Protocol for the process evaluation of an intervention to improve antenatal smoking cessation support (MOHMQuit) in maternity services in New South Wales, Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking cessation in pregnancy remains a public health priority. Our team used the Behaviour Change Wheel to develop the Midwives and Obstetricians Helping Mothers to Quit smoking (MOHMQuit) intervention with health system, leader (including managers and educators) and clinician components. MOHMQuit addresses a critical evidence to practice gap in the provision of smoking cessation support in antenatal care. It involves nine maternity services in New South Wales in a cluster randomised stepped-wedge controlled trial of effectiveness. This paper describes the design and rationale for the process evaluation of MOHMQuit. The process evaluation aims to assess to what extent and how MOHMQuit is being implemented (acceptability; adoption/uptake; appropriateness; feasibility; fidelity; penetration and sustainability), and the context in which it is implemented, in order to support further refinement of MOHMQuit throughout the trial, and aid understanding and interpretation of the results of the trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The process evaluation is an integral part of the stepped-wedge trial. Its design is underpinned by implementation science frameworks and adopts a mixed methods approach. Quantitative evidence from participating leaders and clinicians in our study will be used to produce individual and site-level descriptive statistics. Qualitative evidence of leaders' perceptions about the implementation will be collected using semistructured interviews and will be analysed descriptively within-site and thematically across the dataset. The process evaluation will also use publicly available data and observations from the research team implementing MOHMQuit, for example, training logs. These data will be synthesised to provide site-level as well as individual-level implementation outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received ethical approval from the Population Health Services Research Ethics Committee for NSW, Australia (Reference 2021/ETH00887). Results will be communicated via the study's steering committee and will also be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Trials Registry ACTRN12622000167763. https://www.australianclinicaltrials.gov.au/anzctr/trial/ACTRN12622000167763.

Assessing the scalability of evidence-based healthy eating and physical activity interventions in early childhood education and care: A cross-sectional study of end-user perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: To describe early childhood education and care (ECEC) services: i) perceptions regarding the scalability of healthy eating and physical activity interventions; and ii) associations between scalability and service characteristics. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a randomly selected sample of ECEC services across Australia. The scalability of 12 healthy eating and physical activity interventions was assessed using items based on the Intervention Scalability Assessment Tool. Higher scores represented higher perceived scalability. RESULTS: From 453 participants, the highest scoring healthy eating and physical activity interventions were 'providing healthy eating education and activities for children' (M43.05) (out of 50) and 'providing sufficient opportunities for child physical activity' (M41.43). The lowest scoring was 'providing families with lunchbox guidelines' (M38.99) and 'engaging families in activities to increase child physical activity' (M38.36). Services located in rural areas, compared to urban areas, scored the overall scalability of both healthy eating and physical activity interventions significantly lower. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions regarding the scalability of healthy eating and physical activity interventions in the ECEC setting vary according to service characteristics. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Findings identify where government investment and implementation efforts may be prioritised to facilitate scale-up. An investigation into the barriers and support required for lower-scoring interventions is warranted.

Study protocol of an economic evaluation embedded in the Midwives and Obstetricians Helping Mothers to Quit Smoking (MOHMQuit) trial.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking during pregnancy is the most important preventable risk factor for pregnancy complications and adverse birth outcomes and can have lifelong consequences for infants. Smoking during pregnancy is associated with higher healthcare costs related to birth complications and during childhood. Psychosocial interventions to support pregnant women to quit are effective, yet provision of smoking cessation support has been inconsistent. The Midwives and Obstetricians Helping Mothers to Quit Smoking (MOHMQuit) intervention provides systems change, and leadership and clinician elements, to support clinicians to help women stop smoking in pregnancy. There have been few long-term analyses conducted of the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for pregnant women that target healthcare providers. This protocol describes the economic evaluation of the MOHMQuit trial, a pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled implementation trial in nine public maternity services in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, to ascertain whether MOHMQuit is cost-effective in supporting clinicians to help women quit smoking in pregnancy compared to usual care. METHODS: Two primary analyses will be carried out comparing MOHMQuit with usual care from an Australian health care system perspective: i) a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis with results presented as the incremental cost per additional quitter; and ii) a lifetime cost-utility analysis using a published probabilistic decision analytic Markov model with results presented as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for mother and child. Patient-level data on resource use and outcomes will be used in the within-trial analysis and extrapolated and supplemented with national population statistics and published data from the literature for the lifetime analysis. DISCUSSION: There is increasing demand for information on the cost-effectiveness of implementing healthcare interventions to provide policy makers with critical information for the best value for money within finite budgets. Economic evaluation of the MOHMQuit trial will provide essential, policy-relevant information for decision makers on the value of evidence-based implementation of support for healthcare providers delivering services for pregnant women. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ACTRN12622000167763, registered 2 February 2022.

A mixed methods evaluation of Quit for new life, a smoking cessation initiative for women having an Aboriginal baby.

BACKGROUND: Quit for new life (QFNL) is a smoking cessation initiative developed to support mothers of Aboriginal babies to quit smoking during pregnancy. The state-wide initiative provides support for pregnant women and their households including free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and follow up cessation advice. Services are also supported to implement systems-level changes and integrate QFNL into routine care. This study aimed to evaluate: (1) models of implementation of QFNL; (2) the uptake of QFNL; (3) the impact of QFNL on smoking behaviours; and (4) stakeholder perceptions of the initiative. METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted comprising semi-structured interviews and analysis of routinely collected data. Interviews were conducted with 6 clients and 35 stakeholders involved in program implementation. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis. Aboriginal Maternal and Infant Health Service Data Collection (AMDC) records for the period July 2012-June 2015 were investigated to examine how many eligible women attended a service implementing QFNL and how many women took up a QFNL support. Smoking cessation rates were compared in women attending a service offering QFNL with women attending the same service prior to the implementation of QFNL to determine program impact. RESULTS: QFNL was implemented in 70 services located in 13 LHDs across New South Wales. Over 430 staff attended QFNL training, including 101 staff in Aboriginal-identified roles. In the period July 2012-June 2015 27% (n = 1549) of eligible women attended a service implementing QFNL and 21% (n = 320) of these were recorded as taking up a QFNL support. While stakeholders shared stories of success, no statistically significant impact of QFNL on smoking cessation rates was identified (N = 3502; Odds ratio (OR) = 1.28; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.96-1.70; p-value = 0.0905). QFNL was acceptable to both clients and stakeholders, increased awareness about smoking cessation, and gave staff resources to support clients. CONCLUSION: QFNL was perceived as acceptable by stakeholders and clients and provided care providers with knowledge and tangible support to offer women who presented at antenatal care as smokers, however, no statistically significant impact on rates of smoking cessation were found using the measures available.

The MOHMQuit (Midwives and Obstetricians Helping Mothers to Quit Smoking) Trial: protocol for a stepped-wedge implementation trial to improve best practice smoking cessation support in public antenatal care services.

BACKGROUND: Smoking during pregnancy is the most important preventable cause of adverse pregnancy outcomes, yet smoking cessation support (SCS) is inconsistently provided. The MOMHQUIT intervention was developed to address this evidence-practice gap, using the Behaviour Change Wheel method by mapping barriers to intervention strategies. MOHMQuit includes systems, leadership and clinician elements. This implementation trial will determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MOHMQuit in improving smoking cessation rates in pregnant women in public maternity care services in Australia; test the mechanisms of action of the intervention strategies; and examine implementation outcomes. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster-randomised design will be used. Implementation of MOHMQuit will include reinforcing leadership investment in SCS as a clinical priority, strengthening maternity care clinicians' knowledge, skills, confidence and attitudes towards the provision of SCS, and clinicians' documentation of guideline-recommended SCS provided during antenatal care. Approximately, 4000 women who report smoking during pregnancy will be recruited across nine sites. The intervention and its implementation will be evaluated using a mixed methods approach. The primary outcome will be 7-day point prevalence abstinence at the end of pregnancy, among pregnant smokers, verified by salivary cotinine testing. Continuous data collection from electronic medical records and telephone interviews with postpartum women will occur throughout 32 months of the trial to assess changes in cessation rates reported by women, and SCS documented by clinicians and reported by women. Data collection to assess changes in clinicians' knowledge, skills, confidence and attitudes will occur prior to and immediately after the intervention at each site, and again 6 months later. Questionnaires at 3 months following the intervention, and semi-structured interviews at 6 months with maternity service leaders will explore leaders' perceptions of acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, adaptations and fidelity of delivery of the MOHMQuit intervention. Structural equation modelling will examine causal linkages between the strategies, mediators and outcomes. Cost-effectiveness analyses will also be undertaken. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence of the effectiveness of a multi-level implementation intervention to support policy decisions; and evidence regarding mechanisms of action of the intervention strategies (how the strategies effected outcomes) to support further theoretical developments in implementation science. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12622000167763, registered February 2nd 2022.

Benefits of not smoking during pregnancy for non-Aboriginal women and their babies in New South Wales, Australia: a record linkage study.

BACKGROUND: Smoking rates among pregnant women in New South Wales (NSW) have plateaued at 8-9%. To inform relevant smoking reduction efforts, we aimed to quantify the benefits of not smoking during pregnancy for non-Aboriginal NSW mothers and their babies. The benefits of not smoking during pregnancy for NSW Aboriginal mothers have previously been described. These data are important inputs in modelling health and economic impacts of smoking cessation interventions. METHODS: This population-based cohort study used linked-data from routinely collected data sets. Not smoking during pregnancy was the exposure of interest among all NSW non-Aboriginal women who became mothers of singleton babies in 2012-2016. Unadjusted and adjusted relative risks (aRR) were used to examine associations between not smoking during pregnancy and adverse outcomes including severe morbidity, inter-hospital transfer, perinatal death, preterm birth and small-for-gestational age. Population attributable fractions (PAFs) were calculated to quantify adverse perinatal outcomes avoided in the population if all mothers were non-smokers. RESULTS: Compared with babies born to mothers who smoked during pregnancy, babies born to non-smoking mothers had a lower risk of all adverse perinatal outcomes including perinatal death (aRR = 0.68, 95%CI 0.61-0.76), preterm birth (aRR = 0.58, 95%CI 0.56-0.61) and small-for-gestational age (aRR = 0.48, 95%CI 0.47-0.50). PAFs(%) were 3.9% for perinatal death, 5.6% for preterm birth and 7.3% for small-for-gestational-age. Compared with women who smoked during pregnancy (n = 36,518), those who did not smoke (n = 413,072) had a lower risk of suffering severe maternal morbidity (aRR = 0.87, 95%CI 0.81-0.93) and being transferred to another hospital (aRR = 0.92, 95%CI 0.86-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Mothers who reported not smoking during pregnancy had a small reduction in their risk of morbidity and of being transferred to another hospital whilst their babies had substantially reduced risks of all adverse perinatal outcomes. Results have implications for clinician training, clinical care standards, and performance management.

How effective are physical activity interventions when they are scaled-up: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The 'scale-up' of effective physical activity interventions is required if they are to yield improvements in population health. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of community-based physical activity interventions that have been scaled-up. We also sought to explore differences in the effect size of these interventions compared with prior evaluations of their efficacy in more controlled contexts, and describe adaptations that were made to interventions as part of the scale-up process. METHODS: We performed a search of empirical research using six electronic databases, hand searched reference lists and contacted field experts. An intervention was considered 'scaled-up' if it had been intentionally delivered on a larger scale (to a greater number of participants, new populations, and/or by means of different delivery systems) than a preceding randomised control trial ('pre-scale') in which a significant intervention effect (p < 0.05) was reported on any measure of physical activity. Effect size differences between pre-scale and scaled up interventions were quantified ([the effect size reported in the scaled-up study / the effect size reported in the pre-scale-up efficacy trial] × 100) to explore any scale-up 'penalties' in intervention effects. RESULTS: We identified 10 eligible studies. Six scaled-up interventions appeared to achieve significant improvement on at least one measure of physical activity. Six studies included measures of physical activity that were common between pre-scale and scaled-up trials enabling the calculation of an effect size difference (and potential scale-up penalty). Differences in effect size ranged from 132 to 25% (median = 58.8%), suggesting that most scaled-up interventions typically achieve less than 60% of their pre-scale effect size. A variety of adaptations were made for scale-up - the most common being mode of delivery. CONCLUSION: The majority of interventions remained effective when delivered at-scale however their effects were markedly lower than reported in pre-scale trials. Adaptations of interventions were common and may have impacted on the effectiveness of interventions delivered at scale. These outcomes provide valuable insight for researchers and public health practitioners interested in the design and scale-up of physical activity interventions, and contribute to the growing evidence base for delivering health promotion interventions at-scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020144842 .

Benefits of not smoking during pregnancy for Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and their babies: a retrospective cohort study using linked data.

OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence for targeted smoking cessation policy, the aim of this study was to compare pregnancy outcomes of Aboriginal mothers who reported not smoking during pregnancy with Aboriginal mothers who reported smoking during pregnancy. DESIGN: Population based retrospective cohort study using linked data. SETTING: New South Wales, the most populous Australian state. POPULATION: 18 154 singleton babies born to 13 477 Aboriginal mothers between 2010 and 2014 were identified from routinely collected New South Wales datasets. Aboriginality was determined from birth records and from four linked datasets through an Enhanced Reporting of Aboriginality algorithm. EXPOSURE: Not smoking at any time during pregnancy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Unadjusted and adjusted relative risks (aRR) and 95% CIs from modified Poisson regression were used to examine associations between not smoking during pregnancy and maternal and perinatal outcomes including severe morbidity, inter-hospital transfer, perinatal death, preterm birth and small-for-gestational age. Population attributable fractions (PAFs) were calculated using adjusted relative risks. RESULTS: Compared with babies born to mothers who smoked during pregnancy, babies born to non-smoking mothers had a lower risk of all adverse perinatal outcomes including perinatal death (aRR=0.58, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.76), preterm birth (aRR=0.58, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.64) and small-for-gestational age (aRR=0.35, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.39). PAFs (%) were 27% for perinatal death, 26% for preterm birth and 48% for small-for-gestational-age. Compared with women who smoked during pregnancy (n=8919), those who did not smoke (n=9235) had a lower risk of being transferred to another hospital (aRR=0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Babies born to women who did not smoke during pregnancy had a lower risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. Rates of adverse outcomes among Aboriginal non-smokers were similar to those among the general population. These results quantify the proportion of adverse perinatal outcomes due to smoking and highlight why effective smoking cessation programme are urgently required for this population.

Implementation and scale-up of physical activity and behavioural nutrition interventions: an evaluation roadmap.

BACKGROUND: Interventions that work must be effectively delivered at scale to achieve population level benefits. Researchers must choose among a vast array of implementation frameworks (> 60) that guide design and evaluation of implementation and scale-up processes. Therefore, we sought to recommend conceptual frameworks that can be used to design, inform, and evaluate implementation of physical activity (PA) and nutrition interventions at different stages of the program life cycle. We also sought to recommend a minimum data set of implementation outcome and determinant variables (indicators) as well as measures and tools deemed most relevant for PA and nutrition researchers. METHODS: We adopted a five-round modified Delphi methodology. For rounds 1, 2, and 3 we administered online surveys to PA and nutrition implementation scientists to generate a rank order list of most commonly used; i) implementation and scale-up frameworks, ii) implementation indicators, and iii) implementation and scale-up measures and tools. Measures and tools were excluded after round 2 as input from participants was very limited. For rounds 4 and 5, we conducted two in-person meetings with an expert group to create a shortlist of implementation and scale-up frameworks, identify a minimum data set of indicators and to discuss application and relevance of frameworks and indicators to the field of PA and nutrition. RESULTS: The two most commonly referenced implementation frameworks were the Framework for Effective Implementation and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We provide the 25 most highly ranked implementation indicators reported by those who participated in rounds 1-3 of the survey. From these, the expert group created a recommended minimum data set of implementation determinants (n = 10) and implementation outcomes (n = 5) and reconciled differences in commonly used terms and definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers are confronted with myriad options when conducting implementation and scale-up evaluations. Thus, we identified and prioritized a list of frameworks and a minimum data set of indicators that have potential to improve the quality and consistency of evaluating implementation and scale-up of PA and nutrition interventions. Advancing our science is predicated upon increased efforts to develop a common 'language' and adaptable measures and tools.

Strategies to improve the implementation of workplace-based policies or practices targeting tobacco, alcohol, diet, physical activity and obesity.

BACKGROUND: Given the substantial period of time adults spend in their workplaces each day, these provide an opportune setting for interventions addressing modifiable behavioural risk factors for chronic disease. Previous reviews of trials of workplace-based interventions suggest they can be effective in modifying a range of risk factors including diet, physical activity, obesity, risky alcohol use and tobacco use. However, such interventions are often poorly implemented in workplaces, limiting their impact on employee health. Identifying strategies that are effective in improving the implementation of workplace-based interventions has the potential to improve their effects on health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of strategies for improving the implementation of workplace-based policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco use and alcohol use.Secondary objectives were to assess the impact of such strategies on employee health behaviours, including dietary intake, physical activity, weight status, and alcohol and tobacco use; evaluate their cost-effectiveness; and identify any unintended adverse effects of implementation strategies on workplaces or workplace staff. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases on 31 August 2017: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; MEDLINE In Process; the Campbell Library; PsycINFO; Education Resource Information Center (ERIC); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); and Scopus. We also handsearched all publications between August 2012 and September 2017 in two speciality journals: Implementation Science and Journal of Translational Behavioral Medicine. We conducted searches up to September 2017 in Dissertations and Theses, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the US National Institutes of Health Registry. We screened the reference lists of included trials and contacted authors to identify other potentially relevant trials. We also consulted experts in the field to identify other relevant research. SELECTION CRITERIA: Implementation strategies were defined as strategies specifically employed to improve the implementation of health interventions into routine practice within specific settings. We included any trial with a parallel control group (randomised or non-randomised) and conducted at any scale that compared strategies to support implementation of workplace policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, risky alcohol use or tobacco use versus no intervention (i.e. wait-list, usual practice or minimal support control) or another implementation strategy. Implementation strategies could include those identified by the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy such as quality improvement initiatives and education and training, as well as other strategies. Implementation interventions could target policies or practices directly instituted in the workplace environment, as well as workplace-instituted efforts encouraging the use of external health promotion services (e.g. gym membership subsidies). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors working in pairs independently performed citation screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment, resolving disagreements via consensus or a third reviewer. We narratively synthesised findings for all included trials by first describing trial characteristics, participants, interventions and outcomes. We then described the effect size of the outcome measure for policy or practice implementation. We performed meta-analysis of implementation outcomes for trials of comparable design and outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials, four of which took place in the USA. Four trials employed randomised controlled trial (RCT) designs. Trials were conducted in workplaces from the manufacturing, industrial and services-based sectors. The sample sizes of workplaces ranged from 12 to 114. Workplace policies and practices targeted included: healthy catering policies; point-of-purchase nutrition labelling; environmental supports for healthy eating and physical activity; tobacco control policies; weight management programmes; and adherence to guidelines for staff health promotion. All implementation interventions utilised multiple implementation strategies, the most common of which were educational meetings, tailored interventions and local consensus processes. Four trials compared an implementation strategy intervention with a no intervention control, one trial compared different implementation interventions, and one three-arm trial compared two implementation strategies with each other and a control. Four trials reported a single implementation outcome, whilst the other two reported multiple outcomes. Investigators assessed outcomes using surveys, audits and environmental observations. We judged most trials to be at high risk of performance and detection bias and at unclear risk of reporting and attrition bias.Of the five trials comparing implementation strategies with a no intervention control, pooled analysis was possible for three RCTs reporting continuous score-based measures of implementation outcomes. The meta-analysis found no difference in standardised effects (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.30; 164 participants; 3 studies; low certainty evidence), suggesting no benefit of implementation support in improving policy or practice implementation, relative to control. Findings for other continuous or dichotomous implementation outcomes reported across these five trials were mixed. For the two non-randomised trials examining comparative effectiveness, both reported improvements in implementation, favouring the more intensive implementation group (very low certainty evidence). Three trials examined the impact of implementation strategies on employee health behaviours, reporting mixed effects for diet and weight status (very low certainty evidence) and no effect for physical activity (very low certainty evidence) or tobacco use (low certainty evidence). One trial reported an increase in absolute workplace costs for health promotion in the implementation group (low certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed adverse consequences. Limitations of the review included the small number of trials identified and the lack of consistent terminology applied in the implementation science field, which may have resulted in us overlooking potentially relevant trials in the search. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence regarding the effectiveness of implementation strategies for improving implementation of health-promoting policies and practices in the workplace setting is sparse and inconsistent. Low certainty evidence suggests that such strategies may make little or no difference on measures of implementation fidelity or different employee health behaviour outcomes. It is also unclear if such strategies are cost-effective or have potential unintended adverse consequences. The limited number of trials identified suggests implementation research in the workplace setting is in its infancy, warranting further research to guide evidence translation in this setting.

Strategies for enhancing the implementation of school-based policies or practices targeting risk factors for chronic disease.

BACKGROUND: A number of school-based policies or practices have been found to be effective in improving child diet and physical activity, and preventing excessive weight gain, tobacco or harmful alcohol use. Schools, however, frequently fail to implement such evidence-based interventions. OBJECTIVES: The primary aims of the review are to examine the effectiveness of strategies aiming to improve the implementation of school-based policies, programs or practices to address child diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco or alcohol use.Secondary objectives of the review are to: Examine the effectiveness of implementation strategies on health behaviour (e.g. fruit and vegetable consumption) and anthropometric outcomes (e.g. BMI, weight); describe the impact of such strategies on the knowledge, skills or attitudes of school staff involved in implementing health-promoting policies, programs or practices; describe the cost or cost-effectiveness of such strategies; and describe any unintended adverse effects of strategies on schools, school staff or children. SEARCH METHODS: All electronic databases were searched on 16 July 2017 for studies published up to 31 August 2016. We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; Embase Classic and Embase; PsycINFO; Education Resource Information Center (ERIC); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); Dissertations and Theses; and SCOPUS. We screened reference lists of all included trials for citations of other potentially relevant trials. We handsearched all publications between 2011 and 2016 in two specialty journals (Implementation Science and Journal of Translational Behavioral Medicine) and conducted searches of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/) as well as the US National Institutes of Health registry (https://clinicaltrials.gov). We consulted with experts in the field to identify other relevant research. SELECTION CRITERIA: 'Implementation' was defined as the use of strategies to adopt and integrate evidence-based health interventions and to change practice patterns within specific settings. We included any trial (randomised or non-randomised) conducted at any scale, with a parallel control group that compared a strategy to implement policies or practices to address diet, physical activity, overweight or obesity, tobacco or alcohol use by school staff to 'no intervention', 'usual' practice or a different implementation strategy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Citation screening, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was performed by review authors in pairs. Disagreements between review authors were resolved via consensus, or if required, by a third author. Considerable trial heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. We narratively synthesised trial findings by describing the effect size of the primary outcome measure for policy or practice implementation (or the median of such measures where a single primary outcome was not stated). MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 trials, 18 of which were conducted in the USA. Nineteen studies employed randomised controlled trial (RCT) designs. Fifteen trials tested strategies to implement healthy eating policies, practice or programs; six trials tested strategies targeting physical activity policies or practices; and three trials targeted tobacco policies or practices. Three trials targeted a combination of risk factors. None of the included trials sought to increase the implementation of interventions to delay initiation or reduce the consumption of alcohol. All trials examined multi-strategic implementation strategies and no two trials examined the same combinations of implementation strategies. The most common implementation strategies included educational materials, educational outreach and educational meetings. For all outcomes, the overall quality of evidence was very low and the risk of bias was high for the majority of trials for detection and performance bias.Among 13 trials reporting dichotomous implementation outcomes-the proportion of schools or school staff (e.g. classes) implementing a targeted policy or practice-the median unadjusted (improvement) effect sizes ranged from 8.5% to 66.6%. Of seven trials reporting the percentage of a practice, program or policy that had been implemented, the median unadjusted effect (improvement), relative to the control ranged from -8% to 43%. The effect, relative to control, reported in two trials assessing the impact of implementation strategies on the time per week teachers spent delivering targeted policies or practices ranged from 26.6 to 54.9 minutes per week. Among trials reporting other continuous implementation outcomes, findings were mixed. Four trials were conducted of strategies that sought to achieve implementation 'at scale', that is, across samples of at least 50 schools, of which improvements in implementation were reported in three trials.The impact of interventions on student health behaviour or weight status were mixed. Three of the eight trials with physical activity outcomes reported no significant improvements. Two trials reported reductions in tobacco use among intervention relative to control. Seven of nine trials reported no between-group differences on student overweight, obesity or adiposity. Positive improvements in child dietary intake were generally reported among trials reporting these outcomes. Three trials assessed the impact of implementation strategies on the attitudes of school staff and found mixed effects. Two trials specified in the study methods an assessment of potential unintended adverse effects, of which, they reported none. One trial reported implementation support did not significantly increase school revenue or expenses and another, conducted a formal economic evaluation, reporting the intervention to be cost-effective. Trial heterogeneity, and the lack of consistent terminology describing implementation strategies, were important limitations of the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the very low quality of the available evidence, it is uncertain whether the strategies tested improve implementation of the targeted school-based policies or practices, student health behaviours, or the knowledge or attitudes of school staff. It is also uncertain if strategies to improve implementation are cost-effective or if they result in unintended adverse consequences. Further research is required to guide efforts to facilitate the translation of evidence into practice in this setting.

The impact of a brief lifestyle intervention delivered by generalist community nurses (CN SNAP trial).

BACKGROUND: The risk factors for chronic disease, smoking, poor nutrition, hazardous alcohol consumption, physical inactivity and weight (SNAPW) are common in primary health care (PHC) affording opportunity for preventive interventions. Community nurses are an important component of PHC in Australia. However there has been little research evaluating the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions in routine community nursing practice. This study aimed to address this gap in our knowledge. METHODS: The study was a quasi-experimental trial involving four generalist community nursing (CN) services in New South Wales, Australia. Two services were randomly allocated to an 'early intervention' and two to a 'late intervention' group. Nurses in the early intervention group received training and support in identifying risk factors and offering brief lifestyle intervention for clients. Those in the late intervention group provided usual care for the first 6 months and then received training. Clients aged 30-80 years who were referred to the services between September 2009 and September 2010 were recruited prior to being seen by the nurse and baseline self-reported data collected. Data on their SNAPW risk factors, readiness to change these behaviours and advice and referral received about their risk factors in the previous 3 months were collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Analysis compared changes using univariate and multilevel regression techniques. RESULTS: 804 participants were recruited from 2361 (34.1%) eligible clients. The proportion of clients who recalled receiving dietary or physical activity advice increased between baseline and 3 months in the early intervention group (from 12.9 to 23.3% and 12.3 to 19.1% respectively) as did the proportion who recalled being referred for dietary or physical activity interventions (from 9.5 to 15.6% and 5.8 to 21.0% respectively). There was no change in the late intervention group. There a shift towards greater readiness to change in those who were physically inactive in the early but not the comparison group. Clients in both groups reported being more physically active and eating more fruit and vegetables but there were no significant differences between groups at 6 months. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that although the intervention was associated with increases in advice and referral for diet or physical activity and readiness for change in physical activity, this did not translate into significant changes in lifestyle behaviours or weight. This suggests a need to facilitate referral to more intensive long-term interventions for clients with risk factors identified by primary health care nurses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12609001081202.

Impact of a population based intervention to increase the adoption of multiple physical activity practices in centre based childcare services: a quasi experimental, effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable scope to improve the delivery of practices that increase the physical activity of children in centre based childcare services. Few studies have reported the effectiveness of interventions to address this, particularly at a population level. The primary aim of this study was to describe the impact of an intervention to increase the adoption of multiple policies and practices to promote physical activity in centre based childcare services. METHODS: A quasi experimental study was conducted in centre based childcare services (n =228) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia and involved a three month intervention to increase the adoption of eight practices within childcare services that have been suggested to promote child physical activity. Intervention strategies to support the adoption of practices included staff training, resources, incentives, follow-up support and performance monitoring and feedback. Randomly selected childcare services in the remainder of NSW acted as a comparison group (n = 164) and did not receive the intervention but may have been exposed to a concurrent NSW government healthy eating and physical activity initiative. Self reported information on physical activity policies, fundamental movement skills sessions, structured physical activity opportunities, staff involvement in active play and provision of verbal prompts to encourage physical activity, small screen recreation opportunities, sedentary time, and staff trained in physical activity were collected by telephone survey with childcare service managers at baseline and 18 months later. RESULTS: Compared with the comparison area, the study found significantly greater increases in the prevalence of intervention services with a written physical activity policy, with policy referring to placing limits on small screen recreation, and with staff trained in physical activity. In addition, non-significant trends towards a greater increase in the proportion of intervention services conducting daily fundamental movement skill sessions, and such services having a physical activity policy supporting physical activity training for staff were also evident. CONCLUSION: The intervention was effective in improving a number of centre based childcare service policies and practices associated with promoting child physical activity. Adoption of a broader range of practices may require more intensive and prolonged intervention support.

Computer-tailored physical activity behavior change interventions targeting adults: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Increasing physical activity is important in the promotion of better health. Computer-tailored behavior change programs have shown promise in changing lifestyle risk factors. PURPOSE: To provide a narrative systematic review describing the range of evidence on 'second' and 'third' generation computer-tailored primary prevention interventions for physical activity, to determine their effectiveness and key characteristics of success. Unlike previous reviews, this review used specific criteria to measure the external validity of studies, was exclusive to primary prevention interventions in which tailoring was generated through an expert system, and excluded first generation computer-tailored interventions. METHODS: Computer-tailored intervention studies published from January 1996-2008 were identified through a search of five databases: Medline; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; and All EBM Reviews and by examining reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: Seventeen articles were included, describing the evaluation of 16 interventions, ten of which found significant positive effects of the computer-tailored interventions on physical activity or weight reduction outcomes. CONCLUSION: The evidence of effectiveness for computer-tailored physical activity interventions is inconclusive. They have potential to reach large groups of people however there is uncertainty whether reported effects are generalizable and sustained.

Computer-tailored dietary behaviour change interventions: a systematic review.

Improving dietary behaviours such as increasing fruit and vegetable consumption and reducing saturated fat intake are important in the promotion of better health. Computer tailoring has shown promise as a strategy to promote such behaviours. A narrative systematic review was conducted to describe the available evidence on 'second'-generation computer-tailored primary prevention interventions for dietary behaviour change and to determine their effectiveness and key characteristics of success. Systematic literature searches were conducted through five databases: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and All EBM Reviews and by examining the reference lists of relevant articles to identify studies published in English from January 1996 to 2008. Randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental designs with pre-test and post-test behavioural outcome data were included. A total of 13 articles were reviewed, describing the evaluation of 12 interventions, seven of which found significant positive effects of the computer-tailored interventions for dietary behaviour outcomes, one also for weight reduction outcomes. Although the evidence of short-term efficacy for computer-tailored dietary behaviour change interventions is fairly strong, the uncertainty lies in whether the reported effects are generalizable and sustained long term. Further research is required to address these limitations of the evidence.