Search

In recent decades, 'whole school' approaches to improving health have gained traction, based on settings-based health promotion understandings which view a setting, its actors and processes as an integrated 'whole' system with multiple intervention opportunities. Much less is known about 'whole institution' approaches to improving health in tertiary education settings. We conducted a scoping review to describe both empirical and non-empirical (e.g. websites) publications relating to 'whole settings', 'complex systems' and 'participatory'/'action' approaches to improving the health of students and staff within tertiary education settings. English-language publications were identified by searching five academic and four grey literature databases and via the reference lists of studies read for eligibility. We identified 101 publications with marked UK over-representation. Since the 1970s, publications have increased, spanning a gradual shift in focus from 'aspirational' to 'conceptual' to 'evaluative'. Terminology is geographically siloed (e.g., 'healthy university' (UK), 'healthy campus' (USA)). Publications tend to focus on 'health' generally rather than specific health dimensions (e.g. diet). Policies, arguably crucial for cascading systemic change, were not the most frequently implemented intervention elements. We conclude that, despite the field's evolution, key questions (e.g., insights into who needs to do what, with whom, where and when; or efficacy) remain unanswered.

In fields (such as population health) where randomised trials are often lacking, systematic reviews (SRs) can harness diversity in study design, settings and populations to assess the evidence for a putative causal relationship. SRs may incorporate causal assessment approaches (CAAs), sometimes called 'causal reviews', but there is currently no consensus on how these should be conducted. We conducted a methodological review of self-identifying 'causal reviews' within the field of population health to establish: (1) which CAAs are used; (2) differences in how CAAs are implemented; (3) how methods were modified to incorporate causal assessment in SRs. Three databases were searched and two independent reviewers selected reviews for inclusion. Data were extracted using a standardised form and summarised using tabulation and narratively. Fifty-three reviews incorporated CAAs: 46/53 applied Bradford Hill (BH) viewpoints/criteria, with the remainder taking alternative approaches: Medical Research Council guidance on natural experiments (2/53, 3.8%); realist reviews (2/53, 3.8%); horizontal SRs (1/53, 1.9%); 'sign test' of causal mechanisms (1/53, 1.9%); and a causal cascade model (1/53, 1.9%). Though most SRs incorporated BH, there was variation in application and transparency. There was considerable overlap across the CAAs, with a trade-off between breadth (BH viewpoints considered a greater range of causal characteristics) and depth (many alternative CAAs focused on one viewpoint). Improved transparency in the implementation of CAA in SRs in needed to ensure their validity and allow robust assessments of causality within evidence synthesis.

Effect direction (evidence to indicate improvement, deterioration, or no change in an outcome) can be used as a standardized metric which enables the synthesis of diverse effect measures in systematic reviews. The effect direction (ED) plot was developed to support the synthesis and visualization of effect direction data. Methods for the ED plot require updating in light of new Cochrane guidance on alternative synthesis methods. To update the ED plot, statistical significance was removed from the algorithm for within-study synthesis and use of a sign test was considered to examine whether patterns of ED across studies could be due to chance alone. The revised methods were applied to an existing Cochrane review of the health impacts of housing improvements. The revised ED plot provides a method of data visualization in synthesis without meta-analysis that incorporates information about study characteristics and study quality, using ED as a common metric, without relying on statistical significance to combine outcomes of single studies. The results of sign tests, when appropriate, suggest caution in over-interpreting apparent patterns in effect direction, especially when the number of included studies is small. The revised ED plot meets the need for alternative methods of synthesis and data visualization when meta-analysis is not possible, enabling a transparent link between the data and conclusions of a systematic review. ED plots may be particularly useful in reviews that incorporate nonrandomized studies, complex systems approaches, and diverse sources of evidence, due to the variety of study designs and outcomes in such reviews.

Background Methods Results Conclusions Bradford Hill (BH) viewpoints are widely used to assess causality in systematic reviews, but their application has often lacked reproducibility. We describe an approach for assessing causality within systematic reviews (‘causal’ reviews), illustrating its application to the topic of income inequality and health. Our approach draws on principles of process tracing, a method used for case study research, to harness BH viewpoints to judge evidence for causal claims.In process tracing, a hypothesis may be confirmed by observing highly unique evidence and disconfirmed by observing highly definitive evidence. We drew on these principles to consider the value of finding supportive or contradictory evidence for each BH viewpoint characterised by its uniqueness and definitiveness.In our exemplar systematic review, we hypothesised that income inequality adversely affects self‐rated health and all‐cause mortality. BH viewpoints ‘analogy’ and ‘coherence’ were excluded from the causal assessment because of their low uniqueness and low definitiveness. The ‘experiment’ viewpoint was considered highly unique and highly definitive, and thus could be particularly valuable. We propose five steps for using BH viewpoints in a ‘causal’ review: (1) define the hypothesis; (2) characterise each viewpoint; (3) specify the evidence expected for each BH viewpoint for a true or untrue hypothesis; (4) gather evidence for each viewpoint (e.g., systematic review meta‐analyses, critical appraisal, background knowledge); (5) consider if each viewpoint was met (supportive evidence) or unmet (contradictory evidence).Incorporating process tracing has the potential to provide transparency and structure when using BH viewpoints in ‘causal’ reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose was to synthesize evidence on the association between nature-based Early Childhood Education (ECE) and children's physical activity (PA) and motor competence (MC). Methods: A literature search of 9 databases was concluded in August 2020. Studies were eligible if (1) children were aged 2–7 years old and attending ECE, (2) ECE settings integrated nature, and (3) assessed physical outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened full-text articles and assessed study quality. Synthesis was conducted using effect direction (quantitative), thematic analysis (qualitative), and combined using a results-based convergent synthesis. Results: 1370 full-text articles were screened and 39 (31 quantitative and 8 qualitative) studies were eligible; 20 quantitative studies assessed PA and 6 assessed MC. Findings indicated inconsistent associations between nature-based ECE and increased moderate to vigorous PA, and improved speed/agility and object control skills. There were positive associations between nature-based ECE and reduced sedentary time and improved balance. From the qualitative analysis, nature-based ECE affords higher intensity PA and risky play, which could improve some MC domains. The quality of 28/31 studies was weak. Conclusions: More controlled experimental designs that describe the dose and quality of nature are needed to better inform the effectiveness of nature-based ECE on PA and MC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, 'whole school' approaches to improving health have gained traction, based on settings-based health promotion understandings which view a setting, its actors and processes as an integrated 'whole' system with multiple intervention opportunities. Much less is known about 'whole institution' approaches to improving health in tertiary education settings. We conducted a scoping review to describe both empirical and non-empirical (e.g. websites) publications relating to 'whole settings', 'complex systems' and 'participatory'/'action' approaches to improving the health of students and staff within tertiary education settings. English-language publications were identified by searching five academic and four grey literature databases and via the reference lists of studies read for eligibility. We identified 101 publications with marked UK over-representation. Since the 1970s, publications have increased, spanning a gradual shift in focus from 'aspirational' to 'conceptual' to 'evaluative'. Terminology is geographically siloed (e.g., 'healthy university' (UK), 'healthy campus' (USA)). Publications tend to focus on 'health' generally rather than specific health dimensions (e.g. diet). Policies, arguably crucial for cascading systemic change, were not the most frequently implemented intervention elements. We conclude that, despite the field's evolution, key questions (e.g., insights into who needs to do what, with whom, where and when; or efficacy) remain unanswered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Visual display of reported impacts is a valuable aid to both reviewers and readers of systematic reviews. Forest plots are routinely prepared to report standardised effect sizes, but where standardised effect sizes are not available for all included studies a forest plot may misrepresent the available evidence. Tabulated data summaries to accompany the narrative synthesis can be lengthy and inaccessible. Moreover, the link between the data and the synthesis conclusions may be opaque. This paper details the preparation of visual summaries of effect direction for multiple outcomes across 29 quantitative studies of the health impacts of housing improvement. A one page summary of reported health outcomes was prepared to accompany a 10,000-word narrative synthesis. The one page summary included details of study design, internal validity, sample size, time of follow-up, as well as changes in intermediate outcomes, for example, housing condition. This approach to visually summarising complex data can aid the reviewer in cross-study analysis and improve accessibility and transparency of the narrative synthesis where standardised effect sizes are not available.

The 'inclusion health' agenda aims to draw attention to health disadvantages accompanying experiences putatively characterised by social exclusion, such as homelessness, problem substance use, or imprisonment. However, its increasing prominence has surfaced conceptual uncertainties and potential tensions with other understandings of health inequalities. We undertook a discourse analysis of how recent health inequalities policy documents describe, explain, and make recommendations relating to inclusion health. Using the UK as a case study, and with reference to public health accounts of multi-level governance theory, we selected five recent health inequalities policy reviews covering Scotland, UK, European Union, and the World Health Organisation. All documents referred to some inclusion health concerns, though their relative emphasis differed between documents. Terms like inclusion, exclusion, and vulnerability were commonly used, but ill-defined and often ambiguous. Explanatory discourses were diverse, with a particular focus on intergenerational cycles and disproportionate exposure to risk, with a varying emphasis on individual versus structural factors. Few documents provided coherent explanatory accounts for the relationship between the issues of interest to inclusion health, their associations with poor health, and other axes of inequality. Our results suggest that health inequalities policymaking in a multi-level context may benefit from comprehensive conceptual frameworks which encompass diverse forms of social stratification, advantage, and disadvantage, and acknowledge potential tensions and trade-offs between different understandings. This may necessitate further theoretical and empirical work for inclusion health on its definitions, bounds, and how its scope of interest interacts with other forms of social and health inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]