmed that they would do so. Therefore, we drafted the app content with “water or tea,” instead of focusing entirely on water consumption. Other examples of content that we based on the suggestions of parents from our focus groups included providing information about saving money on groceries and tips to stimulate vegetable consumption.

In phase 2, the content of the preventive intervention program was drafted based on national health care guidelines, relevant literature on parenting practices in relation to child EBRBs, and previous intervention projects [103,114]. For example, youth health care professionals suggested using videoclips that were specially designed by the Dutch Child and Family Center (Centrum voor Jeugd en Gezin) to stimulate health literacy among young (low literate) parents. The pretest of the prototype of the app yielded, among others, the following suggestions: the option to enlarge images, the possibility of replaying the instruction clip, a summary of the most important information per level, and the option to reread a lesson. These suggestions were incorporated into the final version of the app.

The final version of the app (phase 3) was launched in September 2018. Figure 1 presents 6 screenshots of the app (in Dutch). Screenshot 1 shows the main menu of the app. From here, parents could navigate to their profile, app settings, and the actual app content. The content of the app was divided into 5 age-based modules ranging from 7 to 12 months (module 1) to 24 to 48 months (module 5). On the basis of their child’s birth date (entered upon registration), parents were granted access to the appropriate modules (eg, parents of children aged 14 months were granted access to the first 2 modules). When the child reached the minimum age of the subsequent module, the new module became unlocked. The content of each age-based module was divided into 6 themes reflecting all relevant child EBRBs (ie, eating, drinking, sleep, and physical activity and screen time) and themes on the well-being of the parent and temper tantrums (this last theme was only included in the modules for children aged 18 months and older).

Each of the 5 modules consisted of 2 types of activities: lessons and challenges. Screenshot 2 in Figure 1 shows the lessons (indicated by the larger icons) and challenges (indicated by the smaller icons with the thunderstroke) of the themes sleep and temper tantrums in module 5. Upon completion of a lesson or challenge, the icon of that lesson or challenge became filled (see screenshot 2 in Figure 1). The lessons and challenges were constructed using different types of cards. Every lesson or challenge started with an introduction card that showed the title and length of the lesson or challenge (in minutes; see screenshot 3 in Figure 1). The lessons consisted of multiple information cards that presented information on that specific theme in an engaging and easy-to-comprehend manner, for instance, through the use of facts (“Did you know...?”; see screenshot 4 in Figure 1), practical examples, tips, and quizzes and supported by icons or pictures. The challenges consisted of exercises that prompted parents to apply the information from the lessons. By employing techniques that tackle (unhealthy) automatic behaviors, parents were encouraged to implement (new) parenting skills as habits. The challenges were similar in their design. Each challenge started with providing information and examples of specific parenting target behaviors. Next, parents were asked whether they thought performing that behavior was important (ie, attitude) and whether they felt capable (ie, self-efficacy) of performing that behavior. On a slider card, they could indicate their responses on a scale from 0 (low importance or self-efficacy) to 5 (high importance or self-efficacy). Appropriate feedback on their responses was provided through a pop-up notification. Finally, parents created a personal goal or action plan in the context of the target behavior on a fill-in card (see screenshot 5 in Figure 1). For each goal or action plan, parents could set reminders to receive a notification at a date and time of their choice to help fulfill that goal (see screenshot 6 in Figure 1). An illustrated example of a lesson and the accompanying challenge within the theme Sleep can be found in Multimedia Appendix 3. The example includes screenshots of different types of cards within the lesson or challenge, a translation of the original Dutch text to English, and a reference to the theoretical method that formed the basis for that card. Moreover, an overview of the 5 modules and the corresponding lessons and challenges (specified per theme) is presented in Multimedia Appendix 4.

Figure 1. Screenshots of the Samen Happie! app showing (1) the main menu divided into 5 modules, (2) the user timeline of a specific module, (3) an introduction card of a lesson, (4) an information card in a lesson, (5) a fill-in card in a challenge, and (6) setting a reminder for an action plan created in a challenge.
View this figure

Step 5: Planning for Adoption, Implementation, and Sustainability

We identified national community health services and child day care centers as potential adopters of the app-based program, as representatives of these organizations were involved in the development and execution of the program. The program implementers will be youth health care professionals and pedagogical staff working at these organizations, and their tasks are to bring the app to the attention of parents (whose children they perceive as being at high risk for obesity) and motivate them to use the app. The implementation of the app-based program can support the daily practice of the program implementers in 2 ways. First, the app could function as an addition to usual care, given that youth health care professionals indicated that standard consultations are generally too brief to give parents elaborate, well-rounded advice. In this sense, it is advantageous that the app is an easy-to-use product that does not require detailed instructions from a health care provider. Second, the app could function as an educational material that creates a legitimate opening to discuss topics such as food parenting and body weight [115], which health professionals often find to be difficult topics to address [67]. In addition, the active role of youth health care professionals in the referral of high-risk groups (in terms of obesity and other health problems) and a primary focus on prevention is in line with the national prevention agreement that the Dutch government issued in the first half of 2019 [116]. Moreover, the agreement calls for the inclusion of (potentially) effective (preventive) interventions for childhood obesity to be registered at the Healthy Living Desk, an intervention database of the Dutch ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports. To facilitate nationwide dissemination and aid in intervention sustainability, the Samen Happie! program was submitted to this database and accepted in September 2020.

Step 6: Planning the Program Evaluation

The process and effects of the app-based preventive intervention program were evaluated in 2 separate trials, the designs, eligibility criteria, procedures, and measures of which are explained hereafter.

Trial Designs

Both trials were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2 parallel arms: an intervention condition in which parents received access to the Samen Happie! app and a waitlist control condition. In addition, trial 2 included a third condition in which parents received the app and 2 additional group sessions organized at locations where their child attended preschool. The third condition was a separate condition that did not interfere with the procedures of the RCT, as presented in this manuscript. Detailed information about the development and evaluation of these group sessions has been described elsewhere. Hence, this manuscript will concentrate on the intervention conditions in which parents received access to the app-only and control condition. The parents in both of these conditions completed a web-based baseline measurement (T0) and follow-up measurements at approximately 6 months (T1) and 12 months (T2). Multimedia Appendix 5 provides a schematic overview of the trial flows and includes the exact timing of the measurements.

Sample Sizes

A power analysis using G*Power (version 3.1) indicated a minimum of 200 participants in trial 1. This calculation was based on child BMI as the outcome variable, which was assumed to have a mean of 16.67 (SD 1.70) [117]. We further assumed an effect size of 0.20, α of .05, and power of .80. We strived to recruit a minimum of 150 participants per condition (300 in total) to include a minimum of 50% (150/300) of participants with a lower SEP and to account for dropout over time. For trial 2, we recruited 70 participants per condition (140 in total for 2 conditions) based on previous research with a similar design including a face-to-face component [103].

In the end, the participants in trial 1 were 357 parents (346/357, 96.9% biological mothers, 7/357, 1.9% biological fathers, and 4/357, 1.1% nonbiological mothers or partners of the biological mother) of infants aged 5 to 15 months at baseline (ages corresponding to modules 1 and 2 of the app). Trial 2 was conducted among 153 parents (148/153, 96.7% biological mothers, 3/153, 1.9% biological fathers, and 2/153, 1.3% partners of the biological father or mother) with toddlers aged 18 to 55 months at baseline (ages correspond to modules 4 and 5).

Eligibility Criteria

To assess whether parents were eligible to participate in the trials, they completed a web-based screening that contained questions about their educational attainment and their child’s age and health status. Parents were respectfully refused participation when their child was younger than 5 months or older than 15 months (trial 1), younger than 20 months or older than 55 months (trial 2), or when their child had a chronic disease or disability that affected normal development. Parents with multiple children could only participate with one child and only in 1 of the 2 trials. We strived to include at least 50% of parents with lower or medium-level SEP and used educational attainment as a proxy for SEP (ie, lower SEP was conceptualized as having completed no education, primary school education, or preparatory vocational education and medium-level SEP was conceptualized as having completed vocational education). Parents with higher educational attainment (ie, preuniversity or university degree) were not actively discouraged from participating in the trials.


Parents were recruited offline (eg, through child day care centers and community health care centers for young children) and online (eg, through Facebook groups), for which we particularly considered locations that are often visited or used by parents with a lower SEP. Interested parents who fulfilled the eligibility criteria received an email in which they were asked to provide consent for their participation. After consenting, the parents were forwarded to the web-based baseline questionnaire. Randomization for each trial took place after the baseline measurement by means of a simple randomization procedure performed by an independent researcher using SPSS version 24. Among research with large sample sizes, this procedure can be trusted to produce equal samples in terms of numbers and covariates [118]. Participants were compensated for their time and effort with a €10 (US $12) gift card (or a pack of diapers in trial 1) upon completion of the baseline questionnaire and the 2 follow-up measurements. Parents who were allocated to the intervention condition received a personal invitation code for the app to avoid contamination between the 2 conditions. Parents in the intervention condition received instructions on how to download and use the app. There were no instructions regarding the timing and frequency of the use of the app to stay as close as possible to app usage patterns in everyday life. After completing all 3 questionnaires, parents in the control condition were also granted access to the app. The procedures of the trials were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Radboud University, the Netherlands (trial 1: ECSS-2017-013 and trial 2: ECSS-2018-084).

Process Evaluation

Two types of process evaluation data were collected: self-reported data and app user data.

Parent Self-Reports

We assessed parents’ self-reported app use, their user experience of the app, and their suggestions for app improvement. In the 2 follow-up questionnaires (T1 and T2), we asked parents whether they downloaded the app (and why), whether they still had the app installed on their phone (and why), and how many times they used the app. Regarding user experience, we asked parents to rate several indicators of functionality (eg, ease of use), design, and content (eg, usefulness) on a scale from 1 (bad experience) to 7 (good experience). Parents also rated the app as a whole on a scale from 1 to 10, with higher scores indicating higher appreciation. Finally, we asked open-ended questions about the ways in which the app could be improved.

Preliminary Results of Parent Self-Reports

Preliminary analyses of parents’ self-reported app evaluation data on the first follow-up measurement (T1) showed that most parents in the intervention condition of trial 1 (138/179, 77.1% parents) and almost half of the parents in the app-only intervention condition of trial 2 (33/76, 44% parents) reported that they downloaded the app. Most of these parents (127/179, 70.9% in trial 1 and 55/76, 72% in trial 2) indicated that they had used the app multiple times since installation but were not using it anymore at T1. Around a quarter of the parents (39/179, 21.7% in trial 1 and 21/76, 28% in trial 2) indicated that they still used the app multiple times per month. Parents in both trials generally appreciated the functionality, content, and design of the app. They graded the app with an average score of 6.7 (SD 1.45) in trial 1 and 7.2 (SD 1.05) in trial 2. The most important suggestions parents gave for improvement of the app included the incorporation of more detailed and elaborate parenting information, a clearer structure of the presented information (eg, based on weight-related themes instead of age), the option to look for specific information through a search function, and the integration of other parents’ perspectives and experiences (eg, through personal accounts or online interactions).

User Data

In addition, to objectively assess parents’ exposure to the preventive intervention program, their app usage was automatically monitored and collected in an online database. This database allowed us to examine the lessons and challenges that parents started and/or finished, the specific lesson cards they saved as favorite, and their answers to quiz questions.

Effect Evaluation

The primary outcome measures of the effect evaluation were EBRBs of the child (ie, dietary intake, sleep, and screen time), weight-for-height z scores (trial 1), and BMI z scores (trial 2) and parents’ parenting practices related to their child’s EBRBs. The following secondary outcomes were assessed: parents’ general parenting style, parental well-being (ie, depressive symptoms, life satisfaction, stress, and self-reported overall health), and parents’ EBRBs (eg, snacking behavior and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption). An overview of the constructs, variables, and assessment points addressed in the evaluation of the program can be found in Multimedia Appendix 6.

Child weight-for-height and BMI z scores were calculated using height and weight data reported by the parents in the questionnaires. We asked parents to draw this information from the measurement overview in the child’s personal (digital) file, which is updated by the youth health care professional each time the parent and child visit the child health clinic. During the second follow-up questionnaire (T2), we additionally asked parents to send us a picture or screenshot of this measurement overview. This strategy not only allowed us to compare the information parents provided in the questionnaires with that in the child’s file but also allowed us to collect more detailed anthropometric data as the overview contains height and weight measurements from the moment of birth to present day. Moreover, in the second follow-up questionnaire, we asked parents for their permission to be contacted again 12 months and 48 months after T2, so that they could send us a picture or screenshot of the updated measurement overview. This information allowed us to examine the effect of the preventive intervention program on the BMI of the child until approximately 2 years after the last follow-up measurement.

The trials were completed in November 2019 (trial 1) and February 2020 (trial 2). We are currently in the process of data cleaning. Effect analyses are thus underway, and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2021.

Principal Findings

The need for effective preventive intervention programs for childhood obesity is high, particularly among families with a lower SEP. The app-based parenting program Samen Happie! was developed primarily for these families and aims to stimulate healthy energy balance–related parenting practices from early childhood, before unhealthy energy balance–related habits have been established. More specifically, the program promotes both structured and autonomy-supportive practices and limits coercive controlling parenting practices with respect to all relevant energy balance–related determinants of childhood obesity (ie, dietary intake, sleep, physical activity, and screen time), with the ultimate goal of preventing children aged 0 to 4 years old from being overweight and obese. The successful development of the program was aided by the use of the IMP. The process of stepwise decision making made this large-scale and complex project manageable and contributed to thorough considerations. Regarding the selection of eminent EBRBs, for instance, we initially selected only parenting practices related to the children’s dietary intake but we decided to also include practices relating to sleep, physical activity, and screen time after an extensive literature search and discussions with the target group. Moreover, insights from recent literature reviews facilitated the selection of the most promising energy balance–related parenting practices (eg, parental support and modeling for physical activity). By facilitating a collaboration with experts and the target group, the IMP assured that the intended end users of the program were involved in multiple stages of program development. Overall, by integrating theory, empirical studies, professional knowledge, and the needs and preferences of the target group through continuous cocreation, we increased the chances of developing an effective preventive intervention program for childhood obesity [34].

Strengths, Limitations, and Directions for Future Research

Besides the use of the IMP, the app-based parenting program has several other notable strengths. First, previous digital preventive intervention programs for childhood obesity focused solely on the sociocognitive determinants of energy balance–related parenting [36]. A unique aspect of the Samen Happie! program is its focus on both sociocognitive (ie, knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy) and automatic (ie, habits) determinants, bridging the well-known gap between health parenting intentions and behaviors [88]. Furthermore, formulating long-term goals is potentially too proximal for parents with a lower SEP as their focus lies primarily on surviving in the here and now [119]. By using a self-regulatory planning approach with personally tailored prompts (eg, through implementation intentions), we facilitated the fulfillment of short-term goals. In addition, by assessing both general parenting style and parental mental well-being as potential moderators of the app-based prevention program, we might be able to identify groups of parents who might particularly benefit from the program, which could contribute to more personalized app usage. Finally, the app is an easy-to-use, stand-alone product that can potentially have a significant reach through its opportunities for widespread implementation.

One of the challenges of mobile health interventions is to keep users engaged for longer periods, which is particularly important for interventions targeting behavior change maintenance [120]. Although the preliminary results of the process evaluation indicated that parents appreciated the functionality, design, and content of the app to a reasonable degree, most parents who downloaded the app did not continue their app use over the course of several months. This might indicate that parents’ information needs were fulfilled and new behavior patterns had been developed, explaining that further app use was no longer needed, but it could also suggest that the user engagement of the app should be increased. This is something that future research should consider. We will further develop the prevention program based on the results of the process evaluation and the input of potential program implementers (eg, youth health care professionals of community health services). On the basis of parents’ suggestions for app improvement, the Samen Happie! website [121] has been developed (available in Dutch and English). This website contains more elaborate and structured parenting information and includes a search function, personal accounts of parents, and a forum on which parenting experiences can be exchanged. Future research should examine whether parents’ evaluations of the Samen Happie! program improve by offering them access to both the website and the app.

The app-based prevention program also has some limitations. With respect to the design of the trials, it was not possible to blind both participants and investigators to the allocation of conditions (ie, double blinding). As we used a waitlist control condition, the participating parents knew they would eventually receive an app about healthy parenting. However, neither the participants nor the investigators knew which trial condition the participants would be allocated to before randomization took place. Although double blinding in RCTs is generally recommended, methodological studies have shown that adequate allocation concealment is most important in minimizing bias [122,123]. Moreover, regarding our effect evaluations, we were unable to include in-depth measures of the 4 determinants that were targeted in the program (ie, knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and habits), as it was imperative to keep our questionnaires short for our target group of parents with a lower SEP. Nevertheless, we included some questions that could serve as proxies for parental attitudes and self-efficacy. Even though this will give us some indication of the degree to which our preventive intervention program successfully targeted the selected determinants, future research should aim to include detailed measures of its program determinants to be able to examine the working mechanisms of the program.

In addition, future preventive intervention programs for childhood obesity should consider involving both caregivers. Although we intentionally targeted only primary caregivers (who turned out to be primarily mothers) for the recruitment, program materials, and questionnaires of our program, recent research has indicated that parents within a family differ in the energy balance–related parenting practices they perform [124]. This highlights the need for the inclusion of both parents in future preventive intervention programs targeting energy balance–related parenting. Finally, app-based parenting support might not be sufficient for the needs of parents of preschoolers entering their terrible twos and food neophobic phase [125,126], especially in the case of parents (with a lower SEP) who already experience parenting problems. To address the more extensive needs of these parents, future research should explore a combination of online tools with additional offline (group based [127]) counseling, which could provide a promising approach to change parenting attitudes and behaviors [128].


In conclusion, the IMP allowed for effective development of the app-based parenting program Samen Happie! to promote healthy energy balance–related parenting practices among parents of infants and preschoolers. By applying the IMP, including continued cocreation, the program specifically addressed the needs of parents with a lower SEP through a tailored program content and through theory-based behavior change techniques. This increases the potential of the program to prevent the development of obesity in early childhood among families with a lower SEP.


The authors want to thank Dio Agency for building the Samen Happie! app, the youth health care professionals and parents who were involved in the development of the program materials for their valuable input, the Netherlands Nutrition Centre for providing the information and visuals, Hannah Niermann for translating one of the questionnaires, and all students who were involved in the project for assisting with participant recruitment or otherwise. This project was funded by a grant from Fonds NutsOhra awarded to JKL (100.939). CW’s work was supported by a Jacobs Foundation Advanced Research Fellowship and a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (016.Vici.185.038). The funding agencies were not involved in the design and execution of the trial and will not be involved in the analysis or interpretation of the data or in the decision to publish the results. More information about the Samen Happie! program can be found at the Samen Happie! website [121] (available in Dutch and English).

Authors' Contributions

JKL wrote the funding application. JKL, LTK, JMV, and CW designed the study. JKL, CPMK, RCJH, ELMR, LTK, JMV, and CW developed the preventive intervention program and questionnaires. LTK and JKL drafted the manuscript. JKL, JMV, CW, SPJK, and ELMR supervised the project. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Multimedia Appendix 1

Logic model of the health problem addressed in the Samen Happie! program.

DOCX File , 2075 KB

Multimedia Appendix 2

Overview of the performance objectives (Tables a-c) and change objectives (Tables d-f) specified for the Samen Happie! program.

DOCX File , 21 KB

Multimedia Appendix 3

Illustrated examples of a lesson and a challenge in the Samen Happie! program.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 3543 KB

Multimedia Appendix 4

Overview of the modules and corresponding lessons and challenges of the Samen Happie! app.

DOCX File , 16 KB

Multimedia Appendix 5

Flowchart of the design and timelines for both trials of the Samen Happie! program.

DOCX File , 40 KB

Multimedia Appendix 6

Overview of constructs, variables, and assessment points included in the evaluation of the Samen Happie! program.

DOCX File , 15 KB

  1. Wabitsch M, Moss A, Kromeyer-Hauschild K. Unexpected plateauing of childhood obesity rates in developed countries. BMC Med 2014 Jan 31;12:17 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  2. RIVM monitor kansrijke start 2019. 2019.   URL: https:/​/www.​​actieprogramma-kansrijke-start/​documenten/​publicaties/​2019/​12/​11/​rivm-monitor-kansrijke-start-2019 [accessed 2021-04-13]
  3. Chung A, Backholer K, Wong E, Palermo C, Keating C, Peeters A. Trends in child and adolescent obesity prevalence in economically advanced countries according to socioeconomic position: a systematic review. Obes Rev 2016;17(3):276-295. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. Trend overgewicht naar opleiding. CBS. 2019.   URL: https:/​/www.​​onderwerp/​overgewicht/​cijfers-context/​trends#node-trend-overgewicht-kinderen-naar-leeftijd [accessed 2020-08-03]
  5. Taveras EM, Gillman MW, Kleinman KP, Rich-Edwards JW, Rifas-Shiman SL. Reducing racial/ethnic disparities in childhood obesity: the role of early life risk factors. JAMA Pediatr 2013 Aug 01;167(8):731-738 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Lioret S, Campbell KJ, McNaughton SA, Cameron AJ, Salmon J, Abbott G, et al. Lifestyle patterns begin in early childhood, persist and are socioeconomically patterned, confirming the importance of early life interventions. Nutrients 2020 Mar 09;12(3):724 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  7. Skouteris H, McCabe M, Swinburn B, Newgreen V, Sacher P, Chadwick P. Parental influence and obesity prevention in pre-schoolers: a systematic review of interventions. Obes Rev 2011 May;12(5):315-328. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  8. Power TG, Sleddens EF, Berge J, Connell L, Govig B, Hennessy E, et al. Contemporary research on parenting: conceptual, methodological, and translational issues. Child Obes 2013 Aug;9 Suppl:87-94 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  9. Larsen JK, Hermans RC, Sleddens EF, Engels RC, Fisher JO, Kremers SP. How parental dietary behavior and food parenting practices affect children's dietary behavior. Interacting sources of influence? Appetite 2015 Jun;89:246-257. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Vaughn AE, Ward DS, Fisher JO, Faith MS, Hughes SO, Kremers SP, et al. Fundamental constructs in food parenting practices: a content map to guide future research. Nutr Rev 2016 Feb;74(2):98-117 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Spill MK, Callahan EH, Shapiro MJ, Spahn JM, Wong YP, Benjamin-Neelon SE, et al. Caregiver feeding practices and child weight outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr 2019 Mar 01;109(Suppl_7):990-1002. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. George SM, Agosto Y, Rojas LM, Soares M, Bahamon M, Prado G, et al. A developmental cascade perspective of paediatric obesity: a systematic review of preventive interventions from infancy through late adolescence. Obes Rev 2020 Feb;21(2):e12939 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  13. Balantekin KN, Anzman-Frasca S, Francis LA, Ventura AK, Fisher JO, Johnson SL. Positive parenting approaches and their association with child eating and weight: a narrative review from infancy to adolescence. Pediatr Obes 2020 Oct;15(10):e12722 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  14. Hutchens A, Lee RE. Parenting practices and children's physical activity: an integrative review. J Sch Nurs 2018 Feb;34(1):68-85. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  15. Petersen TL, Møller LB, Brønd JC, Jepsen R, Grøntved A. Association between parent and child physical activity: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2020 May 18;17(1):67 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  16. Laws R, Campbell KJ, van der Pligt P, Russell G, Ball K, Lynch J, et al. The impact of interventions to prevent obesity or improve obesity related behaviours in children (0-5 years) from socioeconomically disadvantaged and/or indigenous families: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2014 Aug 01;14:779 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Seidler AL, Hunter KE, Johnson BJ, Ekambareshwar M, Taki S, Mauch CE, et al. Understanding, comparing and learning from the four EPOCH early childhood obesity prevention interventions: a multi-methods study. Pediatr Obes 2020 Nov;15(11):e12679. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  18. Ash T, Agaronov A, Young T, Aftosmes-Tobio A, Davison KK. Family-based childhood obesity prevention interventions: a systematic review and quantitative content analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2017 Aug 24;14(1):113 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  19. van Ansem WJ, van Lenthe FJ, Schrijvers CT, Rodenburg G, van de Mheen D. Socio-economic inequalities in children's snack consumption and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption: the contribution of home environmental factors. Br J Nutr 2014 Aug 14;112(3):467-476. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  20. Askie LM, Espinoza D, Martin A, Daniels LA, Mihrshahi S, Taylor R, et al. Interventions commenced by early infancy to prevent childhood obesity-The EPOCH Collaboration: an individual participant data prospective meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials. Pediatr Obes 2020 Jun;15(6):e12618. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  21. Hayba N, Partridge SR, Nour MM, Grech A, Farinelli MA. Effectiveness of lifestyle interventions for preventing harmful weight gain among young adults from lower socioeconomic status and ethnically diverse backgrounds: a systematic review. Obes Rev 2018 Mar;19(3):333-346. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  22. Garcia-Dominic O, Wray LA, Treviño RP, Hernandez AE, Yin Z, Ulbrecht JS. Identifying barriers that hinder onsite parental involvement in a school-based health promotion program. Health Promot Pract 2010 Sep;11(5):703-713 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  23. Nagelhout GE, Abidi L, de Vries H. Reasons for (not) participating in a community-based health promotion program for low-income multi-problem households in the Netherlands: a qualitative study. Health Soc Care Community 2021 Jan;29(1):241-249 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  24. Winnail SD, Geiger BF, Macrina DM, Snyder S, Petri CJ, Nagy S. Barriers to parent involvement in middle school health education. Am J Health Stud 2000 May;16(4):193-198 [FREE Full text]
  25. Smokowski P, Corona R, Bacallao M, Fortson BL, Marshall KJ, Yaros A. Addressing barriers to recruitment and retention in the implementation of parenting programs: lessons learned for effective program delivery in rural and urban areas. J Child Fam Stud 2018 Sep;27(9):2925-2942 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  26. Brannon EE, Kuhl ES, Boles RE, Aylward BS, Ratcliff MB, Valenzuela JM, et al. Strategies for recruitment and retention of families from low-income, ethnic minority backgrounds in a longitudinal study of caregiver feeding and child weight. Child Health Care 2013;42(3):198-213 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  27. Whittaker R, Merry S, Dorey E, Maddison R. A development and evaluation process for mHealth interventions: examples from New Zealand. J Health Commun 2012;17 Suppl 1:11-21. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  28. Tate EB, Spruijt-Metz D, O'Reilly G, Jordan-Marsh M, Gotsis M, Pentz MA, et al. mHealth approaches to child obesity prevention: successes, unique challenges, and next directions. Transl Behav Med 2013 Dec;3(4):406-415 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  29. Ondersteuning bij eHealth voor iedereen. Pharos. 2020.   URL: https:/​/www.​​wp-content/​uploads/​2020/​01/​Pharos-Zigzagfolder-Ondersteuning-bij-eHealth-voor-iedereen.​pdf [accessed 2021-04-13]
  30. Fjeldsoe BS, Marshall AL, Miller YD. Behavior change interventions delivered by mobile telephone short-message service. Am J Prev Med 2009 Feb;36(2):165-173. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  31. Stoyanov SR, Hides L, Kavanagh DJ, Zelenko O, Tjondronegoro D, Mani M. Mobile app rating scale: a new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2015 Mar 11;3(1):e27 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  32. McKay FH, Slykerman S, Dunn M. The app behavior change scale: creation of a scale to assess the potential of apps to promote behavior change. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019 Jan 25;7(1):e11130 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  33. Fjeldsoe BS, Miller YD, O'Brien JL, Marshall AL. Iterative development of MobileMums: a physical activity intervention for women with young children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012 Dec 20;9:151 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  34. Eldredge LK, Markham CM, Ruiter RA, Fernández ME, Kok G. Planning Health Promotion Programs: An Intervention Mapping Approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2016:1-704.
  35. Chernick LS, Santelli J, Gonzalez AE, Mitchell JA, Ehrhardt AA, Bakken S, et al. The development of a theory-based, user-informed, digital intervention to promote pregnancy prevention among adolescent female emergency department patients. J Adolesc Health 2019 Feb 23;64(2):127-128 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
  36. De Lepeleere S, Verloigne M, Brown HE, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Using the Intervention Mapping Protocol to develop an online video intervention for parents to prevent childhood obesity: movie models. Glob Health Promot 2018 Jun;25(2):56-66. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  37. DeSmet A, Van Cleemput K, Bastiaensens S, Poels K, Vandebosch H, Malliet S, et al. Bridging behavior science and gaming theory: using the Intervention Mapping Protocol to design a serious game against cyberbullying. Comput Hum Behav 2016 Mar;56:337-351. [CrossRef]
  38. Jacobs NC, Völlink T, Dehue F, Lechner L. Online Pestkoppenstoppen: systematic and theory-based development of a web-based tailored intervention for adolescent cyberbully victims to combat and prevent cyberbullying. BMC Public Health 2014 Apr 24;14:396 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  39. Li DH, Moskowitz DA, Macapagal K, Saber R, Mustanski B. Using intervention mapping to developmentally adapt an online HIV risk reduction program for adolescent men who have sex with men. Prev Sci 2020 Oct;21(7):885-897. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  40. Scheerman JF, van Empelen P, van Loveren C, van Meijel B. A mobile app (WhiteTeeth) to promote good oral health behavior among Dutch adolescents with fixed orthodontic appliances: intervention mapping approach. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 Aug 17;6(8):e163 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  41. Voogt CV, Poelen EA, Kleinjan M, Lemmers LA, Engels RC. The development of a web-based brief alcohol intervention in reducing heavy drinking among college students: an Intervention Mapping approach. Health Promot Int 2014 Dec;29(4):669-679. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  42. Green LW, Kreuter M. Health Program Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education; 2005:1-600.
  43. Michie S, Jochelson K, Markham WA, Bridle C. Low-income groups and behaviour change interventions: a review of intervention content, effectiveness and theoretical frameworks. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009 Aug;63(8):610-622. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  44. Monasta L, Batty GD, Cattaneo A, Lutje V, Ronfani L, Van Lenthe FJ, et al. Early-life determinants of overweight and obesity: a review of systematic reviews. Obes Rev 2010 Oct;11(10):695-708. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  45. Singh AS, Mulder C, Twisk JW, van Mechelen W, Chinapaw MJ. Tracking of childhood overweight into adulthood: a systematic review of the literature. Obes Rev 2008 Sep;9(5):474-488. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  46. Sahoo K, Sahoo B, Choudhury AK, Sofi NY, Kumar R, Bhadoria AS. Childhood obesity: causes and consequences. J Family Med Prim Care 2015;4(2):187-192 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  47. Malik VS, Pan A, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 2013 Oct;98(4):1084-1102 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  48. Luger M, Lafontan M, Bes-Rastrollo M, Winzer E, Yumuk V, Farpour-Lambert N. Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review from 2013 to 2015 and a comparison with previous studies. Obes Facts 2017;10(6):674-693 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  49. Pérez-Escamilla R, Obbagy JE, Altman JM, Essery EV, McGrane MM, Wong YP, et al. Dietary energy density and body weight in adults and children: a systematic review. J Acad Nutr Diet 2012 May;112(5):671-684. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  50. Chen X, Beydoun MA, Wang Y. Is sleep duration associated with childhood obesity? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2008 Feb;16(2):265-274 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  51. Miller MA, Kruisbrink M, Wallace J, Ji C, Cappuccio FP. Sleep duration and incidence of obesity in infants, children, and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Sleep 2018 Apr 01;41(4):-. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  52. Fatima Y, Doi SA, Mamun AA. Longitudinal impact of sleep on overweight and obesity in children and adolescents: a systematic review and bias-adjusted meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2015 Feb;16(2):137-149. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  53. Fang K, Mu M, Liu K, He Y. Screen time and childhood overweight/obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Care Health Dev 2019 Sep;45(5):744-753. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  54. Darmon N, Drewnowski A. Does social class predict diet quality? Am J Clin Nutr 2008 May;87(5):1107-1117. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  55. El-Sheikh M, Bagley EJ, Keiley M, Elmore-Staton L, Chen E, Buckhalt JA. Economic adversity and children's sleep problems: multiple indicators and moderation of effects. Health Psychol 2013 Aug;32(8):849-859 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  56. Tandon PS, Zhou C, Sallis JF, Cain KL, Frank LD, Saelens BE. Home environment relationships with children's physical activity, sedentary time, and screen time by socioeconomic status. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012 Jul 26;9:88 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  57. Lindsay AC, Sussner KM, Kim J, Gortmaker S. The role of parents in preventing childhood obesity. Future Child 2006;16(1):169-186. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  58. Gerards SM, Kremers SP. The role of food parenting skills and the home food environment in children's weight gain and obesity. Curr Obes Rep 2015 Mar;4(1):30-36 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  59. Larsen JK, Sleddens EF, Vink JM, Fisher JO, Kremers SP. General parenting styles and children's obesity risk: changing focus. Front Psychol 2018;9:2119 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  60. Patrick H, Hennessy E, McSpadden K, Oh A. Parenting styles and practices in children's obesogenic behaviors: scientific gaps and future research directions. Child Obes 2013 Aug;9 Suppl:73-86 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  61. Philips N, Sioen I, Michels N, Sleddens E, De Henauw S. The influence of parenting style on health related behavior of children: findings from the ChiBS study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2014 Jul 23;11:95 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  62. Rodenburg G, Oenema A, Kremers SP, van de Mheen D. Clustering of diet- and activity-related parenting practices: cross-sectional findings of the INPACT study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013 Mar 25;10:36 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  63. Grolnick WS, Pomerantz EM. Issues and challenges in studying parental control: toward a new conceptualization. Child Dev Perspect 2009;3(3):165-170. [CrossRef]
  64. Grolnick WS, Deci EL, Ryan RM. In: Grusec JE, Kuczynski L, editors. Parenting and Children's Internalization of Values: A Handbook of Contemporary Theory. Hoboken, New Jersey, United States: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1997:1-439.
  65. Paul IM, Bartok CJ, Downs DS, Stifter CA, Ventura AK, Birch LL. Opportunities for the primary prevention of obesity during infancy. Adv Pediatr 2009;56:107-133 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  66. Yee AZ, Lwin MO, Ho SS. The influence of parental practices on child promotive and preventive food consumption behaviors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2017 Apr 11;14(1):47 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  67. Chamberlin LA, Sherman SN, Jain A, Powers SW, Whitaker RC. The challenge of preventing and treating obesity in low-income, preschool children: perceptions of WIC health care professionals. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002 Jul;156(7):662-668. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  68. Jain A, Sherman SN, Chamberlin LA, Carter Y, Powers SW, Whitaker RC. Why don't low-income mothers worry about their preschoolers being overweight? Pediatrics 2001 May;107(5):1138-1146. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  69. Clark HR, Goyder E, Bissell P, Blank L, Walters SJ, Peters J. A pilot survey of socio-economic differences in child-feeding behaviours among parents of primary-school children. Public Health Nutr 2008 Oct;11(10):1030-1036. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  70. Pinket A, De Craemer M, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B, Cardon G, Androutsos O, et al. Can parenting practices explain the differences in beverage intake according to socio-economic status: the Toybox-study. Nutrients 2016 Sep 23;8(10):- [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  71. Loth KA, MacLehose RF, Fulkerson JA, Crow S, Neumark-Sztainer D. Eat this, not that! Parental demographic correlates of food-related parenting practices. Appetite 2013 Jan;60(1):140-147 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  72. Cardel M, Willig AL, Dulin-Keita A, Casazza K, Beasley TM, Fernández JR. Parental feeding practices and socioeconomic status are associated with child adiposity in a multi-ethnic sample of children. Appetite 2012 Feb;58(1):347-353 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  73. Zarnowiecki DM, Dollman J, Parletta N. Associations between predictors of children's dietary intake and socioeconomic position: a systematic review of the literature. Obes Rev 2014 May;15(5):375-391. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  74. Anderson SE, Whitaker RC. Household routines and obesity in US preschool-aged children. Pediatrics 2010 Mar;125(3):420-428. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  75. Hale L, Berger LM, LeBourgeois MK, Brooks-Gunn J. Social and demographic predictors of preschoolers' bedtime routines. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2009 Oct;30(5):394-402 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  76. Jones CH, Ball H. Exploring socioeconomic differences in bedtime behaviours and sleep duration in English preschool children. Infant Child Dev 2014 Sep;23(5):518-531 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  77. Vereecken CA, Keukelier E, Maes L. Influence of mother's educational level on food parenting practices and food habits of young children. Appetite 2004 Aug;43(1):93-103. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  78. Darling N, Steinberg L. Parenting style as context: an integrative model. Psychol Bull 1993;113(3):487-496. [CrossRef]
  79. Sleddens EF, Kremers SP, Stafleu A, Dagnelie PC, De Vries NK, Thijs C. Food parenting practices and child dietary behavior. Prospective relations and the moderating role of general parenting. Appetite 2014 Aug;79:42-50. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  80. Baumrind D. Current patterns of parental authority. Dev Psychol 1971 Jun;4(1):1-103. [CrossRef]
  81. Gerards SM, Niermann C, Gevers DW, Eussen N, Kremers SP. Context matters! The relationship between mother-reported family nutrition climate, general parenting, food parenting practices and children's BMI. BMC Public Health 2016 Sep 27;16(1):1018 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  82. Kowalenko NM, Mares SP, Newman LK, Williams AE, Powrie RM, van Doesum KT. Family matters: infants, toddlers and preschoolers of parents affected by mental illness. Med J Aust 2013 Aug 05;199(3 Suppl):14-17. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  83. de Vries H. An integrated approach for understanding health behavior; the I-Change model as an example. Psychol Behav Sci Int J 2017 Mar 9;2(2):161-170 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
  84. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991 Dec;50(2):179-211. [CrossRef]
  85. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 2001;52:1-26. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  86. Prochaska J, Diclemente CC. Toward a comprehensive model of change. In: Treating Addictive Behaviors. Switzerland: Springer Nature; 1986:3-27.
  87. Janz NK, Becker MH. The Health Belief Model: a decade later. Health Educ Q 1984 Jan 01;11(1):1-47. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  88. Larsen JK, Hermans RC, Sleddens EF, Vink JM, Kremers SP, Ruiter EL, et al. How to bridge the intention-behavior gap in food parenting: automatic constructs and underlying techniques. Appetite 2018 Apr 01;123:191-200. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  89. Cluss PA, Ewing L, King WC, Reis EC, Dodd JL, Penner B. Nutrition knowledge of low-income parents of obese children. Transl Behav Med 2013 Jun;3(2):218-225 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  90. Vereecken C, Maes L. Young children's dietary habits and associations with the mothers' nutritional knowledge and attitudes. Appetite 2010 Feb;54(1):44-51. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  91. von Wagner C, Knight K, Steptoe A, Wardle J. Functional health literacy and health-promoting behaviour in a national sample of British adults. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007 Dec;61(12):1086-1090 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  92. McDowall PS, Galland BC, Campbell AJ, Elder DE. Parent knowledge of children's sleep: a systematic review. Sleep Med Rev 2017 Feb;31:39-47. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  93. Amin NAL, Tam WW, Shorey S. Enhancing first-time parents' self-efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of universal parent education interventions' efficacy. Int J Nurs Stud 2018 Jun;82:149-162. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  94. Kreuter MW, McClure SM. The role of culture in health communication. Annu Rev Public Health 2004;25:439-455. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  95. Lindsay AC, Greaney ML, Wallington SF, Mesa T, Salas CF. A review of early influences on physical activity and sedentary behaviors of preschool-age children in high-income countries. J Spec Pediatr Nurs 2017 Jul;22(3):-. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  96. Asplund KM, Kair LR, Arain YH, Cervantes M, Oreskovic NM, Zuckerman KE. Early childhood screen time and parental attitudes toward child television viewing in a low-income latino population attending the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children. Child Obes 2015 Oct;11(5):590-599 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  97. Kostyrka-Allchorne K, Cooper NR, Simpson A. The relationship between television exposure and children’s cognition and behaviour: a systematic review. Develop Rev 2017 Jun;44:19-58. [CrossRef]
  98. Schuster RC, Szpak M, Klein E, Sklar K, Dickin KL. "I try, I do": child feeding practices of motivated, low-income parents reflect trade-offs between psychosocial- and nutrition-oriented goals. Appetite 2019 May 01;136:114-123. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  99. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 1977 Mar;84(2):191-215. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  100. Parekh N, Henriksson P, Delisle Nyström C, Silfvernagel K, Ruiz JR, Ortega FB, et al. Associations of parental self-efficacy with diet, physical activity, body composition, and cardiorespiratory fitness in Swedish preschoolers: results from the MINISTOP trial. Health Educ Behav 2018 Apr;45(2):238-246. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  101. Xu H, Wen LM, Rissel C. Associations of parental influences with physical activity and screen time among young children: a systematic review. J Obes 2015;2015:546925 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  102. Gardner B, de Bruijn G, Lally P. A systematic review and meta-analysis of applications of the Self-Report Habit Index to nutrition and physical activity behaviours. Ann Behav Med 2011 Oct;42(2):174-187. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  103. McGowan L, Cooke LJ, Gardner B, Beeken RJ, Croker H, Wardle J. Healthy feeding habits: efficacy results from a cluster-randomized, controlled exploratory trial of a novel, habit-based intervention with parents. Am J Clin Nutr 2013 Sep;98(3):769-777. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  104. Kok G, Gottlieb NH, Peters GY, Mullen PD, Parcel GS, Ruiter RA, et al. A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: an Intervention Mapping approach. Health Psychol Rev 2016 Sep;10(3):297-312 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  105. Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med 2013 Aug;46(1):81-95. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  106. Hollands GJ, Marteau TM, Fletcher PC. Non-conscious processes in changing health-related behaviour: a conceptual analysis and framework. Health Psychol Rev 2016 Dec;10(4):381-394 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  107. Dombrowski SU, O'Carroll RE, Williams B. Form of delivery as a key 'active ingredient' in behaviour change interventions. Br J Health Psychol 2016 Nov;21(4):733-740. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  108. Bukman AJ, Teuscher D, Feskens EJ, van Baak MA, Meershoek A, Renes RJ. Perceptions on healthy eating, physical activity and lifestyle advice: opportunities for adapting lifestyle interventions to individuals with low socioeconomic status. BMC Public Health 2014 Oct 04;14:1036 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  109. Campbell FA, Goldman BD, Boccia ML, Skinner M. The effect of format modifications and reading comprehension on recall of informed consent information by low-income parents: a comparison of print, video, and computer-based presentations. Patient Educ Couns 2004 May;53(2):205-216. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  110. Choi J, Bakken S. Web-based education for low-literate parents in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: development of a website and heuristic evaluation and usability testing. Int J Med Inform 2010 Aug;79(8):565-575 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  111. Council of Europe. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press. 2001.   URL: [accessed 2021-04-13]
  112. Morrison LG, Yardley L, Powell J, Michie S. What design features are used in effective e-health interventions? A review using techniques from Critical Interpretive Synthesis. Telemed J E Health 2012 Mar;18(2):137-144. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  113. Short CE, Rebar AL, Plotnikoff RC, Vandelanotte C. Designing engaging online behaviour change interventions: a proposed model of user engagement. Eur Health Psychol 2015;17(1):32-38 [FREE Full text]
  114. Denney-Wilson E, Laws R, Russell CG, Ong K, Taki S, Elliot R, et al. Preventing obesity in infants: the growing healthy feasibility trial protocol. BMJ Open 2015 Nov 30;5(11):e009258 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  115. Laws R, Campbell KJ, van der Pligt P, Ball K, Lynch J, Russell G, et al. Obesity prevention in early life: an opportunity to better support the role of Maternal and Child Health Nurses in Australia. BMC Nurs 2015;14:26 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  116. The National Prevention Agreement. Government of the Netherlands. 2019.   URL: https:/​/www.​​topics/​overweight-and-obesity/​documents/​reports/​2019/​06/​30/​the-national-prevention-agreement [accessed 2021-01-20]
  117. Wen LM, Baur LA, Simpson JM, Rissel C, Wardle K, Flood VM. Effectiveness of home based early intervention on children's BMI at age 2: randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 2012 Jun 26;344:e3732 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  118. Suresh K. An overview of randomization techniques: an unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research. J Hum Reprod Sci 2011 Jan;4(1):8-11 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  119. Warin M, Zivkovic T, Moore V, Ward PR, Jones M. Short horizons and obesity futures: disjunctures between public health interventions and everyday temporalities. Soc Sci Med 2015 Mar;128:309-315. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  120. Dennison L, Morrison L, Conway G, Yardley L. Opportunities and challenges for smartphone applications in supporting health behavior change: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res 2013 Apr 18;15(4):e86 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  121. Samen Happie! [Bites of Happiness].   URL: [accessed 2021-04-27]
  122. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. J Am Med Assoc 1995 Feb 01;273(5):408-412. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  123. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998 Aug 22;352(9128):609-613. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  124. Tugault-Lafleur C, González OD, O'Connor T, Masse L. Food parenting practices and children's eating behaviors: comparing mothers and fathers. Curr Develop Nutri 2020:1354 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
  125. Dovey TM, Staples PA, Gibson EL, Halford JCG. Food neophobia and 'picky/fussy' eating in children: a review. Appetite 2008;50(2-3):181-193. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  126. Gallacher L. The terrible twos: gaining control in the nursery? Children's Geographies 2006 Aug 21;3(2):243-264. [CrossRef]
  127. Coren E, Barlow J, Stewart-Brown S. The effectiveness of individual and group-based parenting programmes in improving outcomes for teenage mothers and their children: a systematic review. J Adolesc 2003 Feb;26(1):79-103. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  128. Nieuwboer CC, Fukkink RG, Hermanns JM. Online programs as tools to improve parenting: a meta-analytic review. Child Youth Serv Rev 2013 Nov;35(11):1823-1829. [CrossRef]

EBRB: energy balance–related behavior
IMP: Intervention Mapping Protocol
RCT: randomized controlled trial
SEP: socioeconomic position

Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 06.10.20; peer-reviewed by C Rissel, G ten Velde; comments to author 09.12.20; revised version received 02.02.21; accepted 15.03.21; published 14.05.21


©Levie T Karssen, Jacqueline M Vink, Carolina de Weerth, Roel C J Hermans, Carina P M de Kort, Stef PJ Kremers, Emilie L M Ruiter, Junilla K Larsen. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (, 14.05.2021.

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, first published in JMIR Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.