Family Check-Up

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU intervention predicted a significantly less severe decline in parent-youth relationship quality from ages 12-15, with intervention families maintaining better relationship trajectories than co

Effect: improvement; β = .16

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98

The FCU had a significant indirect effect on reduced obesity at age 22, mediated through improved parent-youth relationship quality and reduced maladaptive eating attitudes, even though the FCU contai

Effect: improvement; indirect effect OR = .98