Supporting the next generation of prevention research leaders to conduct effective research-policy partnerships.

Successful research-policy partnerships rely on shared vision, dedicated investment, and mutual benefits. To ensure the ongoing value of chronic disease prevention research, and support research translation and impact, Australia needs funding, university, and policy systems that incentivise and support emerging leaders to drive effective partnerships.

Collaborating with end-users in evidence synthesis: case studies for prevention in the first 2000 days.

BACKGROUND: Evidence synthesis is an important tool to inform decision-making in public health policy and practice. Collaborative approaches to evidence synthesis involving researchers and the end-users of their research can enhance the relevance of the evidence for policy and practice and overcome the limitations of traditional evidence synthesis methods. Despite its benefits, collaboration is not consistently integrated into evidence-synthesis methods. Type of program or service: Collaborative evidence synthesis for public health policy and practice. METHODS: Reflecting on our experiences of undertaking collaborative evidence syntheses with end-users to inform policy and practice around preventive health in the first 2000 days of life, we have collated our key learnings to inform future collaborations in public health research. RESULTS: Key themes generated from our reflections were: 1) establish genuine partnerships early on with stakeholders, leveraging existing trusted relationships; 2) identify common goals; 3) prioritise evidence synthesis aims and objectives to ensure they are policy and practice relevant; and 4) maintain transparent, two-way communication. LESSONS LEARNT: Collaboration involving researchers and end-users enhances knowledge synthesis methodologies, increases relevance and accessibility of the evidence for end-users, and strengthens research-policy relationships.

Developing and assessing the measurement properties of an instrument to assess the impact of musculoskeletal pain in children aged 9 to 12-the pediatric musculoskeletal pain impact summary score.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of musculoskeletal (MSK) pain in children, there is a lack of instruments to measure the impact of MSK pain on children's activity and participation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability and construct validity of the Pediatric MSK Pain Impact summary score in school children (aged 9 to 12) with MSK pain. METHODS: We used a pragmatic approach in a reflective framework to assess internal consistency, structural validity, convergent validity, and discriminative validity in a sample of 615 children with MSK pain. RESULTS: The confirmatory factor analysis results indicate that the summary score has limited internal consistency and construct validity. The estimated Cronbach's alpha was 0.63, and most goodness of fit indices met the recommended thresholds (SRMR = 0.030; GFI = 0.993, CFI = 0.955, RMSEA 0.073), although they were close to the lower bounds of the thresholds. The convergent validity showed appropriate correlation of the summary score with quality of life (r = -0.33), care-seeking (r = 0.45), and medication intake (r = 0.37). Discriminative validity showed that the instrument can discriminate between the impact of pain on children with frequent and infrequent (2.93; 95% CI: 2.36 - 3.50) MSK pain. CONCLUSION: The Pediatric MSK Pain Impact summary showed limited internal consistency and construct validity; however, it can discriminate between children with frequent and infrequent pain. The results are promising for clinical and research practices as it is a short and convenient tool to be used in school-aged children.

An initial typology of approaches used by policy and practice agencies to achieve sustained implementation of interventions to improve health.

BACKGROUND: Scientific investigation of how to sustain the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBI) is emerging. Sustaining the implementation of EBIs helps ensure their effects on improving health endure. External policy or practice agencies, such as government health departments, are often tasked with supporting individual organisations with sustaining their delivery of EBIs, for example, through financing, training or the provision of other supports. However, to our knowledge, the approaches taken by policy and practice agencies to support the sustainment of EBIs have not been consolidated, categorised and described as a typology. MAIN BODY: To improve conceptual clarity and support both research and practice, we developed an initial working typology of the practical approaches to sustain implementation of EBIs (i.e. sustainment) in order to improve long term health from the perspective of these agencies. The working typology includes three broad approaches. The first, termed 'Self-Sustainment', is when implementation of the EBI by an organisation (e.g. hospital, clinic, school) is expected to continue (sustain) in the absence of external (agency) support. The second, termed 'Static Sustainment Support', involves the provision of pre-defined external (agency) support to assist organisations to continue implementation of an EBI. The final approach is termed 'Dynamic Sustainment Support', whereby support provided by an external agency is dynamic (continues to be adapted) overtime to assist organisations continue implementation of an intervention which may itself also evolve. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the contexts and circumstances where each may be most appropriate in achieving sustained implementation and discuss their research and practice implications.

Trajectories and Predictors of Raised State Anxiety Among Outpatients Who Have Undergone Medical Imaging Procedures.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence of raised state anxiety before and after medical imaging procedures, the prevalence of state anxiety trajectories, and factors associated with postprocedural raised state anxiety. METHODS: A prospective survey was administered to outpatients undergoing elective medical imaging procedures (CT, radiography, MRI, ultrasound, angiography, or fluoroscopy) recruited from one center. Participants completed a self-report survey preprocedure (time 1) and postprocedure (time 2). State anxiety was measured using the six-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. The point prevalence of raised state anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory score ≥33.16) at time 1 and time 2 was calculated, as was the prevalence of four state anxiety trajectories over time: persistent low anxiety, decreasing anxiety, increasing anxiety, and persistent raised anxiety. Factors predictive of raised state anxiety at time 2 were examined using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred fifteen participants completed both surveys. The prevalence of raised state anxiety at time 1 (50%) and time 2 (51%) was similar. Most patients reported persistent raised anxiety (36%) and persistent low anxiety (34%) over time. Fewer patients reported increasing anxiety (15%) and decreasing anxiety (14%). Raised state anxiety (odds ratio, 4.84; 95% confidence interval, 2.48-9.48) and lower reported health status (odds ratio, 2.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-5.51) at time 1 were significantly associated with greater odds of raised anxiety at time 2. CONCLUSIONS: Raised state anxiety related to medical imaging procedures is common among outpatients. Half of patients either developed or continued to experience raised anxiety after their procedures. Outpatients may benefit from evidence-based methods of alleviating anxiety before their procedures.

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.

A bibliographic review of sustainability research output and investment in 10 leading public health journals across three time periods.

Objectives: Long-term delivery, or sustainability, of evidence-based interventions is necessary for public health benefits to be realised. However, sustainment of effective interventions is poor. Understanding the evidence-base and identifying potential gaps is necessary to inform where future research efforts are most warranted. Study design: We undertook a repeat cross-sectional bibliographic review of research published in 10 public health journals across three time periods (2010, 2015 and 2020/2021). Methods: Studies were eligible if they were a data-based study or review article. Studies were assessed as to whether they focused on sustainability. The percentage of public health research studies assessing sustainability overall and by the three time periods was calculated. The association between time period and the proportion of sustainability articles was assessed using logistic regression. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise study characteristics overall and by time period. Results: 10,588 data-based articles were identified, of which 1.3 % (n = 136) focused on sustainability. There was a statistically significant association between time period and the proportion of sustainability research, with a slight increase across the three time periods: 0.3 % (95 % CI: 0.1 %, 0.7 %) in 2010, 1.4 % (95 % CI: 1.0 %, 1.9 %) in 2015 and 1.6 % (95 % CI: 1.3 %, 1.9 %) in 2020/2021. Most research was descriptive/epidemiological (n = 69, 51 %), few focused on measurement (n = 2, 1.5 %) and none on cost effectiveness. Only one intervention study assessed the effect of specific sustainability strategies. Conclusions: This bibliographic review highlights the need for more public health research on sustainability, particularly in the areas of measurement, sustainability interventions, and cost effectiveness.

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.

Sustainability, spread, and scale in trials using audit and feedback: a theory-informed, secondary analysis of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is a widely used implementation strategy to influence health professionals' behavior that is often tested in implementation trials. This study examines how A&F trials describe sustainability, spread, and scale. METHODS: This is a theory-informed, descriptive, secondary analysis of an update of the Cochrane systematic review of A&F trials, including all trials published since 2011. Keyword searches related to sustainability, spread, and scale were conducted. Trials with at least one keyword, and those identified from a forward citation search, were extracted to examine how they described sustainability, spread, and scale. Results were qualitatively analyzed using the Integrated Sustainability Framework (ISF) and the Framework for Going to Full Scale (FGFS). RESULTS: From the larger review, n = 161 studies met eligibility criteria. Seventy-eight percent (n = 126) of trials included at least one keyword on sustainability, and 49% (n = 62) of those studies (39% overall) frequently mentioned sustainability based on inclusion of relevant text in multiple sections of the paper. For spread/scale, 62% (n = 100) of trials included at least one relevant keyword and 51% (n = 51) of those studies (31% overall) frequently mentioned spread/scale. A total of n = 38 studies from the forward citation search were included in the qualitative analysis. Although many studies mentioned the need to consider sustainability, there was limited detail on how this was planned, implemented, or assessed. The most frequent sustainability period duration was 12 months. Qualitative results mapped to the ISF, but not all determinants were represented. Strong alignment was found with the FGFS for phases of scale-up and support systems (infrastructure), but not for adoption mechanisms. New spread/scale themes included (1) aligning affordability and scalability; (2) balancing fidelity and scalability; and (3) balancing effect size and scalability. CONCLUSION: A&F trials should plan for sustainability, spread, and scale so that if the trial is effective, the benefits can continue. A deeper empirical understanding of the factors impacting A&F sustainability is needed. Scalability planning should go beyond cost and infrastructure to consider other adoption mechanisms, such as leadership, policy, and communication, that may support further scalability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with Prospero in May 2022. CRD42022332606.

A cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a multi-strategy sustainability intervention on teachers' sustained implementation of classroom physical activity breaks (energisers): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Governments internationally have invested hugely in the implementation and scale-up of school-based physical activity interventions, but have little evidence of how to best sustain these interventions once active implementation support ceases. This study will assess the effectiveness of a multi-strategy sustainability intervention on classroom teachers' sustainment of energisers (short 3-5 min physical activity breaks during class-time) scheduled across the school day from baseline to 12 and 24-month follow-up. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted in 50 primary schools within the Hunter New England, Illawarra Shoalhaven, Murrumbidgee and Northern New South Wales (NSW) Local Health Districts of NSW Australia. Schools will be randomly allocated to receive either usual support or the multi-strategy sustainability intervention that includes: centralised technical assistance from a trained project officer; formal commitment and mandated change obtained from school principals; training in-school champions; reminders for teachers; educational materials provided to teachers; capturing and sharing local knowledge; and engagement of parents, carers and the wider school community. The primary trial outcome will be measured via a teacher logbook to determine the between-group difference in the change in mean minutes of energisers scheduled across the school day at 12 and 24-month follow-up compared to baseline. Analyses will be performed using an intention to treat framework. Linear mixed models will be used to assess intervention effects on the primary outcome at both follow-up periods. DISCUSSION: This study will be one of the first randomised controlled trials to examine the impact of a multi-strategy sustainability intervention to support schools' sustainment of a physical activity intervention. The proposed research will generate new evidence needed for the partnering organisations to protect their considerable investments to date in physical activity promotion in this setting and will provide seminal evidence for the field globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12620000372987 version 1 registered 17th March 2020. Version 3 (current version) updated 4th August 2023.

Evaluating the scaling up of an effective implementation intervention (PACE) to increase the delivery of a mandatory physical activity policy in primary schools.

BACKGROUND: Physically Active Children in Education (PACE) is an effective implementation intervention for increasing the number of minutes classroom teachers schedule physical activity each week. To date, evaluations of PACE have included a smaller number of schools from only one region in New South Wales Australia. If PACE is to have population-wide benefits we must be able to deliver this support to a larger number of schools across multiple regions. This study aimed to evaluate the scale-up of PACE. METHODS: An uncontrolled before and after study, with 100 schools from three regions was conducted. Participating schools received PACE for approximately 12 months. We assessed the following outcomes: delivery of the evidence-based intervention (EBI) (i.e. minutes of physical activity scheduled by classroom teachers per week); delivery of the implementation strategies (i.e. reach, dose delivered, adherence and indicators of sustainability); and key determinants of implementation (i.e. acceptability of strategies and cost). Data were collected via project officer records, and principal and teacher surveys. Linear mixed models were used to assess EBI delivery by evaluating the difference in the mean minutes teachers scheduled physical activity per week from baseline to follow-up. Descriptive data were used to assess delivery of the implementation strategies and their perceived acceptability (i.e. PACE). A prospective, trial-based economic evaluation was used to assess cost. RESULTS: Delivery of the EBI was successful: teachers increas their average minutes of total physical activity scheduled across the school week by 26.8 min (95% CI: 21.2, 32.4, p < 0.001) after receiving PACE. Indicators for delivery of implementation strategies were high: 90% of consenting schools received all strategies and components (reach); 100% of strategies were delivered by the provider (dose); >50% of schools adhered to the majority of strategies (11 of the 14 components); and acceptability was > 50% agreement for all strategies. The incremental cost per additional minute of physical activity scheduled per week was $27 per school (Uncertainty Interval $24, $31). CONCLUSIONS: PACE can be successfully delivered across multiple regions and to a large number of schools. Given the ongoing and scalable benefits of PACE, it is important that we continue to extend and improve this program while considering ways to reduce the associated cost.

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.

A systematic review to determine the effect of strategies to sustain chronic disease prevention interventions in clinical and community settings: study protocol.

Background: The primary purpose of this review is to synthesise the effect of strategies aiming to sustain the implementation of evidenced based interventions (EBIs) targeting key health behaviours associated with chronic disease (i.e., physical inactivity, poor diet, harmful alcohol use and tobacco smoking) in clinical and community settings. The field of implementation science is bereft of an evidence base of effective sustainment strategies, and as such this review will provide important evidence to advance the field of sustainability research. Methods: This systematic review protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P) checklist (Additional file 1). Methods will follow Cochrane gold-standard review methodology. The search will be undertaken across multiple databases, adapting filters previously developed by the research team; data screening and extraction will be performed in duplicate; strategies will be coded using an adapted sustainability-explicit taxonomy; evidence will be synthesised using appropriate methods (i.e. meta-analytic following Cochrane or non-meta-analytic following SWiM guidelines). We will include any randomised controlled study that targets any staff or volunteers delivering interventions in clinical or community settings. Studies which report on any objective or subjective measure of the sustainment of a health prevention policy, practice, or program within any of the eligible settings will be included. Article screening, data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessment will be performed independently by two review authors. Risk of bias will be assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). A random effect meta-analysis will be conducted to estimate the pooled effect of sustainment strategies separately by setting (i.e. clinical and community). Sub-group analyses will be undertaken to explore possible causes of statistical heterogeneity and may include: time period, single or multi strategy, type of setting and type of intervention. Differences between sub-groups will be statistically compared. Discussion/Conclusion: This will be the first systematic review to determine the effect of strategies designed to support sustainment on sustaining the implementation of EBIs in clinical and community settings. The findings of this review will directly inform the design of future sustainability-focused implementation trials. Further, these findings will inform the development of a sustainability practice guide for public health practitioners. Registration: This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42022352333).

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.

A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial to Increase the Sustainment of an Indoor-Outdoor-Free-Play Program in Early Childhood Education and Care Services: A Study Protocol for the Sustaining Play, Sustaining Health (SPSH) Trial.

Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) settings are important environments to support children's physical activity (PA). In 2021, COVID-19 regulations recommended the provision of indoor-outdoor free-play programs in ECEC settings to reduce the transmission of COVID-19, resulting in an increased uptake of this practice. As the context has since changed, research suggests that ECEC services could cease the implementation of these practices. Therefore, this pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of a sustainment strategy to ensure the ongoing implementation (sustainment) of ECEC-delivered indoor-outdoor free-play programs. Twenty ECEC services located in New South Wales, Australia that have implemented indoor-outdoor free-play programs since the release of COVID-19 guidelines will be recruited. The services will be randomly allocated either the sustainment strategy or usual care. The "Sustaining Play, Sustaining Health" program consists of eight strategies, developed to address key barriers against and facilitators of sustainment informed by the Integrated Sustainability Framework. The outcomes will be assessed via internal project records, staff surveys, and a self-reported measure of free play. This study will provide important data to support the performance of a fully powered trial within Australian ECEC settings and to inform the development of future sustainment strategies.

Perceived importance of emotional support provided by health care professionals and social networks: Should we broaden our focus for the delivery of supportive care?

INTRODUCTION: Emotional support provided by health care professionals (HCPs) for people diagnosed with cancer is associated with improved outcomes. Support via social networks may also be important. AIMS: To report among a sample of distressed patients and caregivers, (1) the importance attributed to different sources of emotional support (HCPs and social networks) by distressed cancer patients and caregivers; (2) the proportion who indicate they did not receive sufficient levels of emotional support; and (3) potential associations between respondents' demographic and clinical characteristics and reported lack of emotional support. METHODS: This study utilised cross-sectional data from telephone interviews collected during the usual-care phase of the Structured Triage and Referral by Telephone (START) trial. Participants completed a telephone interview 6 months after their initial call to the Cancer Council Information and Support service and included recall of importance and sufficiency of emotional support. RESULTS: More than two-thirds of patients (n = 234) and caregivers (n = 152) reported that family and friends were very important sources of emotional support. Nurses (69% and 42%) and doctors (68% and 47%) were reported very important, while a lower proportion reported that psychologists and psychiatrists were very important (39%, and 43%). Insufficient levels of support were reported by 36% of participants. Perceptions of insufficient support were significantly associated with distress levels (p < .0001) and not having a partner (p = .0115). CONCLUSION: Social networks, particularly family, are an important source of emotional support. Higher levels of distress, those without partners, and caregivers may require targeted interventions to increase their access to emotional support.

Prevalence and type of unmet needs experienced by carers of people living with dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Carers of people with dementia experience significant physical, emotional, and social burdens. Needs assessment can provide important information to assist services in providing support to carers to reduce these burdens. However, few studies have examined the prevalence of unmet needs experienced by carers of people with dementia using a quantitative instrument. This study aimed to examine the prevalence and type of unmet needs experienced by carers of people with dementia in Australia. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of carers providing support to community-dwelling individuals living with dementia. Carers were recruited through geriatric clinics, aged care providers, support services and community organisations. Consenting carers completed a survey including an 80-item study-specific unmet needs instrument for carers (UNI-C) and sociodemographic characteristics. Descriptive statistics were used to identify the most prevalent unmet needs reported by carers. RESULTS: A total of 169 carers (response rate 47%) completed the survey. Most (87%) carers reported at least one unmet need. Carers reported a median of 16.0 (IQR = 24.0; max = 58) out of a possible 80 unmet needs. The most frequently endorsed unmet needs spanned a range of areas including emotional wellbeing, accessing health and aged care services, managing apathy, and finding information. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted that a large proportion of carers experience unmet needs associated with caring for someone with dementia. Developing and rigorously testing interventions to meet carers' commonly reported unmet needs are warranted.Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2022.2053833 .