Catalyzing Communities / Childhood Obesity / Food Systems · Interventional Study

Network-Based Support to Help Community Coalition Members Choose and Use Strategies to Improve Child Health

ClinicalTrials.gov · September 4, 2026

Preliminary Why this matters to you Expert discussion

Early or partial results. Treat as a signal, not a conclusion.

AI Summary

This is a registered, not-yet-recruiting feasibility study designed to test whether a network-based decision-support intervention (FICAS) can be successfully delivered to community coalitions and is acceptable to members. The study is planned to inform refinement and design of a larger subsequent trial; no results are yet available.

What was studied

Interventional, Randomized, Sequential, Open label, Other purpose. Childhood Obesity, Evidence-Based Practice, Food Systems, Food Policy; age from 18 Years; accepts healthy volunteers. Intervention: Delayed Control; Augmented Treatment: Catalyzing Communities Plus FICAS. Compared with: Positive Control: Catalyzing Communities — Active Comparator. n = 3,300. 1 site: United States.

Key findings

Safety

Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.

Who this may help

This study is in the planning phase and has not yet enrolled participants or generated results. Clinicians and implementation researchers should note this as an emerging evaluation of a network-based strategy to support evidence-based practice adoption in community settings; results will be relevant to understanding coalition support mechanisms once available.

Plain-language summary

This is a registered interventional study not yet recruiting with no results posted; it is designed as a feasibility and acceptability assessment to inform refinement before a larger trial.

Study design

As stated by the source record.

MethodsPrimary outcome measures: Participation and Reach (assessed at From the beginning of participant recruitment through the primary assessment wi…); Percentage of Enrolled Participants Retained Through the Primary Endpoint (assessed at Baseline through intervention month 12); Mean Acceptability of Intervention Measure Score for FICAS (assessed at Intervention months 6, 9, and 12); Mean Intervention Appropriateness Measure Score for FICAS (assessed at Intervention months 6, 9, and 12); Mean Feasibility of Intervention Measure Score for FICAS (assessed at Intervention months 6, 9, and 12)

DesignInterventional, Randomized, Sequential, Open label, Other purpose

PopulationChildhood Obesity, Evidence-Based Practice, Food Systems, Food Policy; age from 18 Years; accepts healthy volunteers

Sample size3,300

InterventionDelayed Control; Augmented Treatment: Catalyzing Communities Plus FICAS

ComparatorPositive Control: Catalyzing Communities — Active Comparator

Setting1 site: United States

Reported figures

Quoted from the source exactly as published.

Estimated enrollment3300

Number of community coalitions3

Clinical bottom line

Caveats

No results or outcome data reported in this registry record.
Study has not yet begun recruitment; all figures are estimated or planned.
Primary outcomes focus on feasibility and acceptability, not clinical or health outcomes.
Three-arm design but comparison structure (staggered start, one arm without FICAS, one with both interventions) limits ability to isolate FICAS effect without stronger control.

Evidence assessment

Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.

Study design

moderate

Interventional with three-arm comparison and staggered implementation, but not yet recruiting.

Directness

moderate

Measures participation, reach, retention, and acceptability; child health outcomes not listed as primary endpoints.

Consistency

insufficient

No results reported; consistency cannot be assessed from registry record alone.

Risk of bias

insufficient

Study design described but not blinding, allocation concealment, or other bias mitigation strategies.

Sample adequacy

moderate

3300 estimated participants across three coalitions; adequate for feasibility, underpowered for efficacy.

What is missing. This record has no key findings. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.

Source abstract

Registry record from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07804550). This is a study registration, not published results. Lead sponsor: University of Pittsburgh. Recruitment status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING. Phase: NA. Study type: INTERVENTIONAL. Enrollment: 3300 participants (ESTIMATED). Conditions: Childhood Obesity, Evidence-Based Practice, Food Systems, Food Policy. Interventions: BEHAVIORAL: Catalyzing Communities; BEHAVIORAL: FICAS Implementation Intervention. Primary outcome measures: Participation and Reach , From the beginning of participant recruitment through the primary assessment window, up to 12 months after intervention initiation; Percentage of Enrolled Participants Retained Through the Primary Endpoint , Baseline through intervention month 12; Mean Acceptability of Intervention Measure Score for FICAS , Intervention months 6, 9, and 12; Mean Intervention Appropriateness Measure Score for FICAS , Intervention months 6, 9, and 12; Mean Feasibility of Intervention Measure Score for FICAS , Intervention months 6, 9, and 12. Brief summary: Community coalitions bring together residents and organizations to improve child health, but they may need support to identify and put research-supported strategies into practice. This study will examine whether a program called FICAS can be delivered successfully and is useful to coalition members. FICAS uses information about relationships within a coalition to help involve people with relevant perspectives, share evidence, compare possible strategies, make decisions, and adjust support as the coalition's work develops. Three community coalitions will participate. All three will eventually receive Catalyzing Communities, a program that provides facilitated meetings, collaborative planning, technical assistance, and funding for coalition-led action. One coalition will begin the program later, one will receive Catalyzing Communities alone, and one will receive Catalyzing Communities with FICAS. The study will help determine whether FICAS and the study procedures should be refined and tested in a larger study.

Follow from this

Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.

Catalyzing CommunitiesChildhood ObesityUniversity of PittsburghNCT07804550Food SystemsEvidence Based PracticeFICAS Implementation Intervention