Search

ZusammenfassungEvidenzbasierung stellt auch im öffentlichen Gesundheitswesen eine zentrale Anforderung dar. 5 allgemeine Prinzipien gelten in der evidenzbasierten Medizin wie in der evidenzbasierten Public Health (EBPH). Sie umfassen Systematik, Transparenz im Umgang mit Unsicherheit, Integration und Partizipation, Umgang mit Interessenkonflikten sowie einen strukturierten, reflektierten Prozess. Dieser Artikel hat das Ziel, ein gemeinsames Verständnis von evidenzbasierter Public Health zu fördern.Mit einer systematischen Literaturrecherche zu Perspektiven der Evidenzbasierung in Public Health wurde das internationale Verständnis von EBPH beleuchtet. So wurden 20 englischsprachige und eine deutschsprachige Quelle identifiziert und einer Inhaltsanalyse unterzogen. Über die allgemeinen Prinzipien hinausgehende Charakteristika dieser Perspektiven befassen sich mit Aspekten der Bevölkerungsorientierung, dem zugrunde liegenden Verständnis von Evidenz, zu beteiligenden Disziplinen und Interessengruppen sowie relevanten Kriterien und notwendigen Kompetenzen für eine Umsetzung von Evidenzbasierung.Darauf aufbauend und unter Berücksichtigung methodischer Entwicklungen im Umgang mit Komplexität lassen sich 4 spezifische Umsetzungsfaktoren der EBPH ableiten. Sie umfassen Theorie, Interdisziplinarität, Kontextabhängigkeit und Komplexität sowie allgemeine gesellschaftliche Aspekte.Die praktische Umsetzung von EBPH erfordert personelle und finanzielle Ressourcen sowie Kompetenzen – unter anderem für die Durchführung systematischer Übersichtsarbeiten zur Wirksamkeit von Maßnahmen unter Alltagsbedingungen, für die wissenschaftliche Betrachtung weiterer relevanter Fragestellungen sowie für die Etablierung transparenter Prozesse zur Formulierung von Empfehlungen.

Background:\ud \ud Overweight and obesity are increasing worldwide and are considered to be a major public health issue of the 21st century. Introducing taxation of the fat content in foods is considered a potentially powerful policy tool to reduce consumption of foods high in fat or saturated fat, or both.\ud \ud Objectives:\ud \ud To assess the effects of taxation of the fat content in food on consumption of total fat and saturated fat, energy intake, overweight, obesity, and other adverse health outcomes in the general population.\ud \ud Search methods:\ud \ud We searched CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, and 15 other databases and trial registers on 12 September 2019. We handsearched the reference lists of all records of included studies, searched websites of international organizations and institutions (14 October 2019), and contacted review advisory group members to identify planned, ongoing, or unpublished studies (26 February 2020).\ud \ud Selection criteria:\ud \ud In line with Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria, we included the following study types: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster‐randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), non‐randomized controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before‐after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time series studies. We included studies that evaluated the effects of taxes on the fat content in foods. Such a tax could be expressed as sales, excise, or special value added tax (VAT) on the final product or an intermediary product. Eligible interventions were taxation at any level, with no restriction on the duration or the implementation level (i.e. local, regional, national, or multinational). Eligible study populations were children (zero to 17 years) and adults (18 years or older) from any country and setting. We excluded studies that focused on specific subgroups only (e.g. people receiving pharmaceutical intervention; people undergoing a surgical intervention; ill people who are overweight or obese as a side effect, such as those with thyroiditis and depression; and people with chronic illness). Primary outcomes were total fat consumption, consumption of saturated fat, energy intake through fat, energy intake through saturated fat, total energy intake, and incidence/prevalence of overweight or obesity. We did not exclude studies based on country, setting, comparison, or population.\ud \ud Data collection and analysis:\ud \ud We used standard Cochrane methods for all phases of the review. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the criteria of Cochrane’s ‘Risk of bias’ tool and the EPOC Group’s guidance. Results of the review are summarized narratively and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. These steps were done by two review authors, independently.\ud \ud Main results:\ud \ud We identified 23,281 records from searching electronic databases and 1173 records from other sources, leading to a total of 24,454 records. Two studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. Both included studies investigated the effect the Danish tax on saturated fat contained in selected food items between 2011 and 2012. Both studies used an interrupted time series design. Neither included study had a parallel control group from another geographic area. The included studies investigated an unbalanced panel of approximately 2000 households in Denmark and the sales data from a specific Danish supermarket chain (1293 stores). Therefore, the included studies did not address individual participants, and no restriction regarding age, sex, and socioeconomic characteristics were defined. We judged the overall risk of bias of the two included studies as unclear.\ud \ud For the outcome total consumption of fat, a reduction of 41.8 grams per week per person in a household (P < 0.001) was estimated. For the consumption of saturated fat, one study reported a reduction of 4.2% from minced beef sales, a reduction of 5.8% from cream sales, and an increase of 0.5% to sour cream sales (no measures of statistical precision were reported for these estimates). These estimates are based on a restricted number of food types and derived from sales data; they do not measure individual intake. Moreover, these estimates do not account for other relevant sources of fat intake (e.g. packaged or processed food) or other food outlets (e.g. restaurants or cafeterias); hence, we judged the evidence on the effect of taxation on total fat consumption or saturated fat consumption to be very uncertain. We did not identify evidence on the effect of the intervention on energy intake or the incidence or prevalence of overweight or obesity.\ud \ud Authors' conclusions:\ud \ud Given the very low quality of the evidence currently available, we are unable to reliably establish whether a tax on total fat or saturated fat is effective or ineffective in reducing consumption of total fat or saturated fat. There is currently no evidence on the effect of a tax on total fat or saturated fat on total energy intake or energy intake through saturated fat or total fat, or preventing the incidence or reducing the prevalence of overweight or obesity.

Background Decision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions. To save time, personnel, and financial resources, rapid reviews streamline the methodological steps of the systematic review process. We aimed to explore the validity of a rapid review approach that combines a substantially abbreviated literature search with a single-reviewer screening of abstracts and full texts using three case studies. Methods We used a convenience sample of three ongoing Cochrane reviews as reference standards. Two reviews addressed oncological topics and one addressed a public health topic. For each of the three topics, three reviewers screened the literature independently. Our primary outcome was the change in conclusions between the rapid reviews and the respective Cochrane reviews. In case the rapid approach missed studies, we recalculated the meta-analyses for the main outcomes and asked Cochrane review authors if the new body of evidence would change their original conclusion compared with the reference standards. Additionally, we assessed the sensitivity of the rapid review approach compared with the results of the original Cochrane reviews. Results For the two oncological topics (case studies 1 and 2), the three rapid reviews each yielded the same conclusions as the Cochrane reviews. However, the authors would have had less certainty about their conclusion in case study 2. For case study 3, the public health topic, only one of the three rapid reviews led to the same conclusion as the Cochrane review. The other two rapid reviews provided insufficient information for the authors to draw conclusions. Using the rapid review approach, the sensitivity was 100% (3 of 3) for case study 1. For case study 2, the three rapid reviews identified 40% (4 of 10), 50% (5 of 10), and 60% (6 of 10) of the included studies, respectively; for case study 3, the respective numbers were 38% (8 of 21), 43% (9 of 21), and 48% (10 of 21). Conclusions Within the limitations of these case studies, a rapid review approach that combines abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening may be feasible for focused clinical questions. For complex public health topics, sensitivity seems to be insufficient.

Background Global prevalence of overweight and obesity are alarming. For tackling this public health problem, preventive public health and policy actions are urgently needed. Some countries implemented food taxes in the past and some were subsequently abolished. Some countries, such as Norway, Hungary, Denmark, Bermuda, Dominica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the Navajo Nation (USA), specifically implemented taxes on unprocessed sugar and sugar‐added foods. These taxes on unprocessed sugar and sugar‐added foods are fiscal policy interventions, implemented to decrease their consumption and in turn reduce adverse health‐related, economic and social effects associated with these food products. Objectives To assess the effects of taxation of unprocessed sugar or sugar‐added foods in the general population on the consumption of unprocessed sugar or sugar‐added foods, the prevalence and incidence of overweight and obesity, and the prevalence and incidence of other diet‐related health outcomes. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase and 15 other databases and trials registers on 12 September 2019. We handsearched the reference list of all records of included studies, searched websites of international organisations and institutions, and contacted review advisory group members to identify planned, ongoing or unpublished studies. Selection criteria We included studies with the following populations: children (0 to 17 years) and adults (18 years or older) from any country and setting. Exclusion applied to studies with specific subgroups, such as people with any disease who were overweight or obese as a side‐effect of the disease. The review included studies with taxes on or artificial increases of selling prices for unprocessed sugar or food products that contain added sugar (e.g. sweets, ice cream, confectionery, and bakery products), or both, as intervention, regardless of the taxation level or price increase. In line with Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster‐randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), non‐randomised controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before‐after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. We included controlled studies with more than one intervention or control site and ITS studies with a clearly defined intervention time and at least three data points before and three after the intervention. Our primary outcomes were consumption of unprocessed sugar or sugar‐added foods, energy intake, overweight, and obesity. Our secondary outcomes were substitution and diet, expenditure, demand, and other health outcomes. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened all eligible records for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias, and performed data extraction.Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results We retrieved a total of 24,454 records. After deduplicating records, 18,767 records remained for title and abstract screening. Of 11 potentially relevant studies, we included one ITS study with 40,210 household‐level observations from the Hungarian Household Budget and Living Conditions Survey. The baseline ranged from January 2008 to August 2011, the intervention was implemented on September 2011, and follow‐up was until December 2012 (16 months). The intervention was a tax ‐ the so‐called 'Hungarian public health product tax' ‐ on sugar‐added foods, including selected foods exceeding a specific sugar threshold value. The intervention includes co‐interventions: the taxation of sugar‐sweetened beverages (SSBs) and of foods high in salt or caffeine. The study provides evidence on the effect of taxing foods exceeding a specific sugar threshold value on the consumption of sugar‐added foods. After implementation of the Hungarian public health product tax, the mean consumption of taxed sugar‐added foods (measured in units of kg) decreased by 4.0% (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.040, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.07 to −0.01; very low‐certainty evidence). The study was at low risk of bias in terms of performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias, with the shape of effect pre‐specified and the intervention unlikely to have any effect on data collection. The study was at unclear risk of attrition bias and at high risk in terms of other bias and the independence of the intervention. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for the primary and secondary outcomes. The Hungarian public health product tax included a tax on sugar‐added foods but did not include a tax on unprocessed sugar. We did not find eligible studies reporting on the taxation of unprocessed sugar. No studies reported on the primary outcomes of consumption of unprocessed sugar, energy intake, overweight, and obesity. No studies reported on the secondary outcomes of substitution and diet, demand, and other health outcomes. No studies reported on differential effects across population subgroups. We could not perform meta‐analyses or pool study results. Authors' conclusions There was very limited evidence and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Despite the reported reduction in consumption of taxed sugar‐added foods, we are uncertain whether taxing unprocessed sugar or sugar‐added foods has an effect on reducing their consumption and preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes. Further robustly conducted studies are required to draw concrete conclusions on the effectiveness of taxing unprocessed sugar or sugar‐added foods for reducing their consumption and preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes., Plain language summary Does taxation of unprocessed sugar or foods with added sugar reduce their consumption and prevent obesity or other adverse health outcomes? Why is this review important? As outlined by the World Health Organization, 'globesity' (the rise in overweight and obesity globally) is a major world challenge. A sugar‐rich diet, especially when combined with physical inactivity, may cause overweight and obesity, and other harmful health outcomes. There are direct costs to healthcare services of people being overweight or obese, such as preventing and treating health problems that this causes. There are also costs to society as a whole when people who are ill through being overweight or obese are unable to work. Who will be interested in this review? This review may be of interest to government public health agencies, policy decision‐makers, food retailers, and food industries. This review and subsequent updates of this review may change policy and affect a government's motivation to create a tax on unprocessed sugar and foods with added sugar. It also may motivate food industries to reformulate their products to contain lower levels of added sugar. What question does this review aim to answer? We wanted to know if taxation of unprocessed sugar and foods with added sugar (other than sugar‐sweetened beverages (SSBs)) reduced their consumption, changed people's energy intake, and reduced overweight and obesity. We also wanted to know if taxation changed people's diet and spending, and had an effect on other diet‐related health problems. Which studies were included in the review? We searched for ongoing or published studies up to October 2019. Of a total of 24,454 records retrieved, we identified one 'interrupted time series' (ITS) study meeting our eligibility criteria to assess the impact of a tax on sugar‐added foods (but not unprocessed sugar). The study used data from the Hungarian Household Budget and Living Conditions Survey, with observations from 40,210 households. Evidence from the study included a 'baseline' (the situation before taxation), ranging from January 2008 to August 2011. The Hungarian public health product tax was implemented on September 2011. The duration of the follow‐up period (measuring the effects of taxation) was 16 months. The study was funded by the Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE) Early Career Engagement Grant. What does the evidence from the review reveal? The included study provided very limited evidence that taxing foods with added sugar reduced their consumption by 4%. We are very uncertain about this evidence because the study did not use the strongest methods, looked at other kinds of taxation as well as taxing foods with added sugar, and may not have correctly classified food types. We are uncertain whether taxing foods with added sugar has an effect on reducing their consumption. The included study did not investigate the effects of taxing unprocessed sugar. What should happen next? Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of taxing unprocessed sugar or foods with added sugar for reducing their consumption and preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes. Studies should take place in countries that have implemented these taxes and should look at cost‐effectiveness as well as the health benefits of taxing unprocessed sugar or foods with added sugar as a public health policy for preventing overweight, obesity or other adverse health outcomes. Countries that have implemented these taxes are Bermuda, Dominica, Hungary, India, Norway, the Navajo Nation (USA), and St. Vincent and Grenadines.

Zusammenfassung Cochrane Public Health erstellt systematische Übersichtsarbeiten zu populationsbezogenen Maßnahmen, die sich mit strukturellen und sozialen Einflüssen auf Gesundheit beschäftigen und liefert so eine Basis für evidenzbasierte Entscheidungen im Public Health Bereich. Neben der Unterstützung von Review Prozessen bereitet Cochrane Public Health Europe Ergebnisse neuer Cochrane Public Health Reviews verständlich und auf Deutsch für EntscheidungsträgerInnen und weitere Interessierte auf.

ObjectiveTo summarize the best available evidence regarding the short- and long-term health effects of cow’s milk intake in healthy, full-term infants up to 3 years of age.DesignWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.SettingWe searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and the Cochrane Library between 1960 and July 2013 and manually reviewed reference lists of pertinent articles. Two researchers independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and extracted relevant data.SubjectsWe included (randomized/non-randomized) controlled trials and observational studies.ResultsWe included data from twenty-three studies (one randomized controlled trial, four non-randomized controlled trials, eight case–control studies and ten cohort studies) for the evidence synthesis. Pooled results of four studies revealed a higher risk of Fe-deficiency anaemia for infants consuming cow’s milk compared with those consuming follow-on formula (relative risk=3·76; 95 % CI 2·73, 5·19). For type 1 diabetes mellitus, six out of seven case–control studies did not show a difference in the risk of developing this disease based on the age of introduction of cow’s milk. We did not find negative associations for other health effects.ConclusionsCow’s milk consumption in infancy is associated with an increased risk of developing Fe-deficiency anaemia. Limiting cow’s milk consumption may be important to ensure an adequate Fe intake for infants and toddlers. High-quality patient information for caregivers is needed on how infants’ Fe requirements can be met.

The aim of this systematic review was to summarize systematically the existing evidence for the effects of student participation in designing, planning, implementing and/or evaluating school health promotion measures. The focuswas on the effects of participation in school health promotion measures rather than on student involvement at school in general. Participation is a core value for health promotion but empirical evidence of its outcomes is scarce. Wesearched major bibliographic databases (including ASSIA, ERIC, PsycINFO, Scopus, PubMed and the Social Sciences Citation Index). Two reviewers independently decided about inclusion and exclusion of the identified abstracts(n ¼ 5075) and full text articles. Of the 90 full text articles screened, 26 papers met the inclusion criteria. We identified evidence for positive effects, especially for the students themselves, the school as organization, and interactionsand social relations at school. Almost all included studies showed personal effects on students referring to an increased satisfaction, motivation and ownership, an increase in skills, competencies and knowledge, personal development, health-related effects and influence on student perspective.Given that student participation has more been discussed as a value, or ideal of health promotion in schools, these findings documenting its effectiveness are important. However, further research is needed to consider the level orintensity of involvement, different approaches and stages of participation in the health promotion intervention, as well as mediating factors such as gender, socio-cultural background or academic achievement, in a more systematicmanner.

BACKGROUND: Lead exposure is a serious health hazard, especially for children. It is associated with physical, cognitive and neurobehavioural impairment in children. There are many potential sources of lead in the environment, therefore trials have tested many household interventions to prevent or reduce lead exposure. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of household interventions intended to prevent or reduce further lead exposure in children on improvements in cognitive and neurobehavioural development, reductions in blood lead levels and reductions in household dust lead levels. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2020, we updated our searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other databases and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched Google Scholar, checked the reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts to identify unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs of household educational or environmental interventions, or combinations of interventions to prevent lead exposure in children (from birth to 18 years of age), where investigators reported at least one standardised outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed all eligible studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies (three new to this update), involving 3282 children: 16 RCTs (involving 3204 children) and one quasi‐RCT (involving 78 children). Children in all studies were under six years of age. Fifteen studies took place in urban areas of North America, one in Australia and one in China. Most studies were in areas with low socioeconomic status. Girls and boys were equally represented in those studies reporting this information. The duration of the intervention ranged from three months to 24 months in 15 studies, while two studies performed interventions on a single occasion. Follow‐up periods ranged from three months to eight years. Three RCTs were at low risk of bias in all assessed domains. The other 14 studies were at unclear or high risk of bias; for example, we considered two RCTs and one quasi‐RCT at high risk of selection bias and six RCTs at high risk of attrition bias. National or international research grants or governments funded 15 studies, while the other two did not report their funding sources. Education interventions versus no intervention None of the included studies in this comparison assessed effects on cognitive or neurobehavioural outcomes, or adverse events. All studies reported data on blood lead level outcomes. Educational interventions showed there was probably no evidence of a difference in reducing blood lead levels (continuous: mean difference (MD) –0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.13 to 0.07; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 815 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence; log‐transformed data), or in reducing floor dust levels (MD –0.07, 95% CI –0.37 to 0.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 318 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Environmental interventions versus no intervention Dust control: one study in this comparison reported data on cognitive and neurobehavioural outcomes, and on adverse events in children. The study showed numerically there may be better neurobehavioural outcomes in children of the intervention group. However, differences were small and the CI included both a beneficial and non‐beneficial effect of the environmental intervention (e.g. mental development (Bayley Scales of Infant Development‐II): MD 0.1, 95% CI –2.1 to 2.4; 1 study, 302 participants; low‐certainty evidence). The same study did not observe any adverse events related to the intervention during the eight‐year follow‐up, but observed two children with adverse events in the control group (1 study, 355 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Meta‐analysis also found no evidence of effectiveness on blood lead levels (continuous: MD –0.02, 95% CI –0.09 to 0.06; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 565 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence; log‐transformed data). We could not pool the data regarding floor dust levels, but studies reported that there may be no evidence of a difference between the groups (very low‐certainty evidence). Soil abatement: the two studies assessing this environmental intervention only reported on the outcome of 'blood lead level'. One study showed a small effect on blood lead level reduction, while the other study showed no effect. Therefore, we deem the current evidence insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of soil abatement (very low‐certainty evidence). Combination of educational and environmental interventions versus standard education Studies in this comparison only reported on blood lead levels and dust lead levels. We could not pool the studies in a meta‐analysis due to substantial differences between the studies. Since the studies reported inconsistent results, the evidence is currently insufficient to clarify whether a combination of interventions reduces blood lead levels and floor dust levels (very low‐certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on available evidence, household educational interventions and environmental interventions (namely dust control measures) show no evidence of a difference in reducing blood lead levels in children as a population health measure. The evidence of the effects of environmental interventions on cognitive and neurobehavioural outcomes and adverse events is uncertain too. Further trials are required to establish the most effective intervention for reducing or even preventing further lead exposure. Key elements of these trials should include strategies to reduce multiple sources of lead exposure simultaneously using empirical dust clearance levels. It is also necessary for trials to be carried out in low‐ and middle‐income countries and in differing socioeconomic groups in high‐income countries.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of taxation of unprocessed sugar or sugar-added foods in the general population on the: consumption of unprocessed sugar or sugar-added foods; prevalence and incidence of overweight and obesity; and prevalence and incidence of diet-related health conditions.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:To assess the effects of taxation of sugar‐sweetened beverages (SSBs) on SSB consumption, energy intake, overweight, obesity, and other adverse health outcomes in the general population.

Background Sunlight exposure and high vitamin D status have been hypothesised to reduce the risk of developing dementia. The objective of our research was to determine whether lack of sunlight and hypovitaminosis D over time are associated with dementia. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ICONDA, and reference lists of pertinent review articles from 1990 to October 2015. We conducted random effects meta-analyses of published and unpublished data to evaluate the influence of sunlight exposure or vitamin D as a surrogate marker on dementia risk. Results We could not identify a single study investigating the association between sunlight exposure and dementia risk. Six cohort studies provided data on the effect of serum vitamin D concentration on dementia risk. A meta-analysis of five studies showed a higher risk for persons with serious vitamin D deficiency (