A Service evaluation of a hospital child death review process to elucidate understanding of contributory factors to child mortality and inform practice in the English National Health Service.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a novel approach to hospital mortality meetings to elucidate understanding of contributory factors to child death and inform practice in the National Health Service. DESIGN: All child deaths were separately reviewed at a meeting attended by professionals across the healthcare pathway, and an assessment was made of contributory factors to death across domains intrinsic to the child, family and environment, parenting capacity and service delivery. Data were analysed from a centrally held database of records. SETTING: All child deaths in a tertiary children's hospital between 1 April 2010 and 1 April 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive data summarising contributory factors to child deaths. RESULTS: 95 deaths were reviewed. In 85% cases, factors intrinsic to the child provided complete explanation for death. In 11% cases, factors in the family and environment and, in 5% cases, factors in parenting capacity, contributed to patient vulnerability. In 33% cases, factors in service provision contributed to patient vulnerability and in two patients provided complete explanation for death. 26% deaths were classified as potentially preventable and in those cases factors in service provision were more commonly identified than factors across other domains (OR: 4.89; 95% CI 1.26 to 18.9). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital child death review meetings attended by professionals involved in patient management across the healthcare pathway inform understanding of events leading to a child's death. Using a bioecological approach to scrutinise contributory factors the multidisciplinary team concluded most deaths occurred as a consequence of underlying illness. Although factors relating to service provision were commonly identified, they rarely provided a complete explanation for death. Efforts to reduce child mortality should be driven by an understanding of modifiable risk factors. Systematic data collection arising from a standardised approach to hospital reviews should be the basis for national mortality review processes and database development.

The Health Promoting Schools Framework: Known Unknowns and an Agenda for Future Research.

The World Health Organization's Health Promoting Schools (HPS) framework is a whole-school approach to promoting health that recognizes the intrinsic relationship between health and education. Our recent Cochrane systematic review found HPS interventions produced improvements in a number of student health outcomes. Here we reflect on what this review was not able to tell us: in other words, what evidence is missing with regard to the HPS approach. Few HPS interventions engage with schools' "core business" by examining impacts on educational outcomes. Current evidence is dominated by obesity interventions, with most studies conducted with children rather than adolescents. Evidence is lacking for outcomes such as mental or sexual health, substance use, and violence. Activities to engage families and communities are currently weak and unlikely to prompt behavioral change. The HPS approach is largely absent in low-income settings, despite its potential in meeting children's basic health needs. Intervention theories are insufficiently complex, often ignoring upstream determinants of health. Few studies provide evidence on intervention sustainability or cost-effectiveness, nor in-depth contextual or process data. We set out an agenda for future school health promotion research, considering implications for key stakeholders, namely, national governments, research funders, academics, and schools.

Funding source and primary outcome changes in clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov are associated with the reporting of a statistically significant primary outcome: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: We and others have shown a significant proportion of interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov have their primary outcomes altered after the listed study start and completion dates. The objectives of this study were to investigate whether changes made to primary outcomes are associated with the likelihood of reporting a statistically significant primary outcome on ClinicalTrials.gov. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of all interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as of 20 November 2014 was performed. The main outcome was any change made to the initially listed primary outcome and the time of the change in relation to the trial start and end date. FINDINGS: 13,238 completed interventional trials were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov that also had study results posted on the website. 2555 (19.3%) had one or more statistically significant primary outcomes. Statistical analysis showed that registration year, funding source and primary outcome change after trial completion were associated with reporting a statistically significant primary outcome . CONCLUSIONS:  Funding source and primary outcome change after trial completion are associated with a statistically significant primary outcome report on clinicaltrials.gov.

The World Health Organization's Health Promoting Schools framework: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Healthy children achieve better educational outcomes which, in turn, are associated with improved health later in life. The World Health Organization's Health Promoting Schools (HPS) framework is a holistic approach to promoting health and educational attainment in school. The effectiveness of this approach has not yet been rigorously reviewed. METHODS: We searched 20 health, education and social science databases, and trials registries and relevant websites in 2011 and 2013. We included cluster randomised controlled trials. Participants were children and young people aged four to 18 years attending schools/colleges. HPS interventions had to include the following three elements: input into the curriculum; changes to the school's ethos or environment; and engagement with families and/or local communities. Two reviewers identified relevant trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We grouped studies according to the health topic(s) targeted. Where data permitted, we performed random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: We identified 67 eligible trials tackling a range of health issues. Few studies included any academic/attendance outcomes. We found positive average intervention effects for: body mass index (BMI), physical activity, physical fitness, fruit and vegetable intake, tobacco use, and being bullied. Intervention effects were generally small. On average across studies, we found little evidence of effectiveness for zBMI (BMI, standardized for age and gender), and no evidence for fat intake, alcohol use, drug use, mental health, violence and bullying others. It was not possible to meta-analyse data on other health outcomes due to lack of data. Methodological limitations were identified including reliance on self-reported data, lack of long-term follow-up, and high attrition rates. CONCLUSION: This Cochrane review has found the WHO HPS framework is effective at improving some aspects of student health. The effects are small but potentially important at a population level.

Prevalence of primary outcome changes in clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: An important principle in the good conduct of clinical trials is that a summary of the trial protocol, with a pre-defined primary outcome, should be freely available before the study commences. The clinical trials registry ClinicalTrials.gov provides one method of doing this, and once the trial is registered, any changes made to the primary outcome are documented. The objectives of this study were: to assess the proportion of registered trials on ClinicalTrials.gov that had the primary outcome changed; to assess when the primary outcome was changed in relation to the listed study start and end dates and to assess whether the primary outcome change had any relation to the study sponsor. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of all interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as of 25 October 2012 was performed. The main outcome was any change made to the initially listed primary outcome and the time of the change in relation to the trial start and end date. FINDINGS: Our analysis showed that 28229 of 89204 (31.7%) registered studies had their primary outcome changed.  Industry funding was associated with all primary outcome changes, odds ratio (OR)= 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.31-1.41, p<0.001; with primary outcome changes after study start date OR=1.37, 95% CI=1.32-1.42, p<0.001; with primary outcome changes after primary completion date OR=1.84, 95% CI=1.75-1.94, p<0.001 and with primary outcome changes after study completion date OR=1.82, 95% CI=1.73-1.91, p<0.001.  Conclusions A significant proportion of interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov have their primary outcomes altered after the listed study start and completion dates. These changes are associated with funding source.

The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization's (WHO's) Health Promoting Schools (HPS) framework is an holistic, settings-based approach to promoting health and educational attainment in school. The effectiveness of this approach has not been previously rigorously reviewed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of the Health Promoting Schools (HPS) framework in improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases in January 2011 and again in March and April 2013: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Campbell Library, ASSIA, BiblioMap, CAB Abstracts, IBSS, Social Science Citation Index, Sociological Abstracts, TRoPHI, Global Health Database, SIGLE, Australian Education Index, British Education Index, Education Resources Information Centre, Database of Education Research, Dissertation Express, Index to Theses in Great Britain and Ireland, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current controlled trials, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also searched relevant websites, handsearched reference lists, and used citation tracking to identify other relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cluster-randomised controlled trials where randomisation took place at the level of school, district or other geographical area. Participants were children and young people aged four to 18 years, attending schools or colleges. In this review, we define HPS interventions as comprising the following three elements: input to the curriculum; changes to the school's ethos or environment or both; and engagement with families or communities, or both. We compared this intervention against schools that implemented either no intervention or continued with their usual practice, or any programme that included just one or two of the above mentioned HPS elements. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors identified relevant trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in the trials. We grouped different types of interventions according to the health topic targeted or the approach used, or both. Where data permitted, we performed random-effects meta-analyses to provide a summary of results across studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 67 eligible cluster trials, randomising 1443 schools or districts. This is made up of 1345 schools and 98 districts. The studies tackled a range of health issues: physical activity (4), nutrition (12), physical activity and nutrition combined (18), bullying (7), tobacco (5), alcohol (2), sexual health (2), violence (2), mental health (2), hand-washing (2), multiple risk behaviours (7), cycle-helmet use (1), eating disorders (1), sun protection (1), and oral health (1). The quality of evidence overall was low to moderate as determined by the GRADE approach. 'Risk of bias' assessments identified methodological limitations, including heavy reliance on self-reported data and high attrition rates for some studies. In addition, there was a lack of long-term follow-up data for most studies.We found positive effects for some interventions for: body mass index (BMI), physical activity, physical fitness, fruit and vegetable intake, tobacco use, and being bullied. Intervention effects were generally small but have the potential to produce public health benefits at the population level. We found little evidence of effectiveness for standardised body mass index (zBMI) and no evidence of effectiveness for fat intake, alcohol use, drug use, mental health, violence and bullying others; however, only a small number of studies focused on these latter outcomes. It was not possible to meta-analyse data on other health outcomes due to lack of data. Few studies provided details on adverse events or outcomes related to the interventions. In addition, few studies included any academic, attendance or school-related outcomes. We therefore cannot draw any clear conclusions as to the effectiveness of this approach for improving academic achievement. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review provide evidence for the effectiveness of some interventions based on the HPS framework for improving certain health outcomes but not others. More well-designed research is required to establish the effectiveness of this approach for other health topics and academic achievement.