Search

Abstract Background Literature 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. Methods A 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). Results Awareness 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. Conclusions Awareness 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. Highlights • Approximately half of known lifestyle-related risk factors were not recognised by the general public in England. • Belief in mythical risk factors was common, particularly stress, food additives and electromagnetic frequencies. • Knowledge of actual but not mythical cancers causes was associated with health-protective behaviours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bullying, 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.Methods: We 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).Findings: We 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.Interpretation: Learning 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.Funding: National Institute for Health Research, Educational Endowment Foundation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We have previously reported benefits for reduced bullying, smoking, alcohol and other drug use and mental health from a trial of 'Learning Together', an intervention that aimed to modify school environments and implement restorative practice and a social and emotional skill curriculum., Objectives: To conduct post hoc theory-driven analyses of broader impacts., Design: Cluster randomised trial., Settings: 40 state secondary schools in southern England., Participants: Students aged 11/12 years at baseline., Outcomes: Student self-reported measures at 24 and 36 months of: cyberbullying victimisation and perpetration; observations of other students perpetrating aggressive behaviours at school; own perpetration of aggressive behaviours in and outside school; perceived lack of safety at school; participation in school disciplinary procedures; truancy and e-cigarette use., Results: We found evidence of multiple impacts on other health (reduced e-cigarette use, cyberbullying perpetration, perpetration of aggressive behaviours) and educational (reduced participation in school disciplinary procedures and truancy) outcomes., Conclusion: These analyses suggested that the intervention was effective in bringing about a broader range of beneficial outcomes, adding to the evidence that the intervention is a promising approach to promote adolescent health via an intervention that is attractive to schools., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN10751359., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Interventions to modify school environments are effective in promoting young people's health across outcomes, but mechanisms are poorly understood. We assessed mediation in a trial of the Learning Together intervention, building on the recent publication of results of effectiveness for reducing bullying and benefits across secondary outcomes and generally good implementation fidelity., Methods: Within a cluster-randomised trial involving 40 English schools, we examined student-reported and staff-reported school climate and student-reported involvement with delinquent peers at 24-month and 36-month follow-up, assessing the reliability of measures and whether these mediated health outcomes at a final follow-up., Results: Response rates and reliability were good for student-reported but not staff-reported measures. The intervention increased student-reported but not staff-reported-positive school climate but, like effects on student health outcomes, these manifested only at a final follow-up. The intervention reduced student-reported contact with delinquent peers at an interim follow-up. Student-reported potential mediators measured at the interim follow-up were associated with most health outcomes at the final follow-up. Adjustment for student-reported school climate and contact with delinquent peers at the interim follow-up did not reduce the associations between trial arm and our health outcomes., Conclusion: Despite being constrained by imperfect measures and by the late manifestation of impacts on student-reported school climate undermining ability to assess mediation, our study for the first time provides tentative evidence that mediation of intervention effects via improved climate and disengagement from delinquent peers is plausible. Our study provides the first evidence from a trial that whole-school interventions may work by modifying school environments and student relationships., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN10751359., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RV is President of the Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Health., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Pharmacotherapy provision based on Nicotine Metabolite Ratio (NMR) status (slow/normal metabolism) may improve smoking cessation rates. However, it is unclear whether NMR status is consistent across patient characteristics and current treatment choice. Data come from 1,826 participants attending Stop Smoking Services (SSS) across England in 2012/13. Sociodemographic, mental/physical health, smoking and treatment characteristics (nicotine replacement therapy vs. other pharmacotherapy; group vs. one-to-one behavioural support) were assessed. Salivary nicotine metabolites were measured and NMR (3-hydroxycotinine/cotinine) computed, characterising smokers as slow (NMR < 0.31) or normal (NMR ≥ 0.31) metabolisers. Normal metabolisers were older than slow metabolisers (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.49, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.32-1.69) but no other characteristics were associated with NMR status. Overall, predictors accounted for only 7.3% of NMR variance. In adjusted analysis, pharmacotherapy type was not associated with NMR status, but normal metabolisers were less likely to use group support (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.51-0.89). NMR status does not vary substantially across sociodemographic characteristics. Given its impact on pharmacotherapy efficacy, the lack of an association with pharmacotherapy choice suggests there is scope to use NMR status to optimise the selection and efficacy of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy. The unexpected association of NMR status with behavioural support should be explored further.