Research outcomes informing the selection of public health interventions and strategies to implement them: A cross-sectional survey of Australian policy-maker and practitioner preferences.

BACKGROUND: A key role of public health policy-makers and practitioners is to ensure beneficial interventions are implemented effectively enough to yield improvements in public health. The use of evidence to guide public health decision-making to achieve this is recommended. However, few studies have examined the relative value, as reported by policy-makers and practitioners, of different broad research outcomes (that is, measures of cost, acceptability, and effectiveness). To guide the conduct of research and better inform public health policy and practice, this study aimed at describing the research outcomes that Australian policy-makers and practitioners consider important for their decision-making when selecting: (a) public health interventions; (b) strategies to support their implementation; and (c) to assess the differences in research outcome preferences between policy-makers and practitioners. METHOD: An online value-weighting survey was conducted with Australian public health policy-makers and practitioners working in the field of non-communicable disease prevention. Participants were presented with a list of research outcomes and were asked to select up to five they considered most critical to their decision-making. They then allocated 100 points across these - allocating more points to outcomes perceived as more important. Outcome lists were derived from a review and consolidation of evaluation and outcome frameworks in the fields of public health knowledge translation and implementation. We used descriptive statistics to report relative preferences overall and for policy-makers and practitioners separately. RESULTS: Of the 186 participants; 90 primarily identified as policy-makers and 96 as public health prevention practitioners. Overall, research outcomes of effectiveness, equity, feasibility, and sustainability were identified as the four most important outcomes when considering either interventions or strategies to implement them. Scores were similar for most outcomes between policy-makers and practitioners. CONCLUSION: For Australian policy-makers and practitioners working in the field of non-communicable disease prevention, outcomes related to effectiveness, equity, feasibility, and sustainability appear particularly important to their decisions about the interventions they select and the strategies they employ to implement them. The findings suggest researchers should seek to meet these information needs and prioritize the inclusion of such outcomes in their research and dissemination activities. The extent to which these outcomes are critical to informing the decision of policy-makers and practitioners working in other jurisdictions or contexts warrants further investigation.

Online dissemination of Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: This cross-sectional study investigated the online dissemination of Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception up to May 2023. Cochrane reviews with any population (P), intervention or concept supported by any digital technology (I), any or no comparison (C), and any health outcome (O) were included. Data on review characteristics (bibliographic information, PICO, and evidence quality) and dissemination strategies were extracted and processed. Dissemination was assessed using review information on the Cochrane website and Altmetric data that trace the mentions of academic publications in nonacademic online channels. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Out of 170 records identified in the search, 100 Cochrane reviews, published between 2005 and 2023, were included. The reviews focused on consumers (e.g. patients, n = 86), people of any age (n = 44), and clinical populations (n = 68). All reviews addressed interventions or concepts supported by digital technologies with any devices (n = 73), mobile devices (n = 17), or computers (n = 10). The outcomes focused on disease treatment (n = 56), health promotion and disease prevention (n = 27), or management of care delivery (n = 17). All reviews included 1-132 studies, and half included 1-10 studies. Meta-analysis was performed in 69 reviews, and certainty of evidence was rated as high or moderate for at least one outcome in 46 reviews. In agreement with the Cochrane guidelines, all reviews had a plain language summary (PLS) that was available in 3-14 languages. The reviews were disseminated (i.e. mentioned online) predominantly via X/Twitter (n = 99) and Facebook (n = 69). Overall, 51 reviews were mentioned in up to 25% and 49 reviews in 5% of all research outputs traced by Altmetric data. Dissemination (i.e. higher Altmetric scores) was associated with bibliographic review characteristics (i.e. earlier publication year and PLS available in more languages), but not with evidence quality (i.e. certainty of evidence rating, number of studies, or meta-analysis performed in review). CONCLUSIONS: Online attention towards Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies is high. Dissemination is higher for older reviews and reviews with more PLS translations. Measures are required to improve dissemination of Cochrane reviews based on evidence quality. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/mpw8u/ ).

Factors associated with child and adolescent electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems use: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify, characterise and broadly synthesise factors associated with child and adolescent electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and/or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENNDS) ever-use and/or current use. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched from inception to 3rd June 2022. Non-experimental studies that provided quantitative factors associated with adolescent and/or child ENDS or ENNDS ever-use and/or current use were included. Factors associated with ever-use (any lifetime use) and/or current use (use in past 30 days) were included. All screening and data extraction was conducted independently by paired review authors. Frequencies for country, study design, sample size, measure of ENDS/ENNDS use and factors examined were calculated. Factors were categorised according to the Theory of Triadic Influence domains and sub-domains. RESULTS: The search of electronic databases identified 4756 records, 240 of which were included. The majority of studies examined factors categorised within the Biology and Personality domain of the Theory of Triadic Influence (89.2%; 95%CI 84.6, 82.5), followed by the Social Context (50.8%; 95%CI 44.5, 57.2) and Broader Environment domains (30.4%; 95%CI 24.6, 36.3). The proportion of factors significantly associated with ENDS/ENNDS use was >75% for the Behavioural (78.0%; factors included use of tobacco, other drugs and alcohol), Peer Attitudes and Behaviours (80.0%; factors included peer use of ENDS/ENNDS and tobacco), and Legislation/Policy sub-domains (78.6%; factors included accessibility and advertising). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base on factors associated with ENDS/ENNDS use in children and adolescents is rapidly developing, predominately by research concentrated in high income regions and focused on behavioural- and personality-related factors.

Interventions to prevent or cease electronic cigarette use in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of e-cigarette use has increased globally amongst children and adolescents in recent years. In response to the increasing prevalence and emerging evidence about the potential harms of e-cigarettes in children and adolescents, leading public health organisations have called for approaches to address increasing e-cigarette use. Whilst evaluations of approaches to reduce uptake and use regularly appear in the literature, the collective long-term benefit of these is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: The co-primary objectives of the review were to: (1) evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent e-cigarette use in children and adolescents (aged 19 years and younger) with no prior use, relative to no intervention, waitlist control, usual practice, or an alternative intervention; and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to cease e-cigarette use in children and adolescents (aged 19 years and younger) reporting current use, relative to no intervention, waitlist control, usual practice, or an alternative intervention. Secondary objectives were to: (1) examine the effect of such interventions on child and adolescent use of other tobacco products (e.g. cigarettes, cigars types, and chewing tobacco); and (2) describe the unintended adverse effects of the intervention on individuals (e.g. physical or mental health of individuals), or on organisations (e.g. intervention displacement of key curricula or learning opportunities for school students) where such interventions are being implemented. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, and Clarivate Web of Science Core Collection from inception to 1 May 2023. Additionally, we searched two trial registry platforms (WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov), Google Scholar, and the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. We contacted corresponding authors of articles identified as ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, factorial RCTs, and stepped-wedge RCTs. To be eligible, the primary targets of the interventions must have been children and adolescents aged 19 years or younger. Interventions could have been conducted in any setting, including community, school, health services, or the home, and must have sought to influence children or adolescent (or both) e-cigarette use directly. Studies with a comparator of no intervention (i.e. control), waitlist control, usual practice, or an alternative intervention not targeting e-cigarette use were eligible. We included measures to assess the effectiveness of interventions to: prevent child and adolescent e-cigarette use (including measures of e-cigarette use amongst those who were never-users); and cease e-cigarette use (including measures of e-cigarette use amongst children and adolescents who were e-cigarette current-users). Measures of e-cigarette use included current-use (defined as use in the past 30 days) and ever-use (defined as any lifetime use). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of references, with any discrepancies resolved through consensus. Pairs of review authors independently assessed the full-text articles for inclusion in the review. We planned for two review authors to independently extract information from the included studies and assess risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We planned to conduct multiple meta-analyses using a random-effects model to align with the co-primary objectives of the review. First, we planned to pool interventions to prevent child and adolescent e-cigarette use and conduct two analyses using the outcome measures of 'ever-use' and 'current-use'. Second, we planned to pool interventions to cease child and adolescent e-cigarette use and conduct one analysis using the outcome measure of 'current-use'. Where data were unsuitable for pooling in meta-analyses, we planned to conduct a narrative synthesis using vote-counting approaches and to follow the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines. MAIN RESULTS: The search of electronic databases identified 7141 citations, with a further 287 records identified from the search of trial registries and Google Scholar. Of the 110 studies (116 records) evaluated in full text, we considered 88 to be ineligible for inclusion for the following reasons: inappropriate outcome (27 studies); intervention (12 studies); study design (31 studies); and participants (18 studies). The remaining 22 studies (28 records) were identified as ongoing studies that may be eligible for inclusion in a future review update. We identified no studies with published data that were eligible for inclusion in the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for the review, and as such, there is no evidence available from RCTs to assess the potential impact of interventions targeting children and adolescent e-cigarette use, tobacco use, or any unintended adverse effects. Evidence from studies employing other trial designs (e.g. non-randomised) may exist; however, such studies were not eligible for inclusion in the review. Evidence from studies using non-randomised designs should be examined to guide actions to prevent or cease e-cigarette use. This is a living systematic review. We search for new evidence every month and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Disseminating health research to public health policy-makers and practitioners: a survey of source, message content and delivery modality preferences.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the views of policy-makers and practitioners regarding how best to communicate research evidence is important to support research use in their decision-making. AIM: To quantify and describe public health policy-makers and practitioners' views regarding the source, content and form of messages describing public health research findings to inform their decision-making. We also sought to examine differences in preferences between public health policy-makers and practitioners. METHODS: A cross sectional, value-weighting survey of policy-makers and practitioners was conducted. Participants were asked to allocate a proportion of 100 points across different (i) sources of research evidence, (ii) message content and (iii) the form in which evidence is presented. Points were allocated based on their rating of influence, usefulness and preference when making decisions about health policy or practice. RESULTS: A total of 186 survey responses were received from 90 policy-makers and 96 practitioners. Researchers and government department agencies were the most influential source of research evidence based on mean allocation of points, followed by knowledge brokers, professional peers and associations. Mean point allocation for perceived usefulness of message content was highest for simple summary of key findings and implications, and then evidence-based recommendations and data and statistical summaries. Finally, based on mean scores, policy-makers and practitioners preferred to receive research evidence in the form of peer-reviewed publications, reports, evidence briefs and plain language summaries. There were few differences in scores between policy-makers and practitioners across source, message content or form assessments or those with experience in different behavioural areas. CONCLUSIONS: The findings should provide a basis for the future development and optimization of dissemination strategies to this important stakeholder group.

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.

From trials to communities: implementation and scale-up of health behaviour interventions.

BACKGROUND: To maximise their potential benefits to communities, effective health behaviour interventions need to be implemented, ideally 'at scale', and are often adapted as part of this. To inform future implementation and scale-up efforts, this study broadly sought to understand (i) how often health behaviour interventions are implemented in communities, (ii) the adaptations that occur; (iii) how frequency it occurred 'at scale'; and (iv) factors associated with 'scale-up'. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted of corresponding authors of trials (randomised or non-randomised) assessing the effects of preventive health behaviour interventions. Included studies of relevant Cochrane reviews served as a sampling frame. Participants were asked to report on the implementation and scale-up (defined as investment in large scale delivery by a (non)government organisation) of their intervention in the community following trial completion, adaptations made, and any research dissemination strategies employed. Information was extracted from published reports of the trial including assessments of effectiveness and risk of bias. RESULTS: Authors of 104 trials completed the survey. Almost half of the interventions were implemented following trial completion (taking on average 19 months), and 54% of those were adapted prior to doing so. The most common adaptations were adding intervention components, and adapting the intervention to fit within the local service setting. Scale-up occurred in 33% of all interventions. There were no significant associations between research trial characteristics such as intervention effectiveness, risk of bias, setting, involvement of end-user, and incidence of scale-up. However the number of research dissemination strategies was positively associated to the odds of an intervention being scaled-up (OR = 1.50; 95% CI: 1.19, 1.88; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adaptation of implemented trials is often undertaken. Most health behaviour interventions are not implemented or scaled-up following trial completion. The use of a greater number of dissemination strategies may increase the likelihood of scaled up.

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.

Improving academic and public health impact of Cochrane public health reviews: what can we learn from bibliographic metrics and author dissemination strategies? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate the development of impactful research dissemination strategies, this study aimed to: (i) survey authors of trials included in a sample of Cochrane reviews to describe strategies to disseminate trial findings, and examine their association with academic and policy impacts and (ii) audit academic and policy impact of CPH reviews. METHODS: Authors of 104 trials within identified Cochrane reviews completed survey items assessing the dissemination strategies. Field weighted citation (FWCI) data extracted from bibliographic databases served as a measure of academic impact of trials and CPH reviews. Policy and practice impacts of trials were assessed during the survey of trial authors using items based on the Payback Framework, and for CPH reviews using 'policy mention' data collected via Altmetric Explorer. RESULTS: Among the included trials, univariate (but not multivariable) regression models revealed significant associations between the use of dissemination strategies (i.e. posts on social media; workshops with end-users; media-releases) and policy or practice impacts. No significant associations were reported between dissemination strategies and trial FWCI. The mean FWCI of CPH reviews suggest that they are cited 220% more than other reviews in their field. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive dissemination strategies are likely required to maximize the potential the potential impacts of public health research.

Dissemination of public health research to prevent non-communicable diseases: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Dissemination is a critical element of the knowledge translation pathway, and a necessary step to ensure research evidence is adopted and implemented by key end users in order to improve health outcomes. However, evidence-based guidance to inform dissemination activities in research is limited. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe the scientific literature examining strategies to disseminate public health evidence related to the prevention of non-communicable diseases. METHODS: Medline, PsycInfo and EBSCO Search Ultimate were searched in May 2021 for studies published between January 2000 and the search date that reported on the dissemination of evidence to end users of public health evidence, within the context of the prevention of non-communicable diseases. Studies were synthesised according to the four components of Brownson and colleagues' Model for Dissemination of Research (source, message, channel and audience), as well as by study design. RESULTS: Of the 107 included studies, only 14% (n = 15) directly tested dissemination strategies using experimental designs. The remainder primarily reported on dissemination preferences of different populations, or outcomes such as awareness, knowledge and intentions to adopt following evidence dissemination. Evidence related to diet, physical activity and/or obesity prevention was the most disseminated topic. Researchers were the source of disseminated evidence in over half the studies, and study findings/knowledge summaries were more frequently disseminated as the message compared to guidelines or an evidence-based program/intervention. A broad range of dissemination channels were utilised, although peer-reviewed publications/conferences and presentations/workshops predominated. Practitioners were the most commonly reported target audience. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant gap in the peer reviewed literature, with few experimental studies published that analyse and evaluate the effect of different sources, messages and target audiences on the determinants of uptake of public health evidence for prevention. Such studies are important as they can help inform and improve the effectiveness of current and future dissemination practices in public health contexts.

The effectiveness of implementation strategies in improving preconception and antenatal preventive care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guideline recommendations for addressing modifiable risk factors are not routinely implemented into preconception and antenatal care. This review assessed the effectiveness of implementation strategies in improving health professional provision of preconception and antenatal care addressing tobacco smoking, weight management and alcohol consumption. METHODS: A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised studies with a parallel comparison group was conducted. Eligible studies used implementation strategy/ies targeted at health professionals to improve at least one element of preconception and/or antenatal care (smoking: ask, advise, assess, assist, arrange; weight/alcohol: assess, advise, refer) compared to usual practice/control or alternative strategies. Eligible studies were identified via CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL and other sources. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted where appropriate, with other findings summarised using the direction of effect. The certainty of the pooled evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the review. Thirteen were in the antenatal period and 12 tested multiple implementation strategies (median: three). Meta-analyses of RCTs found that implementation strategies compared to usual practice/control probably increase asking (OR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.13, 5.59; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and advising (OR: 4.32; 95% CI: 3.06, 6.11; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) about smoking and assessing weight gain (OR: 57.56; 95% CI: 41.78, 79.29; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and may increase assessing (OR: 2.55; 95% CI: 0.24, 27.06; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), assisting (OR: 6.34; 95% CI: 1.51, 26.63; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) and arranging support (OR: 3.55; 95% CI: 0.50, 25.34; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) for smoking. The true effect of implementation strategies in increasing advice about weight gain (OR: 3.37; 95% CI: 2.34, 4.84; 2 non-randomised studies; very low-certainty evidence) and alcohol consumption (OR: 10.36; 95% CI: 2.37, 41.20; 2 non-randomised studies; very low-certainty evidence) is uncertain due to the quality of evidence to date. CONCLUSIONS: Review findings provide some evidence to support the effectiveness of implementation strategies in improving health professional delivery of antenatal care addressing smoking and weight management. Rigorous research is needed to build certainty in the evidence for improving alcohol and weight gain advice, and in preconception care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-CRD42019131691.

Strategies for enhancing the implementation of school-based policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco or alcohol use.

BACKGROUND: Several school-based interventions are effective in improving child diet and physical activity, and preventing excessive weight gain, and tobacco or harmful alcohol use. However, schools are frequently unsuccessful in implementing such evidence-based interventions. OBJECTIVES: 1. To evaluate the benefits and harms of strategies aiming to improve school implementation of interventions to address student diet, physical activity, tobacco or alcohol use, and obesity. 2. To evaluate the benefits and harms of strategies to improve intervention implementation on measures of student diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco use or alcohol use; describe their cost or cost-effectiveness; and any harms of strategies on schools, school staff or students. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was between 1 September 2016 and 30 April 2021 to identify any relevant trials published since the last published review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We defined 'Implementation' 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 controlled trial (RCT) or non-randomised controlled trial (non-RCT)) 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 students to 'no intervention', 'usual' practice or a different implementation strategy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Given the large number of outcomes reported, we selected and included the effects of a single outcome measure for each trial for the primary (implementation) and secondary (student health behaviour and obesity) outcomes using a decision hierarchy. Where possible, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) to account for variable outcome measures with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For RCTs, we conducted meta-analyses of primary and secondary outcomes using a random-effects model, or in instances where there were between two and five studies, a fixed-effect model. The synthesis of the effects for non-randomised studies followed the 'Synthesis without meta-analysis' (SWiM) guidelines. MAIN RESULTS: We included an additional 11 trials in this update bringing the total number of included studies in the review to 38. Of these, 22 were conducted in the USA. Twenty-six studies used RCT designs. Seventeen trials tested strategies to implement healthy eating, 12 physical activity and six a combination of risk factors. Just one trial sought to increase the implementation of interventions to delay initiation or reduce the consumption of alcohol. All trials used multiple implementation strategies, the most common being educational materials, educational outreach and educational meetings. The overall certainty of evidence was low and ranged from very low to moderate for secondary review outcomes. Pooled analyses of RCTs found, relative to a control, the use of implementation strategies may result in a large increase in the implementation of interventions in schools (SMD 1.04, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34; 22 RCTs, 1917 participants; low-certainty evidence). For secondary outcomes we found, relative to control, the use of implementation strategies to support intervention implementation may result in a slight improvement on measures of student diet (SMD 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.15; 11 RCTs, 16,649 participants; low-certainty evidence) and physical activity (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.19; 9 RCTs, 16,389 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effects on obesity probably suggest little to no difference (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02; 8 RCTs, 18,618 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The effects on tobacco use are very uncertain (SMD -0.03, 95% CIs -0.23 to 0.18; 3 RCTs, 3635 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT assessed measures of student alcohol use and found strategies to support implementation may result in a slight increase in use (odds ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.56; P = 0.60; 2105 participants). Few trials reported the economic evaluations of implementation strategies, the methods of which were heterogeneous and evidence graded as very uncertain. A lack of consistent terminology describing implementation strategies was an important limitation of the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of implementation strategies may result in large increases in implementation of interventions, and slight improvements in measures of student diet, and physical activity. Further research is required to assess the impact of implementation strategies on such behavioural- and obesity-related outcomes, including on measures of alcohol use, where the findings of one trial suggest it may slightly increase student risk. Given the low certainty of the available evidence for most measures further research is required to guide efforts to facilitate the translation of evidence into practice in this setting.

Increased use of knowledge translation strategies is associated with greater research impact on public health policy and practice: an analysis of trials of nutrition, physical activity, sexual health, tobacco, alcohol and substance use interventions.

BACKGROUND: Greater use of knowledge translation (KT) strategies is recommended to improve the research impact of public health trials. The purpose of this study was to describe (1) the research impact of setting-based public health intervention trials on public health policy and practice; (2) the association between characteristics of trials and their research impact on public health policy and practice; and (3) the association between the use of KT strategies and research impacts on public health policy and practice. METHODS: We conducted a survey of authors of intervention trials targeting nutrition, physical activity, sexual health, tobacco, alcohol or substance use. We assessed the use of KT strategies aligned to domains of the Knowledge-To-Action Framework. We defined "research impact" on health policy and practice as any one or more of the following: citation in policy documents or announcements, government reports, training materials, guidelines, textbooks or court rulings; or endorsement by a (non)governmental organization; use in policy or practice decision-making; or use in the development of a commercial resource or service. RESULTS: Of the included trials, the authors reported that 65% had one or more research impacts. The most frequently reported research impact was citation in a policy document or announcement (46%). There were no significant associations between the effectiveness of the intervention, trial risk of bias, setting or health risk and trial impact. However, for every one unit increase in the total KT score (range 0-8), reflecting greater total KT activity, the odds of a health policy or practice research impact increased by approximately 30% (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.66; p = 0.031). Post hoc examination of KT domain scores suggests that KT actions focused on providing tailored support to facilitate program implementation and greater use of research products and tools to disseminate findings to end-users may be most influential in achieving impact. CONCLUSIONS: Trials of public health interventions frequently have public health impacts, and the use of more comprehensive KT strategies may facilitate greater research impact.

A systematic review of adaptations and effectiveness of scaled-up nutrition interventions.

CONTEXT: Public health nutrition interventions shown to be effective under optimal research conditions need to be scaled up and implemented in real-world settings. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim for this review was to assess the effectiveness of scaled-up public health nutrition interventions with proven efficacy, as examined in a randomized controlled trial. Secondary objectives were to: 1) determine if the effect size of scaled-up interventions were comparable to the prescale effect, and; 2) identify any adaptations made during the scale-up process. DATA SOURCES: Six electronic databases were searched and field experts contacted. STUDY SELECTION: An intervention was considered scaled up if it was delivered on a larger scale than a preceding randomized controlled trial ("prescale") in which a significant intervention effect (P ≤ 0.05) was reported on a measure of nutrition. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently performed screening and data extraction. Effect size differences between prescale and scaled-up interventions were quantified. Adaptations to scale-up studies were coded according to the Adaptome model. RESULTS: Ten scaled-up nutrition interventions were identified. The effect size difference between prescale trials and scaled-up studies ranged from -32.2% to 222% (median, 50%). All studies made adaptations between prescale to scaled-up interventions. CONCLUSION: The effects of nutrition interventions implemented at scale typically were half that achieved in prior efficacy trials. Identifying effective scale-up strategies and methods to support retainment of the original prescale effect size is urgently needed to inform public health policy. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no.CRD42020149267.

"He who pays the piper calls the tune": Researcher experiences of funder suppression of health behaviour intervention trial findings.

BACKGROUND: Governments commonly fund research with specific applications in mind. Such mechanisms may facilitate 'research translation' but funders may employ strategies that can also undermine the integrity of both science and government. We estimated the prevalence and investigated correlates of funder efforts to suppress health behaviour intervention trial findings. METHODS: Our sampling frame was lead or corresponding authors of papers (published 2007-2017) included in a Cochrane review, reporting findings from trials of interventions to improve nutrition, physical activity, sexual health, smoking, and substance use. Suppression events were based on a previous survey of public health academics. Participants answered questions concerning seven suppression events in their efforts to report the trial, e.g., [I was…] "asked to suppress certain findings as they were viewed as being unfavourable." We also examined the association between information on study funder, geographical location, targeted health behaviour, country democracy rating and age of publication with reported suppression. FINDINGS: We received responses from 104 authors (50%) of 208 eligible trials, from North America (34%), Europe (33%), Oceania (17%), and other countries (16%). Eighteen percent reported at least one of the seven suppression events relating to the trial in question. The most commonly reported suppression event was funder(s) expressing reluctance to publish because they considered the results 'unfavourable' (9% reported). We found no strong associations with the subject of research, funding source, democracy, region, or year of publication. CONCLUSIONS: One in five researchers in this global sample reported being pressured to delay, alter, or not publish the findings of health behaviour intervention trials. Regulation of funder and university practices, establishing study registries, and compulsory disclosure of funding conditions in scientific journals, are needed to protect the integrity of public-good research.

Prevalence of electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns that the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENNDS) in children and adolescents could potentially be harmful to health. Understanding the extent of use of these devices is crucial to informing public health policy. We aimed to synthesise the prevalence of ENDS or ENNDS use in children and adolescents younger than 20 years. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we undertook an electronic search in five databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and Wiley Cochrane Library) from Jan 1, 2016, to Aug 31, 2020, and a grey literature search. Included studies reported on the prevalence of ENDS or ENNDS use in nationally representative samples in populations younger than 20 years and collected data between the years 2016 and 2020. Studies were excluded if they were done in those aged 20 years or older, used data from specialist panels that did not apply appropriate weighting, or did not use methods that ensured recruitment of a nationally representative sample. We included the most recent data for each country. We combined multiple national estimates for a country if they were done in the same year. We undertook risk of bias assessment for all surveys included in the review using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist (by two reviewers in the author list). A random effects meta-analysis was used to pool overall prevalence estimates for ever, current, occasional, and daily use. This study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020199485. FINDINGS: The most recent prevalence data from 26 national surveys representing 69 countries and territories, with a median sample size of 3925 (IQR 1=2266, IQR 3=10 593) children and adolescents was included. In children and adolescents aged between 8 years and younger than 20 years, the pooled prevalence for ever (defined as any lifetime use) ENDS or ENNDS use was 17·2% (95% CI 15-20, I2=99·9%), whereas for current use (defined as use in past 30 days) the pooled prevalence estimate was 7·8% (6-9, I2=99·8%). The pooled estimate for occasional use was 0·8% (0·5-1·2, I2=99·4%) for daily use and 7·5% (6·1-9·1, I2=99·4%) for occasional use. Prevalence of ENDS or ENNDS use was highest in high-income geographical regions. In terms of study quality, all surveys scored had a low risk of bias for the sampling frame used, due to the nationally representative nature of the studies. The most poorly conducted methodological feature of the included studies was subjects and setting described in detail. Few surveys reported on the use of flavours or types of ENDS or ENNDS. INTERPRETATION: There is significant variability in the prevalence of ENDS and ENNDS use in children and adolescents globally by country income status. These findings are possibly due to differences in regulatory context, market availability, and differences in surveillance systems. FUNDING: World Health Organization and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Improving implementation of school-based healthy eating and physical activity policies, practices, and programs: a systematic review.

Although best practice recommendations exist regarding school-based healthy eating and physical activity policies, practices, and programs, research indicates that implementation is poor. As the field of implementation science is rapidly evolving, an update of the recent review of strategies to improve the implementation of healthy eating and physical activity interventions in schools published in the Cochrane Library in 2017 was required. The primary aim of this review was to examine the effectiveness of strategies that aim to improve the implementation of school-based policies, practices, or programs to address child diet, physical activity, or obesity. A systematic review of articles published between August 31, 2016 and April 10, 2019 utilizing Cochrane methodology was conducted. In addition to the 22 studies included in the original review, eight further studies were identified as eligible. The 30 studies sought to improve the implementation of healthy eating (n = 16), physical activity (n = 11), or both healthy eating and physical activity (n = 3). The narrative synthesis indicated that effect sizes of strategies to improve implementation were highly variable across studies. For example, among 10 studies reporting the proportion of schools implementing a targeted policy, practice, or program versus a minimal or usual practice control, the median unadjusted effect size was 16.2%, ranging from -0.2% to 66.6%. Findings provide some evidence to support the effectiveness of strategies in enhancing the nutritional quality of foods served at schools, the implementation of canteen policies, and the time scheduled for physical education.

Barriers and facilitators influencing the sustainment of health behaviour interventions in schools and childcare services: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sustainment has been defined as the sustained use or delivery of an intervention in practice following cessation of external implementation support. This review aimed to identify and synthesise factors (barriers and facilitators) that influence the sustainment of interventions (policies, practices, or programmes) in schools and childcare services that address the leading risk factors of chronic disease. METHODS: Seven electronic databases and relevant reference lists were searched for articles, of any design, published in English, from inception to March 2020. Articles were included if they qualitatively and/or quantitatively reported on school or childcare stakeholders' (including teachers, principals, administrators, or managers) perceived barriers or facilitators to the sustainment of interventions addressing poor diet/nutrition, physical inactivity, obesity, tobacco smoking, or harmful alcohol use. Two independent reviewers screened texts, and extracted and coded data guided by the Integrated Sustainability Framework, an existing multi-level sustainability-specific framework that assesses factors of sustainment. RESULTS: Of the 13,158 articles identified, 31 articles met the inclusion criteria (8 quantitative, 12 qualitative, 10 mixed-methods, and 1 summary article). Overall, 29 articles were undertaken in schools (elementary n=17, middle n=3, secondary n=4, or a combination n=5) and two in childcare settings. The main health behaviours targeted included physical activity (n=9), diet (n=3), both diet and physical activity (n=15), and smoking (n=4), either independently (n=1) or combined with other health behaviours (n=3). Findings suggest that the majority of the 59 barriers and 74 facilitators identified to impact on intervention sustainment were similar across school and childcare settings. Factors predominantly relating to the 'inner contextual factors' of the organisation including: availability of facilities or equipment, continued executive or leadership support present, and team cohesion, support, or teamwork were perceived by stakeholders as influential to intervention sustainment. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying strategies to improve the sustainment of health behaviour interventions in these settings requires a comprehensive understanding of factors that may impede or promote their ongoing delivery. This review identified multi-level factors that can be addressed by strategies to improve the sustainment of such interventions, and suggests how future research might address gaps in the evidence base. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO: CRD42020127869 , Jan. 2020.