Healthy eating interventions delivered in early childhood education and care settings for improving the diet of children aged six months to six years.

BACKGROUND: Dietary intake during early childhood can have implications on child health and developmental trajectories. Early childhood education and care (ECEC) services are recommended settings to deliver healthy eating interventions as they provide access to many children during this important period. Healthy eating interventions delivered in ECEC settings can include strategies targeting the curriculum (e.g. nutrition education), ethos and environment (e.g. menu modification) and partnerships (e.g. workshops for families). Despite guidelines supporting the delivery of healthy eating interventions in this setting, little is known about their impact on child health. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of healthy eating interventions delivered in ECEC settings for improving dietary intake in children aged six months to six years, relative to usual care, no intervention or an alternative, non-dietary intervention. Secondary objectives were to assess the impact of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions on physical outcomes (e.g. child body mass index (BMI), weight, waist circumference), language and cognitive outcomes, social/emotional and quality-of-life outcomes. We also report on cost and adverse consequences of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched eight electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Scopus and SportDiscus on 24 February 2022. We searched reference lists of included studies, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar, and contacted authors of relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, stepped-wedge RCTs, factorial RCTs, multiple baseline RCTs and randomised cross-over trials, of healthy eating interventions targeting children aged six months to six years that were conducted within the ECEC setting. ECEC settings included preschools, nurseries, kindergartens, long day care and family day care. To be included, studies had to include at least one intervention component targeting child diet within the ECEC setting and measure child dietary or physical outcomes, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and extracted study data. We assessed risk of bias for all studies against 12 criteria within RoB 1, which allows for consideration of how selection, performance, attrition, publication and reporting biases impact outcomes. We resolved discrepancies via consensus or by consulting a third review author. Where we identified studies with suitable data and homogeneity, we performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model; otherwise, we described findings using vote-counting approaches and via harvest plots. For measures with similar metrics, we calculated mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for primary and secondary outcomes where studies used different measures. We applied GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for dietary, cost and adverse outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 52 studies that investigated 58 interventions (described across 96 articles). All studies were cluster-RCTs. Twenty-nine studies were large (≥ 400 participants) and 23 were small (< 400 participants). Of the 58 interventions, 43 targeted curriculum, 56 targeted ethos and environment, and 50 targeted partnerships. Thirty-eight interventions incorporated all three components. For the primary outcomes (dietary outcomes), we assessed 19 studies as overall high risk of bias, with performance and detection bias being most commonly judged as high risk of bias. ECEC-based healthy eating interventions versus usual practice or no intervention may have a positive effect on child diet quality (SMD 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.65; P = 0.03, I2 = 91%; 6 studies, 1973 children) but the evidence is very uncertain. There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECEC-based healthy eating interventions likely increase children's consumption of fruit (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.18; P < 0.01, I2 = 0%; 11 studies, 2901 children). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions on children's consumption of vegetables (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.25; P =0.08, I2 = 70%; 13 studies, 3335 children). There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECEC-based healthy eating interventions likely result in little to no difference in children's consumption of non-core (i.e. less healthy/discretionary) foods (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.08; P = 0.48, I2 = 16%; 7 studies, 1369 children) or consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.14; P = 0.41, I2 = 45%; 3 studies, 522 children). Thirty-six studies measured BMI, BMI z-score, weight, overweight and obesity, or waist circumference, or a combination of some or all of these. ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may result in little to no difference in child BMI (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.07; P = 0.30, I2 = 65%; 15 studies, 3932 children) or in child BMI z-score (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.03; P = 0.36, I2 = 0%; 17 studies; 4766 children). ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may decrease child weight (MD -0.23, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.03; P = 0.09, I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 2071 children) and risk of overweight and obesity (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01; P = 0.07, I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1070 children). ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may be cost-effective but the evidence is very uncertain (6 studies). ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may have little to no effect on adverse consequences but the evidence is very uncertain (3 studies). Few studies measured language and cognitive skills (n = 2), social/emotional outcomes (n = 2) and quality of life (n = 3). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may improve child diet quality slightly, but the evidence is very uncertain, and likely increase child fruit consumption slightly. There is uncertainty about the effect of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions on vegetable consumption. ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may result in little to no difference in child consumption of non-core foods and sugar-sweetened beverages. Healthy eating interventions could have favourable effects on child weight and risk of overweight and obesity, although there was little to no difference in BMI and BMI z-scores. Future studies exploring the impact of specific intervention components, and describing cost-effectiveness and adverse outcomes are needed to better understand how to maximise the impact of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions.

Healthy eating interventions delivered in early childhood education and care settings for improving the diet of children aged six months to six years.

BACKGROUND: Dietary intake during early childhood can have implications on child health and developmental trajectories. Early childhood education and care (ECEC) services are recommended settings to deliver healthy eating interventions as they provide access to many children during this important period. Healthy eating interventions delivered in ECEC settings can include strategies targeting the curriculum (e.g. nutrition education), ethos and environment (e.g. menu modification) and partnerships (e.g. workshops for families). Despite guidelines supporting the delivery of healthy eating interventions in this setting, little is known about their impact on child health. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of healthy eating interventions delivered in ECEC settings for improving dietary intake in children aged six months to six years, relative to usual care, no intervention or an alternative, non-dietary intervention. Secondary objectives were to assess the impact of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions on physical outcomes (e.g. child body mass index (BMI), weight, waist circumference), language and cognitive outcomes, social/emotional and quality-of-life outcomes. We also report on cost and adverse consequences of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched eight electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Scopus and SportDiscus on 24 February 2022. We searched reference lists of included studies, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar, and contacted authors of relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, stepped-wedge RCTs, factorial RCTs, multiple baseline RCTs and randomised cross-over trials, of healthy eating interventions targeting children aged six months to six years that were conducted within the ECEC setting. ECEC settings included preschools, nurseries, kindergartens, long day care and family day care. To be included, studies had to include at least one intervention component targeting child diet within the ECEC setting and measure child dietary or physical outcomes, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and extracted study data. We assessed risk of bias for all studies against 12 criteria within RoB 1, which allows for consideration of how selection, performance, attrition, publication and reporting biases impact outcomes. We resolved discrepancies via consensus or by consulting a third review author. Where we identified studies with suitable data and homogeneity, we performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model; otherwise, we described findings using vote-counting approaches and via harvest plots. For measures with similar metrics, we calculated mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for primary and secondary outcomes where studies used different measures. We applied GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for dietary, cost and adverse outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 52 studies that investigated 58 interventions (described across 96 articles). All studies were cluster-RCTs. Twenty-nine studies were large (≥ 400 participants) and 23 were small (< 400 participants). Of the 58 interventions, 43 targeted curriculum, 56 targeted ethos and environment, and 50 targeted partnerships. Thirty-eight interventions incorporated all three components. For the primary outcomes (dietary outcomes), we assessed 19 studies as overall high risk of bias, with performance and detection bias being most commonly judged as high risk of bias. ECEC-based healthy eating interventions versus usual practice or no intervention may have a positive effect on child diet quality (SMD 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.65; P = 0.03, I2 = 91%; 6 studies, 1973 children) but the evidence is very uncertain. There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECEC-based healthy eating interventions likely increase children's consumption of fruit (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.18; P < 0.01, I2 = 0%; 11 studies, 2901 children). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions on children's consumption of vegetables (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.25; P =0.08, I2 = 70%; 13 studies, 3335 children). There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECEC-based healthy eating interventions likely result in little to no difference in children's consumption of non-core (i.e. less healthy/discretionary) foods (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.08; P = 0.48, I2 = 16%; 7 studies, 1369 children) or consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.14; P = 0.41, I2 = 45%; 3 studies, 522 children). Thirty-six studies measured BMI, BMI z-score, weight, overweight and obesity, or waist circumference, or a combination of some or all of these. ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may result in little to no difference in child BMI (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.07; P = 0.30, I2 = 65%; 15 studies, 3932 children) or in child BMI z-score (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.03; P = 0.36, I2 = 0%; 17 studies; 4766 children). ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may decrease child weight (MD -0.23, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.03; P = 0.09, I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 2071 children) and risk of overweight and obesity (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01; P = 0.07, I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1070 children). ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may be cost-effective but the evidence is very uncertain (6 studies). ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may have little to no effect on adverse consequences but the evidence is very uncertain (3 studies). Few studies measured language and cognitive skills (n = 2), social/emotional outcomes (n = 2) and quality of life (n = 3). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may improve child diet quality slightly, but the evidence is very uncertain, and likely increase child fruit consumption slightly. There is uncertainty about the effect of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions on vegetable consumption. ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may result in little to no difference in child consumption of non-core foods and sugar-sweetened beverages. Healthy eating interventions could have favourable effects on child weight and risk of overweight and obesity, although there was little to no difference in BMI and BMI z-scores. Future studies exploring the impact of specific intervention components, and describing cost-effectiveness and adverse outcomes are needed to better understand how to maximise the impact of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of healthy eating, physical activity and obesity prevention policies, practices or programs in family day care: A mixed method systematic review.

Family day care (FDC) services provide care to young children typically within the carer's own home and represents a unique setting to deliver public health programs to improve child health. To support the implementation of programs targeting healthy eating, physical activity and obesity prevention in the FDC setting, an understanding of the factors influencing their implementation is required. This mixed methods systematic review aimed to describe the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of healthy eating, physical activity or obesity prevention policies, practices and programs (hereafter referred to as programs) in the FDC setting, and synthesise these according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Electronic searches were conducted in 7 databases up to July 2020 to identify studies reporting the barriers and/or facilitators to program implementation in the FDC setting. Methodological quality assessments of included studies were conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Twenty studies met the review inclusion criteria (12 qualitative, 6 quantitative, 2 mixed methods). Of the 20 included studies, 16 reported barriers and facilitators mapped to the 'environmental contexts and resources' TDF domain; 10 reported barriers mapped to the 'social influences' TDF domain. Ten of the 12 qualitative studies and none of the quantitative or mixed method studies met all relevant MMAT criteria. This review comprehensively describes barriers and facilitators that need to be addressed to improve the implementation of healthy eating, physical activity and obesity prevention programs in FDC to ensure the expected health benefits of such programs reach children attending FDC.

A randomised controlled trial of an implementation strategy delivered at scale to increase outdoor free play opportunities in early childhood education and care (ECEC) services: a study protocol for the get outside get active (GOGA) trial.

BACKGROUND: Increased outdoor play time in young children is associated with many health and developmental benefits. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a multi-strategy implementation strategy delivered at scale, to increase opportunities for outdoor free play in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) services. METHODS: The study will employ a parallel-group randomised controlled trial design. One hundred ECEC services in the Hunter New England region of New South Wales, Australia, will be recruited and randomised to receive either a 6-month implementation strategy or usual care. The trial will seek to increase the implementation of an indoor-outdoor routine (whereby children are allowed to move freely between indoor and outdoor spaces during periods of free play), to increase their opportunity to engage in outdoor free play. Development of the strategy was informed by the Behaviour Change Wheel to address determinants identified in the Theoretical Domains Framework. ECEC services allocated to the control group will receive 'usual' implementation support delivered as part of state-wide obesity prevention programs. The primary trial outcome is the mean minutes/day (calculated across 5 consecutive days) of outdoor free play opportunities provided in ECEC services measured at baseline, 6-months (primary end point) and 18-months post baseline. Analyses will be performed using an intention-to-treat approach with ECEC services as the unit of analysis, using a linear mixed effects regression model to assess between-group differences. A sensitivity analysis will be undertaken, adjusting for service characteristics that appear imbalanced between groups at baseline, and a subgroup analysis examining potential intervention effect among services with the lowest baseline outdoor free play opportunities. DISCUSSION: Identifying effective strategies to support the implementation of indoor-outdoor routines in the ECEC setting at scale is essential to improve child population health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12621000987864 ). Prospectively registered 27th July 2021, ANZCTR - Registration.

Assessing the implementation of healthy eating and physical activity policies and practices in the family day care setting: A cross-sectional study.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: While the family day care setting provides a unique opportunity to improve child health, few studies have assessed obesity prevention practices of this setting. This study aimed to examine the (a) prevalence of implementation of evidence-based healthy eating and physical activity policies and practices among schemes (ie overarching governing agency) and educators in the family day care setting in Australia; and (b) associations between educator socio-demographic characteristics and implementation of healthy eating and physical activity practices. METHODS: Family day care schemes (n = 16) responsible for educators (n = 174) located in the Hunter New England region of NSW participated in a telephone survey in 2018, reporting their implementation of evidence-based healthy eating and physical activity policies and practices. Linear mixed regression analyses were used to determine whether educator characteristics were associated with higher percentages of implementation. RESULTS: Few schemes had comprehensive breastfeeding (0%) and screen time (19%) policies. However, the majority of educators (81%) communicated with families when lunchboxes were not consistent with guidelines. Educators implemented an average of 64.3% of practices assessed. Educators located in higher socioeconomic areas implemented a significantly higher percentage of practices than those in lower socioeconomic areas (P < .000). Educator years of experience was positively associated with percentage of implementation (P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of obesity prevention policies and practices in the family day care setting is variable and associated with educator socio-demographic characteristics. SO WHAT?: There is a need to support family day care schemes to improve their obesity prevention environments, particularly those related to policies.

Strategies to improve the implementation of healthy eating, physical activity and obesity prevention policies, practices or programmes within childcare services.

BACKGROUND: Despite the existence of effective interventions and best-practice guideline recommendations for childcare services to implement evidence-based policies, practices and programmes to promote child healthy eating, physical activity and prevent unhealthy weight gain, many services fail to do so. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of the review was to examine the effectiveness of strategies aimed at improving the implementation of policies, practices or programmes by childcare services that promote child healthy eating, physical activity and/or obesity prevention. The secondary aims of the review were to: 1. Examine the cost or cost-effectiveness of such strategies; 2. Examine any adverse effects of such strategies on childcare services, service staff or children; 3. Examine the effect of such strategies on child diet, physical activity or weight status. 4. Describe the acceptability, adoption, penetration, sustainability and appropriateness of such implementation strategies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases on February 22 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL and SCOPUS for relevant studies. We searched reference lists of included studies, handsearched two international implementation science journals, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included any study (randomised or nonrandomised) with a parallel control group that compared any strategy to improve the implementation of a healthy eating, physical activity or obesity prevention policy, practice or programme by staff of centre-based childcare services to no intervention, 'usual' practice or an alternative strategy. Centre-based childcare services included preschools, nurseries, long daycare services and kindergartens catering for children prior to compulsory schooling (typically up to the age of five to six years). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened study titles and abstracts, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias; we resolved discrepancies via consensus. We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model where studies with suitable data and homogeneity were identified; otherwise, findings were described narratively. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one studies, including 16 randomised and five nonrandomised, were included in the review. The studies sought to improve the implementation of policies, practices or programmes targeting healthy eating (six studies), physical activity (three studies) or both healthy eating and physical activity (12 studies). Studies were conducted in the United States (n = 12), Australia (n = 8) and Ireland (n = 1). Collectively, the 21 studies included a total of 1945 childcare services examining a range of implementation strategies including educational materials, educational meetings, audit and feedback, opinion leaders, small incentives or grants, educational outreach visits or academic detailing, reminders and tailored interventions. Most studies (n = 19) examined implementation strategies versus usual practice or minimal support control, and two compared alternative implementation strategies. For implementation outcomes, six studies (one RCT) were judged to be at high risk of bias overall. The review findings suggest that implementation strategies probably improve the implementation of policies, practices or programmes that promote child healthy eating, physical activity and/or obesity prevention in childcare services. Of the 19 studies that compared a strategy to usual practice or minimal support control, 11 studies (nine RCTs) used score-based measures of implementation (e.g. childcare service nutrition environment score). Nine of these studies were included in pooled analysis, which found an improvement in implementation outcomes (SMD 0.49; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.79; participants = 495; moderate-certainty evidence). Ten studies (seven RCTs) used dichotomous measures of implementation (e.g. proportion of childcare services implementing a policy or specific practice), with seven of these included in pooled analysis (OR 1.83; 95% CI 0.81 to 4.11; participants = 391; low-certainty evidence). Findings suggest that such interventions probably lead to little or no difference in child physical activity (four RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) or weight status (three RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), and may lead to little or no difference in child diet (two RCTs; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported the cost or cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Three studies assessed the adverse effects of the intervention on childcare service staff, children and parents, with all studies suggesting they have little to no difference in adverse effects (e.g. child injury) between groups (three RCTs; low-certainty evidence). Inconsistent quality of the evidence was identified across review outcomes and study designs, ranging from very low to moderate. The primary limitation of the review was the lack of conventional terminology in implementation science, which may have resulted in potentially relevant studies failing to be identified based on the search terms used. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current research suggests that implementation strategies probably improve the implementation of policies, practices or programmes by childcare services, and may have little or no effect on measures of adverse effects. However such strategies appear to have little to no impact on measures of child diet, physical activity or weight status.

A systematic review of interventions to improve the dietary intake, physical activity and weight status of children attending family day care services.

OBJECTIVE: To (i) identify and synthesise findings from interventions to improve the dietary intake, physical activity and weight status of children aged 0-6 years attending family day care services; and (ii) assess the impact of interventions on family day care environments, intervention cost and adverse outcomes. DESIGN: Medline in Process, PsycINFO, ERIC, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Scopus databases were searched in March 2019. Studies were included if they (i) evaluated an intervention to improve the diet, physical activity and/or weight of children aged 0-6 years; (ii) were delivered in family day care services; (iii) targeted child diet, physical activity and/or weight; and (iv) used a parallel control group design. Screening was undertaken by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. SETTING: Family day care services, also known as family childcare homes. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 0-6 years attending family day care services. RESULTS: In total, 8977 titles were retrieved, and 199 full-texts reviewed. No studies met the inclusion criteria for the primary outcome; however, two studies reporting on the secondary outcome of family day care environments were included. The 4-year community-wide obesity prevention programme and the 12-month train-the-trainer programme both reported statistically significant improvements in the healthy eating and physical activity environments of family day care, compared to cross-sectional state-average control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight few existing interventions in family day care services and a need for high-quality controlled trials to identify effective interventions to improve children's diet, activity and weight in this setting.

Implementation of continuous free play schedules in Australian childcare services: A cross-sectional study.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Modifying the scheduling of physical activity opportunities to provide children with more frequent opportunities for outdoor free play has been demonstrated to increase child physical activity while in care. The primary aim of this study was to describe the implementation of continuous free play schedules to allow children to access outdoor play areas, consistent with sector guidelines in a national sample of Australian childcare services. Secondary aims were to investigate the associations between the implementation of such schedules and service characteristics, and assess the perceived barriers and enablers to implementation. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was undertaken with a random sample of 326 centre-based childcare services located across Australia. Childcare service characteristics, continuous free play scheduling and perceived barriers and enablers to implementation were assessed via a survey administered to service managers online or via telephone. RESULTS: A total of 203 service managers (62%) reported implementing a continuous free play schedule, for three periods of 126 minutes per period, each day on average. Service type (long day care services), size (services with higher numbers of child enrolments [≥80 children]) and socio-economic area (services located in lower socio-economic areas) were associated with the implementation of a continuous free play schedule. The most prevalent barriers to implementation included insufficient staff to ensure adequate supervision of children (69%) and service layout being unsuitable (65%), while the most prevalent enablers included advice on how to overcome staffing or supervision issues (89%) and to re-orientate the service layout (54%). CONCLUSIONS: There is scope to support the implementation of continuous free play schedules consistent with childcare sector guidelines. SO WHAT?: Future intervention research that targets the reported barriers and enablers to implementation is needed.

Menu planning practices in early childhood education and care - factors associated with menu compliance with sector dietary guidelines.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Despite recommendations, early childhood education and care services do not plan menus in accordance with sector dietary guidelines. This study aimed to examine the following among Australian long day care services: (a) menu planning practices; (b) prevalence of menu compliance with sector dietary guidelines; and (c) menu planning practices associated with higher menu compliance with sector dietary guidelines. METHODS: Long day care services within Hunter New England, NSW participated in a pen and paper survey assessing menu planning practices and socio-demographic and service characteristics. Two-week menus were assessed for compliance with sector dietary guidelines, based on the number of servings of food groups and discretionary foods provided per child, per day. RESULTS: Staff from 72 services completed the survey and 69 provided their menu. Results indicated the service cook was fully responsible for planning the menu in 43% of services, and 57% had received written support to assist with menu planning. Service menus were compliant with an average of 0.68 out of six food groups and discretionary foods. In poisson regression models, a shorter menu cycle length (P = .04) and the receipt of training opportunities to support menu planning (P < .01) were significantly associated with higher menu compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Menu compliance with sector dietary guidelines is low among participating long day care services. SO WHAT?: The implementation of practices such as shortening of the menu cycle and the provision of training opportunities may assist in the planning of menus that are more compliant with dietary guidelines in this setting.

Implementation of policies and practices to increase physical activity among children attending centre-based childcare: A cross-sectional study.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Supporting centre-based childcare services to create physical activity (PA) environments is a recommended strategy to improve child PA. This study aimed to describe the implementation of PA policies and practices by these services, and to examine the associations with service characteristics. METHODS: Nominated supervisors of childcare services (n = 309) in the Hunter New England region, New South Wales, Australia, completed a telephone interview. Using previously validated measures, the interview assessed the implementation of evidence-based practices shown to be associated with child PA. This includes: (a) provision of active play opportunities, (b) portable play equipment availability, (c) delivery of daily fundamental movement skills, (d) having at least 50% of staff trained in promoting child PA the past 5 years and (e) having written PA and small screen recreation policies. RESULTS: Although 98% (95% CI 96, 99) of childcare services provided active play opportunities for at least 25% of their daily opening hours, only 8% (95% CI 5, 11) of services fully implemented all policies and practices; with no service characteristic associated with full implementation. Long day care service had twice the odds of having a written PA policy (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.7, 5.8), compared to preschools (adjusted for service size, socio-economic disadvantage and geographical location). CONCLUSIONS: Improvements could be made to childcare services' operations to support the promotion of child PA. SO WHAT?: To ensure the benefits to child health, childcare services require support to implement a number of PA promoting policies and practices that are known to improve child PA.

Identifying opportunities to develop the science of implementation for community-based non-communicable disease prevention: A review of implementation trials.

Implementation of interventions in community organisations such as schools, childcare centres, and sporting clubs are recommended to target a range of modifiable risks of non-communicable diseases. Poor implementation, however, is common and has contributed to the failure of non-communicable disease interventions globally. This study aimed to characterise experimental research regarding strategies to improve implementation of chronic disease prevention programs in community settings. The review used data collected in three comprehensive systematic reviews undertaken between August 2015 and July 2017. Randomised controlled trials, including cluster design, and non-randomised trials with a parallel control group were included. The data were extracted to describe trial characteristics, implementation strategies employed, implementation outcomes and study quality. Of the 40 implementation trials included in the study, unhealthy diet was the most common risk factor targeted (n = 20). The most commonly reported implementation strategies were educational meetings (n = 38, 95%), educational materials (n = 36, 90%) and educational outreach visits (n = 29, 73%). Few trials were conducted 'at-scale' (n = 8, 20%) or reported adverse effects (n = 5, 13%). The reporting of implementation related outcomes; intervention adoption (n = 13, 33%); appropriateness (n = 11, 28%); acceptability (n = 8, 20%); feasibility (n = 8, 20%); cost (n = 3, 8%); and sustainability (n = 2, 5%); was limited. For the majority of trials, risk of bias was high for blinding of study personnel/participants and outcome assessors. Testing of strategies to improve implementation of non-communicable disease prevention strategies in community settings, delivered 'at-scale', utilising implementation frameworks, including a comprehensive range of implementation outcomes should be priority areas for future research in implementation science.

Efficacy of a free-play intervention to increase physical activity during childcare: a randomized controlled trial.

The primary aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a childcare-based intervention in increasing child physical activity by allowing children unrestricted access to outdoor areas for free-play when structured activity is not taking place. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in six childcare services. Intervention services provided children unrestricted access outdoors for active free-play, while control services provided their usual scheduled periods of outdoor play. Consent was obtained from 231 children. Child moderate to vigorous activity (MVPA), the primary trial outcome, was assessed via accelerometer at baseline and 3 months post baseline. Intervention effects were examined using Generalised Linear Mixed Models. Controlling for child age, gender and baseline outcome measure, at follow-up there were no significant differences between groups in minutes of MVPA in-care (mean difference: 4.85; 95% CI: -3.96, 13.66; P = 0.28), proportion of wear time in-care spent in MVPA (mean difference: 1.52%; 95% CI: -0.50, 3.53; P = 0.14) or total physical activity in-care (mean difference in counts per minute: 23.18; 95% CI: -4.26, 50.61; P = 0.10), nor on measures of child cognition (P = 0.45-0.91). It was concluded that interventions addressing multiple aspects of the childcare and home environment might provide the greatest potential to improve child physical activity.

Prevalence of night sleep duration, sleep quality and sleep hygiene practices among children attending childcare services in New South Wales, Australia.

AIM: To describe parent-reported child: (i) sleep duration; (ii) sleep quality; (iii) sleep hygiene practices; and (iv) the proportion of children meeting sleep duration recommendations. METHODS: A convenience sample of parents of Australian pre-school-aged children (3-5 years) were surveyed from the Hunter New England region of New South Wales. The cross-sectional survey was conducted via computer-assisted telephone interview. The survey assessed parent and child demographic characteristics and parent-reported child sleep duration, quality and sleep hygiene practices. RESULTS: A total of 488 eligible parents or guardians took part in the study. Parents reported that children slept an average of 11.03 h per night. Approximately 96% of children met daily sleep duration recommendations from sleep guidelines for their age group. The majority of parents reported that their child had 'good' sleep quality (86.89%). Almost 40% reported that their child woke at least once a night. Sleep hygiene practices were relatively well established; however, a small proportion of parents indicated that they had no rules surrounding bedtime (13.52%) or television use before bed (14.52%). CONCLUSIONS: The current study describes the sleep duration, quality and sleep hygiene practices of a sample of pre-school-aged children in New South Wales, Australia. Future research using objective measures of sleep duration and hygiene, as well as assessing a broader spectrum of sleep hygiene practices, is needed.

Impact of scheduling multiple outdoor free-play periods in childcare on child moderate-to-vigorous physical activity: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Increasing the frequency of periods of outdoor free-play in childcare may represent an opportunity to increase child physical activity. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of scheduling multiple periods of outdoor free-play in increasing the time children spend in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) while attending childcare. METHODS: The study employed a cluster randomised controlled trial design involving children aged 3 to 6 years, attending ten childcare services in the Hunter New England region of New South Wales, Australia. Five services were randomised to receive the intervention and five to a control condition. The intervention involved services scheduling three separate periods of outdoor free-play from 9 am to 3 pm per day, each at least 15 min in duration, with the total equivalent to their usual daily duration of outdoor play period. Control services implemented the usual single continuous period of outdoor free-play over this time. The primary outcome, children's moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) while in care per day, was measured over 5 days via accelerometers at baseline and at 3 months post baseline. Secondary outcomes included percentage of time spent in MVPA while in care per day, total physical activity while in care per day and documented child injury, a hypothesised potential unintended adverse event. Childcare services and data collectors were not blind to the experimental group allocation. RESULTS: Parents of 439 (71.6%) children attending participating childcare services consented for their child to participate in the trial. Of these, 316 (72.0%) children provided valid accelerometer data at both time points. Relative to children in control services, mean daily minutes of MVPA in care was significantly greater at follow-up among children attending intervention services (adjusted difference between groups 5.21 min, 95% CI 0.59-9.83 p = 0.03). Percentage of time spent in MVPA in care per day was also greater at follow-up among children in intervention services relative to control services (adjusted difference between groups 1.57, 95% CI 0.64-2.49 p < 0.001). Total physical activity while in care per day, assessed via counts per minute approached but did not reach significance (adjusted difference between groups 14.25, 95% CI 2.26-30.76 p = 0.09). There were no differences between groups in child injury nor subgroup interactions for the primary trial outcome by child age, sex, or baseline MVPA levels. CONCLUSION: Scheduling multiple periods of outdoor free-play significantly increased the time children spent in MVPA while in attendance at childcare. This simple ecological intervention could be considered for broader dissemination as a strategy to increase child physical activity at a population level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ( ACTRN1261000347460 ). Prospectively registered 17th March 2016.

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.

Improving the implementation of nutrition guidelines in childcare centres improves child dietary intake: findings of a randomised trial of an implementation intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence suggests that improvements to the childcare nutrition environment can have a positive impact on child dietary intake. The primary aim of the present study was to assess, relative to usual care, the effectiveness of a multi-strategy implementation intervention in improving childcare compliance with nutrition guidelines. As a secondary aim, the impact on child dietary intake was assessed. DESIGN: Parallel-group, randomised controlled trial design. The 6-month intervention was designed to overcome barriers to implementation of the nutrition guidelines that had been identified by applying the theoretical domains framework. SETTING: Hunter New England region, New South Wales, Australia. SUBJECTS: Forty-five centre-based childcare services. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups in the proportion of services providing food servings (per child) compliant with nutrition guideline recommendations for all five (5/5) food groups at follow-up (i.e. full compliance). Relative to control services, intervention services were more likely to be compliant with guidelines (OR; 95 % CI) in provision of fruit (10·84; 1·19, 551·20; P=0·0024), meat and meat alternatives (8·83; 1·55, -; P=0·023), dairy (8·41; 1·60, 63·62; P=0·006) and discretionary foods (17·83; 2·15, 853·73; P=0·002). Children in intervention services consumed greater servings (adjusted difference; 95 % CI) of fruit (0·41; 0·09, 0·73; P=0·014) and vegetables (0·70; 0·33, 1·08; P<0·001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that service-level changes to menus in line with dietary guidelines can result in improvements to children's dietary intake. The study provides evidence to advance implementation research in the setting as a means of enhancing child public health nutrition.

Factors that influence the implementation of dietary guidelines regarding food provision in centre based childcare services: A systematic review.

Children attending centre based childcare services consume as much as two thirds of their daily dietary requirements while in care. However, such services often fail to provide foods that are consistent with guideline recommendations. Developing strategies to improve childcare service adherence to menu dietary guidelines requires a comprehensive understanding of factors that may impede or promote implementation. The primary aim of this systematic review is to describe factors (barriers and facilitators) that may influence the implementation of menu dietary guidelines regarding food provision in centre-based childcare services and to map these factors to a theoretical framework. Over 7000 citations were identified from all sources. Duplicate abstracts were removed and selection criteria applied. Twelve studies (1994-2015) were included in the review. Dual data extraction was conducted and the reported factors were synthesised using the theoretical domains framework (TDF). Barriers and facilitators identified in qualitative studies were classified into 8 and 10 of the 14 TDF domains. Barriers and facilitators reported in quantitative studies covered 6 and 3 TDF domains respectively. The most common domain of which both barriers and facilitators to the implementation of menu dietary guidelines were identified was 'environmental context and resources'. This is the first study that comprehensively assesses literature to identify factors that influence the implementation of menu dietary guidelines in childcare services utilising a theoretical framework. Findings provide guidance to support researchers and policy makers design strategies to improve menu dietary guideline implementation and, as such have the potential to improve food provision in care.

Strategies to improve the implementation of healthy eating, physical activity and obesity prevention policies, practices or programmes within childcare services.

BACKGROUND: Despite the existence of effective interventions and best-practice guideline recommendations for childcare services to implement policies, practices and programmes to promote child healthy eating, physical activity and prevent unhealthy weight gain, many services fail to do so. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of the review was to examine the effectiveness of strategies aimed at improving the implementation of policies, practices or programmes by childcare services that promote child healthy eating, physical activity and/or obesity prevention. The secondary aims of the review were to:1. describe the impact of such strategies on childcare service staff knowledge, skills or attitudes;2. describe the cost or cost-effectiveness of such strategies;3. describe any adverse effects of such strategies on childcare services, service staff or children;4. examine the effect of such strategies on child diet, physical activity or weight status. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases on 3 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL and SCOPUS. We also searched reference lists of included trials, handsearched two international implementation science journals and searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included any study (randomised or non-randomised) with a parallel control group that compared any strategy to improve the implementation of a healthy eating, physical activity or obesity prevention policy, practice or programme by staff of centre-based childcare services to no intervention, 'usual' practice or an alternative strategy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently screened abstracts and titles, extracted trial data and assessed risk of bias in pairs; we resolved discrepancies via consensus. Heterogeneity across studies precluded pooling of data and undertaking quantitative assessment via meta-analysis. However, we narratively synthesised the 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 identified 10 trials as eligible and included them in the review. The trials sought to improve the implementation of policies and practices targeting healthy eating (two trials), physical activity (two trials) or both healthy eating and physical activity (six trials). Collectively the implementation strategies tested in the 10 trials included educational materials, educational meetings, audit and feedback, opinion leaders, small incentives or grants, educational outreach visits or academic detailing. A total of 1053 childcare services participated across all trials. Of the 10 trials, eight examined implementation strategies versus a usual practice control and two compared alternative implementation strategies. There was considerable study heterogeneity. We judged all studies as having high risk of bias for at least one domain.It is uncertain whether the strategies tested improved the implementation of policies, practices or programmes that promote child healthy eating, physical activity and/or obesity prevention. No intervention improved the implementation of all policies and practices targeted by the implementation strategies relative to a comparison group. Of the eight trials that compared an implementation strategy to usual practice or a no intervention control, however, seven reported improvements in the implementation of at least one of the targeted policies or practices relative to control. For these trials the effect on the primary implementation outcome was as follows: among the three trials that reported score-based measures of implementation the scores ranged from 1 to 5.1; across four trials reporting the proportion of staff or services implementing a specific policy or practice this ranged from 0% to 9.5%; and in three trials reporting the time (per day or week) staff or services spent implementing a policy or practice this ranged from 4.3 minutes to 7.7 minutes. The review findings also indicate that is it uncertain whether such interventions improve childcare service staff knowledge or attitudes (two trials), child physical activity (two trials), child weight status (two trials) or child diet (one trial). None of the included trials reported on the cost or cost-effectiveness of the intervention. One trial assessed the adverse effects of a physical activity intervention and found no difference in rates of child injury between groups. For all review outcomes, we rated the quality of the evidence as very low. The primary limitation of the review was the lack of conventional terminology in implementation science, which may have resulted in potentially relevant studies failing to be identified based on the search terms used in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current research provides weak and inconsistent evidence of the effectiveness of such strategies in improving the implementation of policies and practices, childcare service staff knowledge or attitudes, or child diet, physical activity or weight status. Further research in the field is required.

A randomised controlled trial of multiple periods of outdoor free-play to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity among 3 to 6 year old children attending childcare: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of physical activity interventions in centre-based childcare services has been recommended to improve child health. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of scheduling multiple periods of outdoor free play in increasing the time children spend in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) during childcare. METHODS: The study will employ a between group cluster randomised controlled trial design. Fourteen childcare services in the Hunter New England region of New South Wales, Australia, who currently implement a single session of free outdoor play between their core operational hours of 9 am to 3 pm will be recruited into the trial. Childcare services will be randomised to an intervention or a no intervention control group. Childcare services in the intervention group will be supported by an early childhood education specialist to provide three periods of outdoor free play for children between the hours of 9 am to 3 pm. Each period of outdoor free play will be at least 15 min in duration but must equate to their total usual duration of outdoor play. Services in the control group will continue to implement a single period of outdoor play. The primary trial outcome is minutes of time children spend in MVPA whilst in care assessed objectively via accelerometer over 5 days. Outcome assessment will occur at baseline and 3 months post baseline. Generalised Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) under an intention to treat framework will be used to compare differences between groups in the primary trial outcome at follow-up. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to test assumptions of missing data. Per protocol analysis will be performed using services that implemented the intervention as intended and subgroup analysis undertaken by gender and baseline physical activity levels of children. DISCUSSION: The study tests a simple ecological intervention that has the potential to increase child physical activity in care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12616000347460 . Prospectively registered 17th March 2016.