SummaryBackgroundBullying, aggression, and violence among children and young people are some of the most consequential public mental health problems. We tested the Learning Together intervention, which involved students in efforts to modify their school environment using restorative practice and by developing social and emotional skills.MethodsWe did a cluster randomised trial, with economic and process evaluations, of the Learning Together intervention compared with standard practice (controls) over 3 years in secondary schools in south-east England. Learning Together consisted of staff training in restorative practice; convening and facilitating a school action group; and a student social and emotional skills curriculum. Primary outcomes were self-reported experience of bullying victimisation (Gatehouse Bullying Scale; GBS) and perpetration of aggression (Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime (ESYTC) school misbehaviour subscale) measured at 36 months. We analysed data using intention-to-treat longitudinal mixed-effects models. This trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry (10751359).FindingsWe included 40 schools (20 in each group); no schools withdrew. 6667 (93·6%) of 7121 students participated at baseline and 5960 (83·3%) of 7154 at 36 months. Mean GBS bullying score at 36 months was 0·34 (SE 0·02) in the control group versus 0·29 (SE 0·02) in the intervention group, with a significant adjusted mean difference (−0·03, 95% CI −0·06 to −0·001; adjusted effect size −0·08). Mean ESYTC score at 36 months was 4·33 (SE 0·20) in the control group versus 4·04 (0·21) in the intervention group, with no evidence of a difference between groups (adjusted difference −0·13, 95% CI −0·43 to 0·18; adjusted effect size −0·03). Costs were an additional £58 per pupil in intervention schools than in control schools.InterpretationLearning Together had small but significant effects on bullying, which could be important for public health, but no effect on aggression. Interventions to promote student health by modifying the whole-school environment are likely to be one of the most feasible and efficient ways of addressing closely related risk and health outcomes in children and young people.FundingNational Institute for Health Research, Educational Endowment Foundation.

BackgroundLiterature on population awareness about actual causes of cancer is growing but comparatively little is known about the prevalence of people's belief concerning mythical causes of cancer. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of these beliefs and their association with socio-demographic characteristics and health behaviours.MethodsA survey containing validated measures of beliefs about actual and mythical cancer causes and health behaviours (smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, overweight) was administered to a representative English population sample (N = 1330).ResultsAwareness of actual causes of cancer (52% accurately identified; 95% confidence interval [CI] 51–54) was greater than awareness of mythical cancer causes (36% accurately identified; 95% CI 34–37; P < 0.01). The most commonly endorsed mythical cancer causes were exposure to stress (43%; 95% CI 40–45), food additives (42%; 95% CI 39–44) and non-ionizing electromagnetic frequencies (35%; 95% CI 33–38). In adjusted analysis, greater awareness of actual and mythical cancer causes was independently associated with younger age, higher social grade, being white and having post-16 qualifications. Awareness of actual but not mythical cancer causes was associated with not smoking and eating sufficient fruit and vegetables.ConclusionsAwareness of actual and mythical cancer causes is poor in the general population. Only knowledge of established risk factors is associated with adherence to behavioural recommendations for reducing cancer risk.

Resilience has been related to improved physical and mental health, and is thought to improve with age. No studies have explored the relationship between resilience, ageing with HIV, and well-being. A cross sectional observational study performed on UK HIV positive (N = 195) and HIV negative adults (N = 130). Associations of both age and ‘time diagnosed with HIV’ with resilience (RS-14) were assessed, and the association of resilience with depression, anxiety symptoms (PHQ-9 and GAD-7), and problems with activities of daily living (ADLs) (Euroqol 5D-3L). In a multivariable model, HIV status overall was not related to resilience. However, longer time diagnosed with HIV was related to lower resilience, and older age showed a non-significant trend towards higher resilience. In adults with HIV, high resilience was related to a lower prevalence of depression, anxiety, and problems with ADLs. It may be necessary to consider resilience when exploring the well-being of adults ageing with HIV.

BackgroundThe cancer strategy for England (2015–2020) recommends GPs prescribe tamoxifen for breast cancer primary prevention among women at increased risk.AimTo investigate GPs’ attitudes towards prescribing tamoxifen.Design and settingIn an online survey, GPs in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales (n = 928) were randomised using a 2 × 2 between-subjects design to read one of four vignettes describing a healthy patient seeking a tamoxifen prescription.MethodIn the vignette, the hypothetical patient’s breast cancer risk (moderate versus high) and the clinician initiating the prescription (GP prescriber versus secondary care clinician [SCC] prescriber) were manipulated in a 1:1:1:1 ratio. Outcomes were willingness to prescribe, comfort discussing harms and benefits, comfort managing the patient, factors affecting the prescribing decision, and awareness of tamoxifen and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline CG164.ResultsHalf (51.7%) of the GPs knew tamoxifen can reduce breast cancer risk, and one-quarter (24.1%) were aware of NICE guideline CG164. Responders asked to initiate prescribing (GP prescriber) were less willing to prescribe tamoxifen than those continuing a prescription initiated in secondary care (SCC prescriber) (68.9% versus 84.6%, P<0.001). The GP prescribers reported less comfort discussing tamoxifen (53.4% versus 62.5%, P = 0.01). GPs willing to prescribe were more likely to be aware of the NICE guideline (P = 0.039) and to have acknowledged the benefits of tamoxifen (P<0.001), and were less likely to have considered its off-licence status (P<0.001).ConclusionInitiating tamoxifen prescriptions for preventive therapy in secondary care before asking GPs to continue the patient’s care may overcome some prescribing barriers.