Systematic Review of Universal Resilience-Focused Interventions Targeting Child and Adolescent Mental Health in the School Setting.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of universal, school-based, resilience-focused interventions on mental health problems in children and adolescents. METHOD: Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of universal, school-based interventions that included strategies to strengthen a minimum of 3 internal resilience protective factors, and included an outcome measure of mental health problems in children and adolescents aged 5 to 18 years. Six databases were searched from 1995 to 2015. Results were pooled in meta-analyses by mental health outcome (anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, hyperactivity, conduct problems, internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and general psychological distress), for all trials (5-18 years). Subgroup analyses were conducted by age (child: 5-10 years; adolescent: 11-18 years), length of follow-up (short: post-≤12 months; long: >12 months), and gender (narrative). RESULTS: A total of 57 included trials were identified from 5,984 records, with 49 contributing to meta-analyses. For all trials, resilience-focused interventions were effective relative to a control in reducing 4 of 7 outcomes: depressive symptoms, internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and general psychological distress. For child trials (meta-analyses for 6 outcomes), interventions were effective for anxiety symptoms and general psychological distress. For adolescent trials (meta-analyses for 5 outcomes), interventions were effective for internalizing problems. For short-term follow-up, interventions were effective for 2 of 7 outcomes: depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms. For long-term follow-up (meta-analyses for 5 outcomes), interventions were effective for internalizing problems. CONCLUSION: The findings may suggest most promise for using universal resilience-focused interventions at least for short-term reductions in depressive and anxiety symptoms for children and adolescents, particularly if a cognitive-behavioral therapy-based approach is used. The limited number of trials providing data amenable for meta-analysis for some outcomes and subgroups, the variability of interventions, study quality, and bias mean that it is not possible to draw more specific conclusions. Identifying what intervention qualities (such as number and type of protective factor) achieve the greatest positive effect per mental health problem outcome remains an important area for future research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL AND REGISTRATION: Systematic Review of Universal Resilience Interventions Targeting Child and Adolescent Mental Health in the School Setting; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0172-6; PROSPERO CRD42015025908.

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

BACKGROUND: Despite the existence of effective interventions and best-practice guideline recommendations for childcare services to implement policies, practices and programmes to promote child healthy eating, physical activity and prevent unhealthy weight gain, many services fail to do so. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of the review was to examine the effectiveness of strategies aimed at improving the implementation of policies, practices or programmes by childcare services that promote child healthy eating, physical activity and/or obesity prevention. The secondary aims of the review were to:1. describe the impact of such strategies on childcare service staff knowledge, skills or attitudes;2. describe the cost or cost-effectiveness of such strategies;3. describe any adverse effects of such strategies on childcare services, service staff or children;4. examine the effect of such strategies on child diet, physical activity or weight status. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases on 3 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL and SCOPUS. We also searched reference lists of included trials, handsearched two international implementation science journals and searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included any study (randomised or non-randomised) with a parallel control group that compared any strategy to improve the implementation of a healthy eating, physical activity or obesity prevention policy, practice or programme by staff of centre-based childcare services to no intervention, 'usual' practice or an alternative strategy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently screened abstracts and titles, extracted trial data and assessed risk of bias in pairs; we resolved discrepancies via consensus. Heterogeneity across studies precluded pooling of data and undertaking quantitative assessment via meta-analysis. However, we narratively synthesised the trial findings by describing the effect size of the primary outcome measure for policy or practice implementation (or the median of such measures where a single primary outcome was not stated). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 trials as eligible and included them in the review. The trials sought to improve the implementation of policies and practices targeting healthy eating (two trials), physical activity (two trials) or both healthy eating and physical activity (six trials). Collectively the implementation strategies tested in the 10 trials included educational materials, educational meetings, audit and feedback, opinion leaders, small incentives or grants, educational outreach visits or academic detailing. A total of 1053 childcare services participated across all trials. Of the 10 trials, eight examined implementation strategies versus a usual practice control and two compared alternative implementation strategies. There was considerable study heterogeneity. We judged all studies as having high risk of bias for at least one domain.It is uncertain whether the strategies tested improved the implementation of policies, practices or programmes that promote child healthy eating, physical activity and/or obesity prevention. No intervention improved the implementation of all policies and practices targeted by the implementation strategies relative to a comparison group. Of the eight trials that compared an implementation strategy to usual practice or a no intervention control, however, seven reported improvements in the implementation of at least one of the targeted policies or practices relative to control. For these trials the effect on the primary implementation outcome was as follows: among the three trials that reported score-based measures of implementation the scores ranged from 1 to 5.1; across four trials reporting the proportion of staff or services implementing a specific policy or practice this ranged from 0% to 9.5%; and in three trials reporting the time (per day or week) staff or services spent implementing a policy or practice this ranged from 4.3 minutes to 7.7 minutes. The review findings also indicate that is it uncertain whether such interventions improve childcare service staff knowledge or attitudes (two trials), child physical activity (two trials), child weight status (two trials) or child diet (one trial). None of the included trials reported on the cost or cost-effectiveness of the intervention. One trial assessed the adverse effects of a physical activity intervention and found no difference in rates of child injury between groups. For all review outcomes, we rated the quality of the evidence as very low. The primary limitation of the review was the lack of conventional terminology in implementation science, which may have resulted in potentially relevant studies failing to be identified based on the search terms used in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current research provides weak and inconsistent evidence of the effectiveness of such strategies in improving the implementation of policies and practices, childcare service staff knowledge or attitudes, or child diet, physical activity or weight status. Further research in the field is required.

CAFÉ: a multicomponent audit and feedback intervention to improve implementation of healthy food policy in primary school canteens: protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: A number of jurisdictions internationally have policies requiring schools to implement healthy canteens. However, many schools have not implemented such policies. One reason for this is that current support interventions cannot feasibly be delivered to large numbers of schools. A promising solution to support population-wide implementation of healthy canteen practices is audit and feedback. The effectiveness of this strategy has, however, not previously been assessed in school canteens. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an audit and feedback intervention, delivered by telephone and email, in increasing the number of school canteens that have menus complying with a government healthy-canteen policy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Seventy-two schools, across the Hunter New England Local Health District in New South Wales Australia, will be randomised to receive the multicomponent audit and feedback implementation intervention or usual support. The intervention will consist of between two and four canteen menu audits over 12 months. Each menu audit will be followed by two modes of feedback: a written feedback report and a verbal feedback/support via telephone. Primary outcomes, assessed by dieticians blind to group status and as recommended by the Fresh Tastes @ School policy, are: (1) the proportion of schools with a canteen menu containing foods or beverages restricted for sale, and; (2) the proportion of schools that have a menu which contains more than 50% of foods classified as healthy canteen items. Secondary outcomes are: the proportion of menu items in each category ('red', 'amber' and 'green'), canteen profitability and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained by from the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee and the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee. The findings will be disseminated in usual forums, including peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613000543785.