ObjectiveTo undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish the effectiveness of handwashing in reducing absence and/or the spread of respiratory tract (RT) and/or gastrointestinal (GI) infection among school-aged children and/or staff in educational settings.DesignRandomised-controlled trials (RCTs).SettingSchools and other settings with a formal educational component in any country.PatientsChildren aged 3–11 years, and/or staff working with them.InterventionInterventions with a hand hygiene component.Main outcome measuresIncidence of RT or GI infections or symptoms related to such infections; absenteeism; laboratory results of RT and/or GI infections.ResultsEighteen cluster RCTs were identified; 13 school-based, 5 in child day care facilities or preschools. Studies were heterogeneous and had significant quality issues including small numbers of clusters and participants and inadequate randomisation. Individual study results suggest interventions may reduce children's absence, RT infection incidence and symptoms, and laboratory confirmed influenza-like illness. Evidence of impact on GI infection or symptoms was equivocal.ConclusionsStudies are generally not well executed or reported. Despite updating existing systematic reviews and identifying new studies, evidence of the effect of hand hygiene interventions on infection incidence in educational settings is mostly equivocal but they may decrease RT infection among children. These results update and add to knowledge about this crucial public health issue in key settings with a vulnerable population. More robust, well reported cluster RCTs which learn from existing studies, are required.

Background Increasing physical activity in older adults remains a key public health priority in countries with a high burden of non-communicable disease, yet current interventions have failed to substantially increase population uptake with UK data suggesting that only half of 65–74 year olds report meeting recommended levels. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic and inductive qualitative synthesis of the large body of qualitative research describing what influences physical activity at this age, and older adults’ experiences of physical activity. Methods A qualitative meta-ethnography was chosen as the study design as this inductive approach can provide novel insights and generate new theory about physical activity and ageing. Papers were identified by searching electronic databases and key citations. Peer-reviewed primary qualitative studies and systematic reviews were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: community-dwelling participants aged 60 years or older or in the retirement transition period; reporting on leisure-time physical activity; utilising a rigorous qualitative methodology. A line of argument approach was employed to generate a theory about how older adults think and feel about physical activity. Results Thirty-nine papers met the inclusion criteria and were synthesised. The emergent theory suggested transition to older age can challenge people’s sense of self and their role in life. Physical activity can help in regaining feelings of purpose, of being needed in collective group activity, and by creating habitual routine and structure to the day. In overcoming real and perceived barriers, and by taking up or sustaining physical activities, older adults can further build self-esteem all of which contributes to a fulfilling older age. Conclusion Current failures to increase population levels of physical activity in older adults may be explained by an approach overly focused on the health benefits of activity. Insights from this study suggest we need to reframe our approach to consider the wider set of goals and aspirations which are of greater personal importance to older adults, and future interventions should focus on how physical activity can contribute to life satisfaction, sense of purpose, and sense of role fulfilment in older age. Trial registration Registered prospectively on PROSPERO on 29th March 2013: CRD42013003796 . Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-6624-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Although falls are the highest volume patient safety incident reported in hospital trusts in England, they result in a relatively small number of negligence claims and receive a relatively low total payment (0.019% in both cases). The mean payment in closed claims is also relatively small. This may reflect the high average age of the people who fall and difficulty in establishing causation, especially where individuals are already frail when they fall. The patterns of claims and the narrative descriptions provide wider lessons for improving risk-management strategies. However, the inherent limitations and biases in the data routinely recorded for legal purposes suggest that for more informative research or actuarial claims analysis, more comprehensive and systematic data to be recorded for each incident claim are needed.

BackgroundAmid local government budget cuts, there is concern that the ring-fenced public health grant is being appropriated, and Directors of Public Health (DsPH) find it difficult to make the case for investment in public health activity. This paper describes what DsPH are making the case for, the components of their case and how they present the case for public health.MethodsThirteen semi-structured telephone interviews and a group discussion were carried out with DsPH (November 2013 to May 2014) in the Southern region of England.ResultsDsPH make the case for control of the public health grant and investing in action on wider determinants of health. The cases they present incorporate arguments about need, solutions and their effectiveness, health outcomes, cost and economic impact but also normative, political arguments. Many types of evidence were used to substantiate the cases; evidence was carefully framed to be accessible and persuasive.ConclusionsDsPH are responding to a new environment; economic arguments and evidence of impact are key components of the case for public health, although multiple factors influence local government (LG) decisions around health improvement. Further evidence of economic impact would be helpful in making the case for public health in LG.

Background ‘Dating and relationship violence’ is intimate partner violence during adolescence. Among dating adolescents in England, 66–75% of girls and 32–50% of boys report victimisation. Multicomponent school-based interventions might reduce dating and relationship violence. We optimised and piloted Project Respect, a new intervention in secondary schools in England, and study methods, to assess the value of a Phase III randomised controlled trial. Objectives To optimise Project Respect and to then conduct a pilot randomised controlled trial in southern England, addressing whether or not progression to a Phase III trial is justified in terms of prespecified criteria. To assess which of two dating and relationship violence scales is optimal, to assess response rates and to consider any necessary refinements. Design Optimisation activities aimed at intervention development and a pilot randomised controlled trial. Setting Optimisation in four secondary schools across southern England, varying by region and local deprivation. A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial in six other such schools (four intervention schools and two control schools), varying by region, attainment and local deprivation. Participants School students in years 8–10 at baseline and staff. Interventions Schools were randomised to the intervention or control arm in a 2 : 1 ratio; intervention comprised staff training, mapping ‘hotspots’ in school for dating and relationship violence, modifying staff patrols, school policy review, informing parents and carers, an application supporting student help-seeking, and a classroom curriculum for students in years 9 and 10 (including student-led campaigns). Main outcome measures Prespecified criteria for progression to Phase III of the trial, concerning acceptability, feasibility, fidelity and response rates. Primary health outcomes were assessed using the Safe Dates and short Conflicts in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory measures collected and analysed by individuals who were masked to allocation. Feasibility of economic analysis was assessed. Data sources Baseline and follow-up student and staff surveys, interviews, observations and logbooks. Results The intervention was optimised and approved by the Study Steering Committee. The student response rates in intervention and control groups were 1057 (84.8%) and 369 (76.6%) at baseline, and 1177 (76.8%) and 352 (83.4%) at follow-up, respectively. Safe Dates and the short Conflicts in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory had high levels of completion and reliability. At follow-up, prevalence of past-year dating and relationship violence victimisation was around 35% (Safe Dates scale and short Conflicts in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory). Staff response rates were very low. Training occurred in all four schools, with suboptimal fidelity. The curriculum was delivered with optimal fidelity in three schools. Other components were delivered inconsistently. Dating and relationship violence was addressed in control schools via violence prevention and responses, but not systematically. Intervention acceptability among students and staff was mixed. An economic evaluation would be feasible. Limitations One school did not undertake baseline surveys. Staff survey response rates were low and completion of the logbook was patchy. Conclusions Our findings suggest that progression to a Phase III trial of this intervention is not indicated because of limited fidelity and acceptability. Future work High prevalence of dating and relationship violence highlights the ongoing need for effective intervention. Potential intervention refinements would include more external support for schools and enhanced curriculum materials. Any future randomised controlled trials could consider having a longer lead-in from randomisation to intervention commencement, using the short Conflicts in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory as the primary outcome and not relying on staff surveys. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65324176. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 8, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

2020): Implementing a whole-school relationships and sex education intervention to prevent dating and relationship violence: evidence from a pilot trial in English secondary schools, Sex Education, ABSTRACT Adolescent dating and relationship violence is associated with health harms and is an important topic for sex education. School-based interventions addressing this have been effective in the USA, but schools in England confront pressures that might hinder implementation. We assessed the feasibility of, and contextual enablers/barriers to implementing Project Respect, a whole-school intervention. We conducted a pilot trial with process evaluation in six English secondary schools. Intervention comprised: training; policy-review; mapping and patrolling 'hotspots'; parent information; help-seeking app; and a curriculum (including student-led campaigns) targeting dating violence. Process evaluation included assessments of fidelity and interviews with the trainer and school staff. Schools delivered training and lessons partially or completely and made parent and app information available. Two schools conducted policy reviews; none patrolled hotspots or implemented campaigns. Implementation was strengthened where staff saw dating violence as a priority. Delivery was undermined where staff were insufficiently involved, lacked time for planning or struggled to timetable lessons, and where new school challenges undermined engagement. School-based health interventions must work to build staff buy-in and ensure they do not overburden schools. Dating and relationship violence might best be addressed in this context as a broader aspect of sex education. ARTICLE HISTORY

No abstract

Background Preventing smoking uptake among young people is a public health priority. Further education (FE) settings provide access to the majority of 16- to 18-year-olds, but few evaluations of smoking prevention interventions have been reported in this context to date. Objectives To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of implementing and trialling a new multilevel smoking prevention intervention in FE settings. Design Pilot cluster randomised controlled trial and process evaluation. Setting Six UK FE institutions. Participants FE students aged 16–18 years. Intervention ‘The Filter FE’ intervention. Staff working on Action on Smoking and Health Wales’ ‘The Filter’ youth project applied existing staff training, social media and youth work resources in three intervention settings, compared with three control sites with usual practice. The intervention aimed to prevent smoking uptake by restricting the sale of tobacco to under-18s in local shops, implementing tobacco-free campus policies, training FE staff to deliver smoke-free messages, publicising The Filter youth project’s online advice and support services, and providing educational youth work activities. Main outcome measures (1) The primary outcome assessed was the feasibility and acceptability of delivering and trialling the intervention. (2) Qualitative process data were analysed to explore student, staff and intervention team experiences of implementing and trialling the intervention. (3) Primary, secondary and intermediate (process) outcomes and economic evaluation methods were piloted. Data sources New students at participating FE settings were surveyed in September 2014 and followed up in September 2015. Qualitative process data were collected via interviews with FE college managers (n = 5) and the intervention team (n = 6); focus groups with students (n = 11) and staff (n = 5); and observations of intervention settings. Other data sources were semistructured observations of intervention delivery, intervention team records, ‘mystery shopper’ audits of local shops and college policy documents. Results The intervention was not delivered as planned at any of the three intervention settings, with no implementation of some community- and college-level components, and low fidelity of the social media component across sites. Staff training reached 28 staff and youth work activities were attended by 190 students across the three sites (< 10% of all eligible staff and students), with low levels of acceptability reported. Implementation was limited by various factors, such as uncertainty about the value of smoking prevention activities in FE colleges, intervention management weaknesses and high turnover of intervention staff. It was feasible to recruit, randomise and retain FE settings. Prevalence of weekly smoking at baseline was 20.6% and was 17.2% at follow-up, with low levels of missing data for all pilot outcomes. Limitations Only 17% of eligible students participated in baseline and follow-up surveys; the representativeness of student and staff focus groups is uncertain. Conclusions In this study, FE settings were not a supportive environment for smoking prevention activities because of their non-interventionist institutional cultures promoting personal responsibility. Weaknesses in intervention management and staff turnover also limited implementation. Managers accept randomisation but methodological work is required to improve student recruitment and retention rates if trials are to be conducted in FE settings. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19563136. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 5, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. It was also funded by the Big Lottery Fund.