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.

et al. Structured, intensive education maximising engagement, motivation and long-term change for children and young people with diabetes: a cluster randomised controlled trial with integral process and economic evaluation -the CASCADE study. Health Technol Assess 2014;18(20).Health Technology Assessment is indexed and abstracted in Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica/EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch ® ) and Current Contents ® / Clinical Medicine. Health Technology AssessmentHTA/HTA TAR ISSN 1366-5278 (Print) ISSN 2046-4924 (Online) Five-year impact factor: 5.804Health Technology Assessment is indexed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the ISI Science Citation Index and is assessed for inclusion in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects.This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: www.hta.ac.uk/ This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 06/44/05. The contractual start date was in May 2008. The draft report began editorial review in January 2013 and was accepted for publication in June 2013. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers...

There was no evidence of impact on the primary outcomes of either intervention. The SHV intervention was popular with women, and was associated with improvement in some of the secondary outcomes. This suggests that greater emphasis on the social support role of health visitors could improve some measures of family well-being. Possible areas for future research include a systematic review of social support and its effect on health; developing and testing other postnatal models of support that match more closely the age of the baby and the changing patterns of mothers' needs; evaluating other strategies for mobilising 'non-professional' support; developing and testing more culturally specific support interventions; developing more culturally appropriate standardised measures of health outcomes; providing longer term follow-up of social support interventions; and exploring the role of social support on the delay in subsequent pregnancy.

Background: To assess whether monthly home visits from trained volunteers could improve infant feeding practices at age 12 months, a randomised controlled trial was carried out in two disadvantaged inner city London boroughs. Methods: Women attending baby clinics with their infants (312) were randomised to receive monthly home visits from trained volunteers over a 9-month period (intervention group) or standard professional care only (control group). The primary outcome was vitamin C intakes from fruit. Secondary outcomes included selected macro and micro-nutrients, infant feeding habits, supine length and weight. Data were collected at baseline when infants were aged approximately 10 weeks, and subsequently when the child was 12 and 18 months old. Results: Two-hundred and twelve women (68%) completed the trial. At both follow-up points no significant differences were found between the groups for vitamin C intakes from fruit or other nutrients. At first follow-up, however, infants in the intervention group were significantly less likely to be given goats' or soya milks, and were more likely to have three solid meals per day. At the second follow-up, intervention group children were significantly less likely to be still using a bottle. At both follow-up points, intervention group children also consumed significantly more specific fruit and vegetables. Conclusions: Home visits from trained volunteers had no significant effect on nutrient intakes but did promote some other recommended infant feeding practices. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55500035Nutrition in early life is a key determinant of growth, development and health status, both in childhood and later adult life. Current UK recommendations advise all mothers to exclusively breastfeed for 6 months, and to delay introducing solids until at least 6 months. [3][4][5] Data from national surveys show that infant feeding practices in the UK are, however, highly variable.6 7 The 2005 Infant Feeding Survey indicated some encouraging trends with 76% of mothers across the UK initiating breastfeeding. However, rates fell steeply after a few weeks and less than 1% of mothers were exclusively breastfeeding at 6 months.6 Stark social inequalities were evident, with breastfeeding rates highest amongst older, middle-class and educated mothers. The 2005 survey also reported that 51% of mothers had introduced solids by 4 months and only 2% had delayed introducing solids until 6 months. Mothers giving solids when babies were 4-6 months were more likely to provide commercially prepared foods (85%) than home prepared (51%), and only 46% had given fruit. 6A substantial body of research has evaluated interventions aimed at increasing the initiation, and to lesser extent, the duration of breastfeeding.8 9 In contrast, very few well-designed studies have evaluated interventions focusing on the later stages of infant feeding beyond breastfeeding. 10Recent National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance has highlighted the paucity o...

IntroductionType 1 diabetes (T1D) in children and adolescents is increasing worldwide with a particular increase in children <5 years. Fewer than 1 in 6 children and adolescents achieve recommended glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values.MethodsA pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial assessed the efficacy of a clinic-based structured educational group incorporating psychological approaches to improve long-term glycemic control, quality of life and psychosocial functioning in children and adolescents with T1D. 28 pediatric diabetes services were randomized to deliver the intervention or standard care. 362 children (8–16 years) with HbA1c≥8.5% were recruited. Outcomes were HbA1c at 12 and 24 months, hypoglycemia, admissions, self-management skills, intervention compliance, emotional and behavioral adjustment, and quality of life. A process evaluation collected data from key stakeholder groups in order to evaluate the feasibility of delivering the intervention.Results298/362 patients (82.3%) provided HbA1c at 12 months and 284/362 (78.5%) at 24 months. The intervention did not improve HbA1c at 12 months (intervention effect 0.11, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.50, p=0.584), or 24 months (intervention effect 0.03, 95% CI −0.36 to 0.41, p=0.891). There were no significant changes in remaining outcomes. 96/180 (53%) families in the intervention arm attended at least 1 module. The number of modules attended did not affect outcome. Reasons for low uptake included difficulties organizing groups and work and school commitments. Those with highest HbA1cs were less likely to attend. Mean cost of the intervention was £683 per child.ConclusionsSignificant challenges in the delivery of a structured education intervention using psychological techniques to enhance engagement and behavior change delivered by diabetes nurses and dietitians in routine clinical practice were found. The intervention did not improve HbA1c in children and adolescents with poor control.Trial registration numberISRCTN52537669, results.