Mycophenolate Mofetil for First-Line Treatment of Immune Thrombocytopenia.

BACKGROUND: Immune thrombocytopenia is a rare autoimmune disorder with associated bleeding risk and fatigue. Recommended first-line treatment for immune thrombocytopenia is high-dose glucocorticoids, but side effects, variable responses, and high relapse rates are serious drawbacks. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial conducted in the United Kingdom, we assigned adult patients with immune thrombocytopenia, in a 1:1 ratio, to first-line treatment with a glucocorticoid only (standard care) or combined glucocorticoid and mycophenolate mofetil. The primary efficacy outcome was treatment failure, defined as a platelet count of less than 30×109 per liter and initiation of a second-line treatment, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. Secondary outcomes were response rates, side effects, occurrence of bleeding, patient-reported quality-of-life measures, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients with immune thrombocytopenia underwent randomization (52.4% male; mean age, 54 years [range 17 to 87]; mean platelet level, 7×109 per liter) and were followed for up to 2 years after beginning trial treatment. The mycophenolate mofetil group had fewer treatment failures than the glucocorticoid-only group (22% [13 of 59 patients] vs. 44% [27 of 61 patients]; hazard ratio, 0.41; range, 0.21 to 0.80; P = 0.008) and greater response (91.5% of patients having platelet counts greater than 100×109 per liter vs. 63.9%; P<0.001). We found no evidence of a difference between the groups in the occurrence of bleeding, rescue treatments, or treatment side effects, including infection. However, patients in the mycophenolate mofetil group reported worse quality-of-life outcomes regarding physical function and fatigue than those in the glucocorticoid-only group. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of mycophenolate mofetil to a glucocorticoid for first-line treatment of immune thrombocytopenia resulted in greater response and a lower risk of refractory or relapsed immune thrombocytopenia, but with somewhat decreased quality of life. (Funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research; FLIGHT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03156452; EudraCT number, 2017-001171-23.).

Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 12 to 18 years old.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of obesity in adolescents is an international public health priority. The prevalence of overweight and obesity is over 25% in North and South America, Australia, most of Europe, and the Gulf region. Interventions that aim to prevent obesity involve strategies that promote healthy diets or 'activity' levels (physical activity, sedentary behaviour and/or sleep) or both, and work by reducing energy intake and/or increasing energy expenditure, respectively. There is uncertainty over which approaches are more effective, and numerous new studies have been published over the last five years since the previous version of this Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions that aim to prevent obesity in adolescents by modifying dietary intake or 'activity' levels, or a combination of both, on changes in BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in adolescents (mean age 12 years and above but less than 19 years), comparing diet or 'activity' interventions (or both) to prevent obesity with no intervention, usual care, or with another eligible intervention, in any setting. Studies had to measure outcomes at a minimum of 12 weeks post baseline. We excluded interventions designed primarily to improve sporting performance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our outcomes were BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events, assessed at short- (12 weeks to < 9 months from baseline), medium- (9 months to < 15 months) and long-term (≥ 15 months) follow-up. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 74 studies (83,407 participants); 54 studies (46,358 participants) were included in meta-analyses. Sixty studies were based in high-income countries. The main setting for intervention delivery was schools (57 studies), followed by home (nine studies), the community (five studies) and a primary care setting (three studies). Fifty-one interventions were implemented for less than nine months; the shortest was conducted over one visit and the longest over 28 months. Sixty-two studies declared non-industry funding; five were funded in part by industry. Dietary interventions versus control The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of dietary interventions on body mass index (BMI) at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.41 to 0.06; 3 studies, 605 participants), medium-term follow-up (MD -0.65, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.11; 3 studies, 900 participants), and standardised BMI (zBMI) at long-term follow-up (MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.10; 2 studies, 1089 participants); all very low-certainty evidence. Compared with control, dietary interventions may have little to no effect on BMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.67 to 1.07; 1 study, 44 participants); zBMI at short-term (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.01; 5 studies, 3154 participants); and zBMI at medium-term (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.21; 1 study, 112 participants) follow-up; all low-certainty evidence. Dietary interventions may have little to no effect on serious adverse events (two studies, 377 participants; low-certainty evidence). Activity interventions versus control Compared with control, activity interventions do not reduce BMI at short-term follow-up (MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.86 to 0.58; 6 studies, 1780 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce zBMI at medium- (MD 0, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05; 6 studies, 5335 participants) or long-term (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.02; 1 study, 985 participants) follow-up; both moderate-certainty evidence. Activity interventions do not reduce zBMI at short-term follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.05; 7 studies, 4718 participants; high-certainty evidence), but may reduce BMI slightly at medium-term (MD -0.32, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.11; 3 studies, 2143 participants) and long-term (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.05; 1 study, 985 participants) follow-up; both low-certainty evidence. Seven studies (5428 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: two reported injuries relating to the exercise component of the intervention and five reported no effect of intervention on reported serious adverse events. Dietary and activity interventions versus control Dietary and activity interventions, compared with control, do not reduce BMI at short-term follow-up (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 11 studies, 3429 participants; high-certainty evidence), and probably do not reduce BMI at medium-term (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; 8 studies, 5612 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or long-term (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.16; 6 studies, 8736 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) follow-up. They may have little to no effect on zBMI in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.02; 3 studies, 515 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and they may not reduce zBMI at medium-term (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.01; 6 studies, 3511 participants; low-certainty evidence) or long-term (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.01; 7 studies, 8430 participants; low-certainty evidence) follow-up. Four studies (2394 participants) reported data on serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence): one reported an increase in weight concern in a few adolescents and three reported no effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence demonstrates that dietary interventions may have little to no effect on obesity in adolescents. There is low-certainty evidence that activity interventions may have a small beneficial effect on BMI at medium- and long-term follow-up. Diet plus activity interventions may result in little to no difference. Importantly, this updated review also suggests that interventions to prevent obesity in this age group may result in little to no difference in serious adverse effects. Limitations of the evidence include inconsistent results across studies, lack of methodological rigour in some studies and small sample sizes. Further research is justified to investigate the effects of diet and activity interventions to prevent childhood obesity in community settings, and in young people with disabilities, since very few ongoing studies are likely to address these. Further randomised trials to address the remaining uncertainty about the effects of diet, activity interventions, or both, to prevent childhood obesity in schools (ideally with zBMI as the measured outcome) would need to have larger samples.

Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 5 to 11 years old.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of obesity in children is an international public health priority given the prevalence of the condition (and its significant impact on health, development and well-being). Interventions that aim to prevent obesity involve behavioural change strategies that promote healthy eating or 'activity' levels (physical activity, sedentary behaviour and/or sleep) or both, and work by reducing energy intake and/or increasing energy expenditure, respectively. There is uncertainty over which approaches are more effective and numerous new studies have been published over the last five years, since the previous version of this Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions that aim to prevent obesity in children by modifying dietary intake or 'activity' levels, or a combination of both, on changes in BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in children (mean age 5 years and above but less than 12 years), comparing diet or 'activity' interventions (or both) to prevent obesity with no intervention, usual care, or with another eligible intervention, in any setting. Studies had to measure outcomes at a minimum of 12 weeks post baseline. We excluded interventions designed primarily to improve sporting performance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our outcomes were body mass index (BMI), zBMI score and serious adverse events, assessed at short- (12 weeks to < 9 months from baseline), medium- (9 months to < 15 months) and long-term (≥ 15 months) follow-up. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 172 studies (189,707 participants); 149 studies (160,267 participants) were included in meta-analyses. One hundred forty-six studies were based in high-income countries. The main setting for intervention delivery was schools (111 studies), followed by the community (15 studies), the home (eight studies) and a clinical setting (seven studies); one intervention was conducted by telehealth and 31 studies were conducted in more than one setting. Eighty-six interventions were implemented for less than nine months; the shortest was conducted over one visit and the longest over four years. Non-industry funding was declared by 132 studies; 24 studies were funded in part or wholly by industry. Dietary interventions versus control Dietary interventions, compared with control, may have little to no effect on BMI at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.10; 5 studies, 2107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at medium-term follow-up (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12; 9 studies, 6815 participants; low-certainty evidence) or zBMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.01; 7 studies, 5285 participants; low-certainty evidence). Dietary interventions, compared with control, probably have little to no effect on BMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.13; 2 studies, 945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and zBMI at short- or medium-term follow-up (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.01; 8 studies, 3695 participants; MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.02; 9 studies, 7048 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Five studies (1913 participants; very low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: one reported serious adverse events (e.g. allergy, behavioural problems and abdominal discomfort) that may have occurred as a result of the intervention; four reported no effect. Activity interventions versus control Activity interventions, compared with control, may have little to no effect on BMI and zBMI at short-term or long-term follow-up (BMI short-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.13; 14 studies, 4069 participants; zBMI short-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; 6 studies, 3580 participants; low-certainty evidence; BMI long-term: MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.10; 8 studies, 8302 participants; zBMI long-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04; 6 studies, 6940 participants; low-certainty evidence). Activity interventions likely result in a slight reduction of BMI and zBMI at medium-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05; 16 studies, 21,286 participants; zBMI: MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.02; 13 studies, 20,600 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Eleven studies (21,278 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events; one study reported two minor ankle sprains and one study reported the incident rate of adverse events (e.g. musculoskeletal injuries) that may have occurred as a result of the intervention; nine studies reported no effect. Dietary and activity interventions versus control Dietary and activity interventions, compared with control, may result in a slight reduction in BMI and zBMI at short-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.01; 27 studies, 16,066 participants; zBMI: MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.00; 26 studies, 12,784 participants; low-certainty evidence) and likely result in a reduction of BMI and zBMI at medium-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.00; 21 studies, 17,547 participants; zBMI: MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; 24 studies, 20,998 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dietary and activity interventions compared with control may result in little to no difference in BMI and zBMI at long-term follow-up (BMI: MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16; 16 studies, 22,098 participants; zBMI: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.01; 22 studies, 23,594 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nineteen studies (27,882 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: four studies reported occurrence of serious adverse events (e.g. injuries, low levels of extreme dieting behaviour); 15 studies reported no effect. Heterogeneity was apparent in the results for all outcomes at the three follow-up times, which could not be explained by the main setting of the interventions (school, home, school and home, other), country income status (high-income versus non-high-income), participants' socioeconomic status (low versus mixed) and duration of the intervention. Most studies excluded children with a mental or physical disability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The body of evidence in this review demonstrates that a range of school-based 'activity' interventions, alone or in combination with dietary interventions, may have a modest beneficial effect on obesity in childhood at short- and medium-term, but not at long-term follow-up. Dietary interventions alone may result in little to no difference. Limited evidence of low quality was identified on the effect of dietary and/or activity interventions on severe adverse events and health inequalities; exploratory analyses of these data suggest no meaningful impact. We identified a dearth of evidence for home and community-based settings (e.g. delivered through local youth groups), for children living with disabilities and indicators of health inequities.

Short and medium-term effects of the COVID-19 lockdowns on child and parent accelerometer-measured physical activity and sedentary time: a natural experiment.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in marked impacts on children's physical activity, with large reductions in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) reported during lockdowns. Previous evidence showed children's activity levels were lower and sedentary time higher immediately post-COVID lockdown, while there was little change in parental physical activity. We need to know if these patterns persist. METHODS: Active-6 is a natural experiment using repeated cross-sectional data conducted in two waves. Accelerometer data were collected on 393 children aged 10-11 and their parents from 23 schools in Wave 1 (June 2021-December 2021), and 436 children and parents from 27 schools in Wave 2 (January 2022-July 2022). These were compared to a pre-COVID-19 comparator group (March 2017-May 2018) of 1,296 children and parents in the same schools. Mean minutes of accelerometer-measured MVPA and sedentary time were derived for week- and weekend-days and compared across waves via linear multilevel models. We also analysed the date of data collection as a time series, to explore temporal patterns via generalised additive mixed models. RESULTS: There was no difference in children's mean MVPA in Wave 2 (weekdays: -2.3 min; 95% CI: -5.9, 1.3 and weekends: 0.6 min; 95% CI: -3.5, 4.6) when compared to the pre-COVID-19 data. Sedentary time remained higher than pre-pandemic by 13.2 min (95% CI:5.3, 21.1) on weekdays. Differences compared to pre-COVID-19 changed over time, with children's MVPA decreasing over winter, coinciding with COVID-19 outbreaks, and only returning to pre-pandemic levels towards May/June 2022. Parents' sedentary time and weekday MVPA was similar to pre-COVID-19 levels, with MVPA higher than pre-pandemic by 7.7 min (95% CI: 1.4, 14.0) on weekends. CONCLUSION: After an initial drop, children's MVPA returned to pre-pandemic levels by July 2022, while sedentary time remained higher. Parents' MVPA remained higher, especially at weekends. The recovery in physical activity is precarious and potentially susceptible to future COVID-19 outbreaks or changes in provision, and so robust measures to protect against future disruptions are needed. Furthermore, many children are still inactive, with only 41% meeting UK physical activity guidelines, and so there is still a need to increase children's physical activity.

The status of active after-school clubs among primary school children in England (UK) after the COVD-19 lockdowns: implications for policy and practice.

BACKGROUND: Children's physical activity in England is more dependent on active clubs after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is unclear how the COVID-19 pandemic and related cost-of-living crisis have impacted on active club participation, costs and provision. This mixed-methods natural experiment explored school-based and community-based active clubs after lockdowns, using a unique combination of data sources to highlight implications for policy and practice post-COVID-19. METHODS: Cross-sectional questionnaire data on school and community active clubs were collected from 10-11-year-old children pre-COVID-19 in 2017-18 (N = 1,296; 50 schools), in 2021 (N = 393; 23 schools), and 2022 (N = 463; 27 schools). Club participation and attendance frequency were modelled using logistic and Poisson mixed effects models, adjusted for child age, gender and household education. In 2021 and 2022, parents reported expenditure on community-based clubs and schools provided data on school-based club provision, with data summarised descriptively. Qualitative data were collected in 2021 and 2022, with one-to-one interviews with school staff (N = 18) and parents (N = 43), and twelve child focus groups (N = 92), and analysed using the framework method. RESULTS: School-based active club participation was higher in 2022 compared to pre-pandemic (50% /43%), while community-based club participation was lower (74%/80%). Children attended 0.3 fewer clubs per week. Those from lower education households were less likely to participate in both types of active clubs, and girls less likely to attend community clubs. In 2022, the median cost of community and school club sessions were £6.67 and £3.88 respectively, with 52% of school-based clubs free to parents. Schools offered an average of 3.4 active clubs per week for 10-11-year-olds in 2022, with 34% partly/wholly subsidised. Qualitative analysis highlighted the impact of the cost-of-living crisis and COVID-19 pandemic on family resources, encouraging a shift to more affordable and convenient school-based active clubs, which negatively impacted the community-based active club environment. However, many schools struggled to meet this increased demand. CONCLUSIONS: Findings emphasise the importance for policymakers to support schools to meet increased demand for clubs and community clubs to increase affordable and convenient physical activity opportunities. Targeted support is needed to prevent socioeconomic and gender inequalities.

A qualitative process evaluation of universal free school meal provision in two London secondary schools.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, one in five households with children experienced food insecurity in 2022, defined as a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food. Free school meals are a public health intervention aimed at reducing food insecurity amongst children. The provision of universal free school meals (UFSM) to secondary school-aged children is a novel and untested intervention in the UK. This study is a process evaluation of a pilot of UFSM in two secondary schools in England. The aim was to understand the feasibility, acceptability, cost implications and lessons for the implementation of UFSM. METHODS: 20 parents, 28 students and 8 school staff from two intervention schools participated in online qualitative interviews, as well as 4 staff from non-intervention schools. The Framework Method of thematic analysis was applied. These data were supplemented with student-led observations of school meal times, and school lunch uptake-data and cost information provided by the local authority delivering the pilot. RESULTS: UFSM in secondary schools is a feasible and acceptable intervention, with coherent goals of increased access to a healthy meal, reduced food insecurity and better nutrition. All participants perceived these goals were met. Acceptability was further enhanced by the perception that UFSM were supporting a greater proportion of low-income families than the national, targeted Free School Meal scheme, as well as being easier to implement. Potential barriers to implementation include limited school kitchen and dining infrastructure, meal quality and choice, and increased queuing times. Participants' concerns that UFSM may benefit middle- and high- income families not in need were not as prevalent as the perception that UFSM was an effective way to support all families with secondary-aged children experiencing food insecurity. CONCLUSION: This small-scale pilot study suggests that UFSM in secondary schools is feasible and acceptable, but more evidence is required from larger studies on the impact on long-term health, psychosocial and educational outcomes. Future, larger studies should also include detailed economic evaluations so this approach can be compared with other possible interventions.

Screen-viewing behaviours of children before and after the 2020-21 COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic have led to increased screen-viewing among children, especially during strict periods of lockdown. However, the extent to which screen-viewing patterns in UK school children have changed post lockdowns is unclear. The aim of this paper is to examine how screen-viewing changed in 10-11-year-old children over the 2020-21 COVID-19 pandemic, how this compares to before the pandemic, and the influences on screen-viewing behaviour. METHODS: This is a mixed methods study with 10-11-year-olds from 50 schools in the Greater Bristol area, UK. Cross-sectional questionnaire data on minutes of weekday and weekend television (TV) viewing and total leisure screen-viewing were collected pre-COVID-19 in 2017-18 (N = 1,296) and again post-lockdowns in 2021 (N = 393). Data were modelled using Poisson mixed models, adjusted for age, gender, household education and seasonality, with interactions by gender and household education. Qualitative data were drawn from six focus groups (47 children) and 21 one-to-one parent interviews that explored screen-viewing behaviour during the pandemic and analysed using the framework method. RESULTS: Total leisure screen-viewing was 11% (95% CI: 12%-18%) higher post-lockdown compared to pre-COVID-19 on weekdays, and 8% (95% CI: 6%-10%) on weekends, equating to around 12-15 min. TV-viewing (including streaming) was higher by 68% (95% CI: 63%-74%) on weekdays and 80% (95% CI: 75%-85%) on weekend days. Differences in both were higher for girls and children from households with lower educational attainment. Qualitative themes reflected an unavoidable increase in screen-based activities during lockdowns, the resulting habitualisation of screen-viewing post-lockdown, and the role of the parent in reducing post-2020/21 lockdown screen-viewing. CONCLUSIONS: Although screen-viewing was higher post-lockdown compared to pre-COVID-19, the high increases reported during lockdowns were not, on average, sustained post-lockdown. This may be attributed to a combination of short-term fluctuations during periods of strict restrictions, parental support in regulating post-lockdown behaviour and age-related, rather than COVID-19-specific, increases in screen-viewing. However, socio-economic differences in our sample suggest that not all families were able to break the COVID-19-related adoption of screen-viewing, and that some groups may need additional support in managing a healthy balance of screen-viewing and other activities following the lockdowns.

The new normal for children's physical activity and screen viewing: a multi-perspective qualitative analysis of behaviours a year after the COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted children's physical activity. Recent evidence indicated children's accelerometer-measured physical activity levels have, on average, returned to near pre-pandemic levels in 2022, though sedentary behaviour remains higher. However, insufficient physical activity levels among children continues to be a critical public health issue in the UK, with only 41% meeting physical activity guidelines. This study aimed to provide in-depth analysis of how the pandemic has shaped children's physical activity patterns beyond the short-term periods following lockdowns and identify the new challenges to engaging children in physical activity. METHODS: One-to-one interviews with parents (n = 22), school staff (n = 9), and six focus groups with children aged 10-11 years (n = 45) were conducted between February and July 2022. Topics explored changes to children's physical activity and sedentary behaviour patterns, including screen-viewing, and factors influencing any changes. The framework method was used for analysis. RESULTS: Five themes were generated. Theme 1 described residual lockdown habits, including increased screen-viewing within the home, while activities outside the home continued to feel less spontaneous. Theme 2 highlighted an interrupted development of social, emotional, and physical skills among children compared to what would be expected pre-pandemic. This coincided with Theme 3 which reflected increased mental health challenges among families, creating complex barriers to children's physical activity. A new normal for child physical activity was evoked and explored in Theme 4, with greater dependence on structured and organised activities. However, Theme 5 highlighted that girls and children with lower socio-economic position may be especially at risk of decreased physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: There is a new normal for children's physical activity that is characterised by increased dependence on structured and organised physical activities, such as active clubs, and less on unstructured and spontaneous physical activities, such as physical play. While this may suit many children, girls and children from lower socio-economic households face barriers to participating in the new normal. It is important that affordable and equitable opportunities are provided to all children to prevent physical activity and health inequalities.

Accelerometer-measured physical activity and sedentary time among children and their parents in the UK before and after COVID-19 lockdowns: a natural experiment.

BACKGROUND: Restrictions due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic reduced physical activity provision for both children and their parents. Recent studies have reported decreases in physical activity levels during lockdown restrictions, but these were largely reliant on self-report methods, with data collected via unrepresentative self-report surveys. The post-pandemic impacts on children's activity levels remain unknown. A key question is how active children become once lockdown restrictions are lifted. METHODS: Active-6 is a repeated cross-sectional natural experiment. Accelerometer data from 1296 children aged 10-11 and their parents were collected in 50 schools in the Greater Bristol area, UK in March 2017-May 2018 (pre-COVID-19 comparator group), and compared to 393 children aged 10-11 and parents in 23 of the same schools, collected in May-December 2021. Mean minutes of accelerometer-measured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) were derived for weekdays and weekend and compared pre- and post-lockdown via linear multilevel models. RESULTS: After adjusting for seasonality, accelerometer wear time and child/parent demographics, children's mean weekday and weekend MVPA were 7.7 min (95% CI: 3.5 to 11.9) and 6.9 min (95% CI: 0.9 to 12.9) lower in 2021 than in 2018, respectively, while sedentary time was higher by 25.4 min (95% CI: 15.8 to 35.0) and 14.0 min (95% CI: 1.5 to 26.5). There was no evidence that differences varied by child gender or household education. There was no significant difference in parents' MVPA or sedentary time, either on weekdays or weekends. CONCLUSIONS: Children's MVPA was lower by 7-8 min/day in 2021 once restrictions were lifted than before the pandemic for all groups, on both weekdays and weekends. Previous research has shown that there is an undesirable age-related decline in children's physical activity. The 8-min difference reported here would be broadly comparable to the decline that would have previously been expected to occur over a three-year period. Parents' physical activity was similar to pre-pandemic levels. Our results suggest that despite easing of restrictions, children's activity levels have not returned to pre-pandemic levels. There is an urgent need to understand why these changes have occurred and how long they are maintained.

A multi-perspective qualitative exploration of the reasons for changes in the physical activity among 10-11-year-old children following the easing of the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK in 2021.

BACKGROUND: Active-6 is exploring how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted physical activity behaviour among Year 6 children (aged 10-11 years) and their parents in Southwest England. Initial findings from the Active-6 project have shown a 7-8 min decrease in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and an increase in sedentary behaviour among children following the easing of restrictions in the UK in latter half of 2021. This finding suggests that the pandemic has had a persistent impact on child physical activity behaviour. This paper explored the possible mechanisms behind these changes. METHODS: Interviews with parents (n = 21), members of school staff (n = 9) and focus groups with children aged 10-11 years (n = 47) were conducted between August and December 2021 to discuss the impact of the pandemic on child physical activity behaviour. The framework method was used for analysis. RESULTS: Five themes spanning two key stages of the pandemic were described. Three themes related to the period of lockdowns and fluctuating restrictions (March 2020 - April 2021). These included: Theme 1) Lockdown: A short-lived adventure; Theme 2) Access to facilities during restrictions; and Theme 3) The importance of the parent. A further two themes were identified related to the period following the gradual easing of restrictions in April 2021. These included: Theme 4) An overwhelming return to normal; and Theme 5) Reopening fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis suggested that feelings of novelty experienced during the initial stages of lockdown waned as restrictions were prolonged, creating an increasingly challenging period for parents and their children. However, during periods of restrictions, the importance of parental encouragement and access to appropriate facilities in the local and home environment helped facilitate physical activity. Following the easing of COVID-19 restrictions, emotional overwhelm and physical fatigue among children, stemming from a sedentary and socially isolated life in lockdown and other restrictions, were key contributors to the decreased moderate to vigorous physical activity and increased sedentary behaviour that was observed in a related quantitative study.

Exploring the potential of a school-based online health and wellbeing screening tool: professional stakeholders' perspectives and experiences.

BACKGROUND: Supporting children and young people's (CYP) mental and physical health is a global policy priority but detecting need and facilitating access to health services and support is challenging. This paper explores professional stakeholders' perspectives of the acceptability, utility and effectiveness of a school-based online health and wellbeing screening tool, the Digital Health Contact (DHC). The DHC, delivered by Public Health School Nurses (PHSN), aims to identify, and put in place strategies to support, unmet health needs among CYP. METHODS: We employed a qualitative study design, using semi-structured interviews. Fourteen key stakeholders involved in the design and implementation of the DHC (commissioners, providers, PHSN and healthcare staff, school leaders) were purposively sampled. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Our analysis generated two key themes: the perceived benefits of the DHC; and challenges in delivering the DHC. Stakeholders perceived the universal application of the DHC with linked follow-up intervention as an effective means of identifying and supporting CYP with unmet needs, and an efficient way to target limited service resources. There were barriers around enabling school engagement in the DHC, typically in terms of logistics, school infrastructure, and perspectives of fit with schools. These barriers were seen as being negated through developing effective working relationships between schools and PHSN. Effective relationships could highlight the potential benefits of participation. Overall, the DHC was seen as a valuable and effective use of resources, with a low burden on school staff. CONCLUSIONS: The DHC, as a universal school-based health and wellbeing screening tool with linked follow-up intervention, has great potential in identifying and supporting unmet health needs among CYP. The perspectives and experiences of those involved in delivering the DHC highlight important considerations which may enable effective implementation and delivery of school screening programmes across other areas.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of The Daily Mile on childhood weight outcomes and wellbeing: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Daily Mile is designed to increase physical activity levels with children running or walking around school grounds for 15-min daily. It has been adopted by schools worldwide and endorsed as a solution to tackle obesity, despite no robust evidence of its benefits. We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine its clinical and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Forty schools were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the Daily Mile intervention or control group in which only the usual school health and wellbeing activities were implemented. The primary outcome was BMI z-score (BMIz) at 12 months follow-up from baseline, with planned subgroup analysis to examine differential effects. Primary economic analysis outcome was incremental cost per Quality-Adjusted-Life-Year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Using a constrained randomisation approach, balanced on school size, baseline BMIz and proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals, 20 schools were allocated to intervention (n = 1,153 participants) and 20 to control (n = 1,127); 3 schools withdrew (2 intervention, 1 control). At 12 months, BMIz data were available for 18 intervention schools (n = 850) and 19 control schools (n = 820 participants). Using intention-to-treat analysis the adjusted mean difference (MD) in BMIz (intervention - control) was -0.036 (95% CI: -0.085 to 0.013, p = 0.146). Pre-specified subgroup analysis showed a significant interaction with sex (p = 0.001) suggesting a moderate size benefit of The Daily Mile in girls (MD -0.097, 95% CI -0.156 to -0.037). This was consistent with the exploratory economic results that showed The Daily Mile to be highly cost-effective in girls (£2,492 per QALY), but not in boys, and overall to have a 76% chance of cost-effectiveness for the whole sample, at the commonly applied UK threshold of £20,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Overall the Daily Mile had a small but non-significant effect on BMIz, however, it had a greater effect in girls suggesting that it might be considered as a cost-effective component of a system-wide approach to childhood obesity prevention.

Assessing the construct validity and responsiveness of Preference-Based Measures (PBMs) in cataract surgery patients.

PURPOSE: The validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L in visual conditions has been questioned, inspiring development of a vision 'bolt-on' domain (EQ-5D-3L + VIS). Developments in preference-based measures (PBM) also includes the EQ-5D-5L and the ICECAP-O capability wellbeing measure. This study aimed to examine the construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L + VIS and ICECAP-O in cataract surgery patients for the first time, to inform choice of PBM for economic evaluation in this population. METHODS: The analyses used data from the UK Predict-CAT cataract surgery cohort study. PBMs and the Cat-PROM5 [a validated measure of cataract quality of life (QOL)] were completed before surgery and 4-8 weeks after. Construct validity was assessed using correlations and known-group differences evaluated using regression. Responsiveness was evaluated using effect sizes and analysis of variance to compare change scores between groups, defined by patient-reported and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The sample comprised 1315 patients at baseline. No PBMs were associated with visual acuity and only the ICECAP-O (Spearman's rs = - 0.35), EQ-5D-3L + VIS (rs = - 0.42) and EQ-5D-5L (Value Set for England rs = - 0.31) correlated at least moderately with the Cat-PROM5. Effect sizes of change were consistently largest for the EQ-5D-3L + VIS (range 0.34-0.41), followed by the ICECAP-O (range 0.20-0.34). Results indicated no improvement in responsiveness using the EQ-5D-5L (range 0.13-0.16) compared to the EQ-5D-3L (range 0.17-0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst no PBMs comprehensively demonstrated evidence of construct validity and responsiveness in cataract surgery patients, the ICECAP-O was the most responsive generic PBM to improvements in QOL. Surprisingly the EQ-5D-5L was not more responsive than the EQ-5D-3L in this setting.

Methods for public health economic evaluation: A Delphi survey of decision makers in English and Welsh local government.

Standard reference case methods recommended for health technology appraisals do not translate well to a public health setting. This paper reports on a Delphi survey designed to elicit views of public health decision makers in England and Wales, about different methodological elements of economic evaluation. This is important as methods should align with the objective function of decision makers. The Delphi survey comprised two rounds, with round 1 allowing open-ended recommendations in addition to 5-point Likert scale responses. The final survey comprised 36 questions, and levels and strength of agreement were assessed using median values and mean absolute deviation of the median. The Delphi panel (n = 66) achieved high levels of agreement for costs, health, well-being, and productivity impact to be important elements within an economic evaluation. The panel agreed that evaluations should be relevant to the local context and include costs and consequences over a lifetime horizon. There was a call for the transparent reporting of costs and effects for different population subgroups, and for different sectors. Overall, the panel revealed a preference for a flexible approach, understanding that economic evidence fits within a dynamic process of decision making. These results provide empirical evidence to inform guidelines for public health economic evaluation.

A cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the daily mile on childhood obesity and wellbeing; the Birmingham daily mile protocol.

BACKGROUND: Childhood obesity prevention is a public health priority. Children spend a large proportion of their waking time in school; therefore this is an appropriate setting to implement obesity prevention initiatives. Anecdotal reports suggest that implementing The Daily Mile in schools has had positive effects on childhood obesity, academic attainment and wellbeing. This trial aims to measure the effectiveness of The Daily Mile for improving health and wellbeing. METHODS: This protocol describes a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) in 40 primary schools located in Birmingham, UK. Eligible participants are children in years 3 (aged 7-8) and 5 (aged 9-10). The study compares The Daily Mile (intervention) to usual practice (control) in relation to health and wellbeing. The Daily Mile intervention involves an additional 15 min of running or walking integrated into the school day, throughout a 12 month study period. The primary clinical outcome is body mass index (BMI) z-scores at 12 months following introduction of the intervention. The cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) is the primary outcome of the economic evaluation. Secondary outcomes include wellbeing, physical fitness and teacher reported academic attainment. DISCUSSION: This study is the first RCT investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of The Daily Mile. A range of outcomes will be measured to evaluate the broader wellbeing and academic benefits in addition to clinical outcomes typically measured in childhood obesity prevention trials. The intervention is simple and low-cost, therefore if the benefits are demonstrated it has enormous potential to influence future policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 12698269 . Date protocol registered 27th October 2016.

Methods Used in Economic Evaluations of Tuberculin Skin Tests and Interferon Gamma Release Assays for the Screening of Latent Tuberculosis Infection: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) provides a constant pool of new active tuberculosis cases; a third of the earth's population is estimated to be infected with LTBI. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the quality and summarize the available evidence from published economic evaluations reporting on the cost-effectiveness of tuberculin skin tests (TSTs) compared with interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) for the screening of LTBI. METHODS: An extensive systematic review of the published literature was conducted. A two-step process was adopted to identify relevant articles: information was extracted into evidence tables and then analyzed. The quality of the publications was assessed using a 10-item checklist specific for economic evaluations. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were identified for inclusion in this review. Most of the studies found IGRAs to be more cost-effective than TSTs; however, the conclusions from the studies varied significantly. Most studies scored highly on the checklist although only one fulfilled all the stipulated criteria. A wide variety of methodological approaches were documented; identified differences included the type of economic evaluation and model, time horizon, perspective, and outcomes measures. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of consistent methods across studies makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the most cost-effective option between TSTs and IGRAs. This problem can be solved by improving the quality of economic evaluation studies in the field of LTBI screening, through adherence to quality checklists.

Methods Used in Economic Evaluations of Testing and Diagnosis for Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: There are multiple tests available that can help diagnose ovarian cancer, and the cost-effective analysis of these diagnostic interventions is essential for making well-informed decisions regarding resource allocation. There are multiple factors that can impact on the conclusions drawn from economic evaluations including test accuracy, the impact of the testing pathway on patient costs and outcomes, and delays along the ovarian cancer test-treat pathway. The objective of this study was to evaluate how test accuracy, the choice of perspective, and delays along the testing and diagnostic pathway have been incorporated in economic evaluations of testing for ovarian cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of published literature was undertaken to identify economic evaluations (eg, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility analysis) focused on testing and diagnosis for ovarian cancer. RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Six studies incorporated test accuracy and its impact on patients to some extent. Four studies adopted a societal perspective, but only one considered the costs incurred by patients on the testing and diagnosis pathway. Where delays on the testing pathway were incorporated into the analysis, these were frequently due to false-negative test results leading to delays in patients accessing treatment. Any anxiety that patients might experience as a result of a positive test was not considered in these studies. CONCLUSIONS: The impact on patients of receiving a positive test in terms of anxiety and the costs incurred by patients having to attend for testing and diagnosis are rarely considered. Delays along the testing and diagnosis pathway can have a major effect on patient outcomes, and it is important that these are acknowledged in economic evaluations focused on testing. Future economic analysis should incorporate these key determinants in order that diagnostic tests for ovarian cancer can be robustly evaluated.

Developing a utility index for the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC-C) for fragile X syndrome.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop a utility index (the ABC-UI) from the Aberrant Behavior Checklist-Community (ABC-C), for use in quantifying the benefit of emerging treatments for fragile X syndrome (FXS). METHODS: The ABC-C is a proxy-completed assessment of behaviour and is a widely used measure in FXS. A subset of ABC-C items across seven dimensions was identified to include in health state descriptions. This item reduction process was based on item performance, factor analysis and Rasch analysis performed on an observational study dataset, and consultation with five clinical experts and a methodological expert. Dimensions were combined into health states using an orthogonal design and valued using time trade-off (TTO), with lead-time TTO methods used where TTO indicated a state valued as worse than dead. Preference weights were estimated using mean, individual level, ordinary least squares and random-effects maximum likelihood estimation [RE (MLE)] regression models. RESULTS: A representative sample of the UK general public (n = 349; mean age 35.8 years, 58.2% female) each valued 12 health states. Mean observed values ranged from 0.92 to 0.16 for best to worst health states. The RE (MLE) model performed best based on number of significant coefficients and mean absolute error of 0.018. Mean utilities predicted by the model covered a similar range to that observed. CONCLUSIONS: The ABC-UI estimates a wide range of utilities from patient-level FXS ABC-C data, allowing estimation of FXS health-related quality of life impact for economic evaluation from an established FXS clinical trial instrument.

Economic evaluation in short bowel syndrome (SBS): an algorithm to estimate utility scores for a patient-reported SBS-specific quality of life scale (SBS-QoL™).

PURPOSE: Condition-specific preference-based measures can offer utility data where they would not otherwise be available or where generic measures may lack sensitivity, although they lack comparability across conditions. This study aimed to develop an algorithm for estimating utilities from the short bowel syndrome health-related quality of life scale (SBS-QoL™). METHODS: SBS-QoL™ items were selected based on factor and item performance analysis of a European SBS-QoL™ dataset and consultation with 3 SBS clinical experts. Six-dimension health states were developed using 8 SBS-QoL™ items (2 dimensions combined 2 SBS-QoL™ items). SBS health states were valued by a UK general population sample (N = 250) using the lead-time time trade-off method. Preference weights or 'utility decrements' for each severity level of each dimension were estimated by regression models and used to develop the scoring algorithm. RESULTS: Mean utilities for the SBS health states ranged from -0.46 (worst health state, very much affected on all dimensions) to 0.92 (best health state, not at all affected on all dimensions). The random effects model with maximum likelihood estimation regression had the best predictive ability and lowest root mean squared error and mean absolute error, and was used to develop the scoring algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: The preference-weighted scoring algorithm for the SBS-QoL™ developed is able to estimate a wide range of utility values from patient-level SBS-QoL™ data. This allows estimation of SBS HRQL impact for the purpose of economic evaluation of SBS treatment benefits.

Exploring parents' physical activity motivation during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study from a self-determination theory perspective.

Background and objectives: The COVID-19 lockdowns impacted physical activity for all, but especially parents, because they had to balance home, work and leisure activities. Motivation for exercise is consistently shown to be associated with physical activity levels. Self-determination theory provides a framework through which the motivation for exercise and its social-contextual antecedents can be explored. The purpose of this study is to explore the role of motivation in determining physical activity in parents and carers of English primary school children before, during and after the COVID-19 lockdowns. Design, setting and participants: This study uses a mixed-methods design combining quantitative data and individual interviews. Participants were all parents/carers of children in year 6 (aged 10-11 years) at English primary schools in the United Kingdom. Methods: Quantitative data were collected on three occasions: between March 2017 and May 2018 (Wave 0, N = 1296), between May and December 2021 (Wave 1, N = 393) and between January and July 2022 (wave 2, N = 436). Motivation for exercise was assessed using the Behavioural Regulations in Exercise Questionnaire-2 and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was estimated via waist-worn accelerometers. Data were analysed via regression models. Interviews with a subsample of parents (N = 43) were conducted on two occasions: between September and December 2021 and between February and July 2022. Interviews covered the impact of the pandemic on children and parents' physical activity and changes over time. This study focuses on discussions around the parents' own physical activity behaviour and their motivation. The framework method was used for analysis. Results: In separate linear regression models, intrinsic and identified regulation were associated with higher moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in waves 0 and 2. Amotivation was associated with lower moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in waves 0 and 2. In fully adjusted multivariable regression models, identified regulation was associated with a 4.9-minute increase in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and introjected regulation was associated with a 2.3-minute decrease in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at wave 0. Associations with moderate-to-vigorous physical activity were different in wave 2, with introjected regulation changing direction and a negative association with amotivation, although confidence intervals were wide due to smaller sample sizes. In the interviews, parents spoke of the effects that the COVID-19 lockdowns had on their motivation to be physically active in four theoretically driven themes: (1) motivation for physical activity, (2) perceived autonomy for physical activity, (3) perceived competence for physical activity and (4) perceived relatedness for physical activity. Limitations: The smaller sample sizes for waves 1 and 2 may have limited the ability to identify associations between behavioural regulations and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity post pandemic. Across all waves, parents were predominantly active, females, white and from higher socioeconomic areas and therefore may not reflect broader experiences. Conclusions and future work: Autonomous motivation, especially enjoyment and the importance for mental and physical well-being, was a key driver in keeping parents active during lockdowns and remains important for physical activity post lockdown, with introjected regulation potentially playing an increased role. Parents' interviews highlighted that while for some the lockdowns promoted autonomous motivation for exercise, others had enduring negative influences on their autonomy, competence and relatedness, which could be detrimental to their well-being. Strategies that focus on offering a range of novel activities for parents and that bring parent groups together may be effective. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme as award number NIHR131847.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected parents' ability to be active. Motivation is important for taking part in physical activity. We wanted to know how motivation for exercise had changed since before the pandemic and how it might still impact parents' physical activity. We asked groups of parents of children in year 6 (aged 10­11 years) to complete a questionnaire and wear a device that measures physical activity. One group did this before the pandemic and two groups did this after the lockdowns. We also spoke to parents two times after schools reopened. We asked about their physical activity, what they felt helped or stopped them being active and how this changed during the pandemic. Motivation plays a part in how much physical activity parents do. Enjoying activities, being active because it is part of your identity and being active due to health make parents more active. Some parents felt they were more active in the first lockdown, as they had more time, freedom and a choice of new and exciting activities, while others felt the lockdowns led to them being less active. This was due to a loss of connection with other people and feeling less confident in their physical activity. This means that it is important that parents are well-supported in their physical activity post pandemic efforts to help parents be active should focus on creating opportunities for parents to try new activities opportunities for parents to be active together might lead to more physical activity, improved connections with others and better well-being.