Objectives: The objective of the present systematic review was to investigate the effects of organizational capacity building interventions on the environment, nursing staff capacity, and mobility of residents in nursing facilities. Design: Systematic review. Setting and Participants: Nursing facilities, staff, and residents. Methods: We conducted a systematic review according to the methods of the Cochrane Collaboration. The systematic review was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42020202996). We searched for studies in MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL (via EBSCO), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and the Cochrane Library (07/20). A narrative synthesis was conducted because of the high heterogeneity of the included studies. Results: We identified 6747 records and included 14 studies in our review. We clustered the 14 interventions into 3 different categories (environmental modification, nursing staff capacity, and multifactorial interventions). Three studies assessed outcomes at the nursing staff level, and all studies reported outcomes at the resident level. We found highly heterogeneous and inconsistent effects of organizational capacity building on increasing nursing staff capacity and/or resident mobility. Conclusions and Implications: The findings emphasize the need for further research focusing on an international understanding and definition of organizational capacity building. Additionally, research and intervention development for organizational capacity building interventions to promote resident mobility are needed while applying the framework of the Medical Research Council. Furthermore, studies should assess outcomes regarding the environment and nursing staff to better understand if and how environmental structures and nursing staff capacity effect resident mobility.

Issue addressed A child's preference for active or sedentary play is a key proximal indicator of a child's physical activity behaviour. There is a need to understand children's physical activity preferences in order to make physical play more enjoyable to them, and this may encourage participation and a more positive relationship with physical activity. To date, little research has incorporated the perspectives of young children on this topic. This study specifically examines (a) what activities preschool children prefer; and (b) what children consider to be barriers and facilitators to participating in their preferred activity. Methods The authors employed visual methodologies to explore the activity preferences of 29 preschool children. Children were asked to draw their preferred activities and answer a series of open and closed questions about their drawing and what they think are the barriers and facilitators to participating in this activity. Results Participants expressed a desire to play unstructured activities with friends or family, to engage in imaginative, challenging play, as well as the opportunity to have control over the activity they engage in. Children reported that rules at home and at preschool, the availability of toys, friends and family and having access to a natural environment served as both barriers and facilitators to participating in their favourite activity. Conclusions Listening to children's voices about their play preferences and the barriers and facilitators to engaging in these activities provides important insight into children's play behaviour and the promotion of active play in early childhood. Participants’ desire for more natural features within their play environment and for challenging, unstructured and imaginative play may be considered as facilitators of their engagement in physical activity. So what? The current findings suggest the incorporation of unstructured playtime within natural environments could support young children's participation in and increased enjoyment of physical activity.

Background: Early childhood has been identified as a crucial period in which children develop physical activity preferences and behaviors. Both the knowledge of and preferences for physical activity are key proximal indicators of activity choices in children. Thus, accurate data collection tools are required to measure these variables. This review evaluates the data collection techniques that have been utilised to assess preschool children’s knowledge of and preference for physical activity, and examines the validity and reliability of existing techniques. Methods: A systematic search for relevant studies published from 1980 through to December 2017 was conducted via ProQuest, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, ERIC, PubMed, MEDLINE, and ScienceDirect. Results: Fourteen studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. The identified studies employed a limited but disparate range of techniques to assess children’s physical activity knowledge and preferences. Findings reveal that four techniques were consistently used across the reviewed studies, including: interviews, structured play-based activities, questionnaires, and observations. Only four out of 14 included studies reported the assessment of the validity of the data collection tool used, and six reported testing the measures for at least one type of reliability. Conclusion: There is a need for validated and reliable measures to assess children’s knowledge of and preference for physical activity. Greater consideration is required to align data collection techniques with the characteristics, needs and abilities of this study population.

Background Health promotion and disease prevention programme registries (HPPRs), also called ‘best practice portals’, serve as entry points and practical repositories that provide decision-makers with easy access to (evidence-based) practices. However, there is limited knowledge of differences or overlaps of howe current national HPPRs in Europe function, the context and circumstances in which these HPPRs were developed, and the mechanisms utilised by each HPPR for the assessment, classification and quality improvement of the included practices. This study prepared an overview of different approaches in several national HPPRs and the EU Best Practice Portal (EU BPP) as well as identified commonalities and differences among the core characteristics of the HPPRs. Methods We conducted a descriptive comparison – that focused on six European countries with existing or recently developed/implemented national HPPR and the EU BPP –to create a comparative overview. We used coding mechanisms to identify commonalities and differences; we performed data management, collection and building consensus during EuroHealthNet Thematic Working Group meetings. Results All HPPRs offer a broad range of health promotion and disease-prevention practices and serve to support practitioners, policymakers and researchers in selecting practices. Almost all HPPRs have an assessment process in place or planned, requiring the application of assessment criteria that differ among the HPPRs. While all HPPRs collect and share recommendable practices, others have implemented further measures to improve the quality of the submitted practices. Different dissemination tools and strategies are employed to promote the use of the HPPRs, including social media, newsletters and publications as well as capacity building workshops for practice owners or technical options to connect citizens/patients with local practices. Conclusions Collaboration between HPPRs (at national and EU level) is appreciated, especially regarding the use consistent terminology to avoid misinterpretation, facilitate cross-country comparison and enable discussions on the adaption of assessment criteria by national HPPRs. Greater efforts are needed to promote the actual implementation and transfer of practices at the national level to address public health challenges with proven and effective practices.