Purchasing Behavior, Setting, Pricing, Family: Determinants of School Lunch Participation.

Despite growing school lunch availability in Germany, its utilization is still low, and students resort to unhealthy alternatives. We investigated predictors of school lunch participation and reasons for nonparticipation in 1215 schoolchildren. Children reported meal habits, parents provided family-related information (like socioeconomic status), and anthropometry was conducted on-site in schools. Associations between school lunch participation and family-related predictors were estimated using logistic regression controlling for age and gender if necessary. School was added as a random effect. School lunch participation was primarily associated with family factors. While having breakfast on schooldays was positively associated with school lunch participation (ORadj = 2.20, p = 0.002), lower secondary schools (ORadj = 0.52, p < 0.001) and low SES (ORadj = 0.25, p < 0.001) were negatively associated. The main reasons for nonparticipation were school- and lunch-related factors (taste, time constraints, pricing). Parents reported pricing as crucial a reason as an unpleasant taste for nonparticipation. Nonparticipants bought sandwiches and energy drinks significantly more often on school days, whereas participants were less often affected by overweight (OR = 0.66, p = 0.043). Our data stress school- and lunch-related factors as an important opportunity to foster school lunch utilization.

Measuring test-retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR provides moderate to perfect agreement - a contribution to the discussion of the importance of TRR in relation to the psychometric properties of assessment tools.

BACKGROUND: Systematic Reviews (SRs) can build the groundwork for evidence-based health care decision-making. A sound methodological quality of SRs is crucial. AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) is a widely used tool developed to assess the methodological quality of SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Research shows that AMSTAR seems to be valid and reliable in terms of interrater reliability (IRR), but the test retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR has never been investigated. In our study we investigated the TRR of AMSTAR to evaluate the importance of its measurement and contribute to the discussion of the measurement properties of AMSTAR and other quality assessment tools. METHODS: Seven raters at three institutions independently assessed the methodological quality of SRs in the field of occupational health with AMSTAR. Between the first and second ratings was a timespan of approximately two years. Answers were dichotomized, and we calculated the TRR of all raters and AMSTAR items using Gwet's AC1 coefficient. To investigate the impact of variation in the ratings over time, we obtained summary scores for each review. RESULTS: AMSTAR item 4 (Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?) provided the lowest median TRR of 0.53 (moderate agreement). Perfect agreement of all reviewers was detected for AMSTAR-item 1 with a Gwet's AC1 of 1, which represented perfect agreement. The median TRR of the single raters varied between 0.69 (substantial agreement) and 0.89 (almost perfect agreement). Variation of two or more points in yes-scored AMSTAR items was observed in 65% (73/112) of all assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The high variation between the first and second AMSTAR ratings suggests that consideration of the TRR is important when evaluating the psychometric properties of AMSTAR.. However, more evidence is needed to investigate this neglected issue of measurement properties. Our results may initiate discussion of the importance of considering the TRR of assessment tools. A further examination of the TRR of AMSTAR, as well as other recently established rating tools such as AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews), would be useful.

[Increasing the efficiency of guideline production: a narrative review]. / Effizientere Leitlinienerstellung ­ eine narrative Übersichtsarbeit.

BACKGROUND: The development of high-quality clinical practice guidelines is laborious and time-consuming. New methods have become available to streamline this process. However, the awareness of these methods should be improved. METHODS: Selective literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE und Embase. RESULTS: Simple tools such as surveys or voting systems can facilitate the organization, planning and communication. Adequate methods should be used to prioritize all potential questions that should be addressed in the guideline. Published or ongoing international guidelines and systematic reviews can be used meaningfully for the planned guideline. In the case of guideline updates, it should be determined whether all parts of the guideline require an update of the evidence. The need for an update should be investigated. The concept of living guidelines has the biggest potential to provide gains in efficiency. Living guidelines are continuously updated based on new evidence instead of being regularly updated at a predefined time. CONCLUSIONS: New methods allowing for more efficient guideline production have been developed and, in part, already been introduced. Before starting with the production of a guideline (or its update), the potential advantages and disadvantages/risks of the corresponding methods should be balanced.

The effect of a voucher incentive on a survey response rate in the clinical setting: a quasi-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Financial rewards have been shown to be an important motivator to include normal healthy volunteers in trials. Less emphasis has been put on non-healthy volunteers. No previous study has investigated the impact of a voucher incentive for participants in a cross-sectional study in a clinical setting. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of a small voucher incentive on a survey response rate in a clinical setting at the point-of-care in a quasi-randomized controlled trial (q-RCT). METHODS: This was an ancillary study to a survey of patients subsequent to their appointment with a physician investigating physician-patient communication. We randomized participants to receive or not receive a voucher for a coffee (costs: 1 €) enclosed in the survey package. Alternation of groups was performed on a weekly basis. The exact Chi-square test was used to compare response rates between study arms. RESULTS: In total, 472 participants received the survey package. Among them, 249 participants were quasi-randomized to the voucher arm and 223 to the control group. The total response rate was 46%. The response rates were 48% in the voucher arm and 44% in the control group. The corresponding risk ratio was 1.09 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: A small voucher incentive to increase the response rate in a survey investigating physician-patient communication was unlikely to have an impact. It can be speculated whether the magnitude of the voucher was too low to generate an impact. This should be further investigated in future real-world studies.