Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26109111›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2015

CAFÉ: a multicomponent audit and feedback intervention to improve implementation of healthy food policy in primary school canteens: protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

Christopher M Williams, Nicole Nathan, Tessa Delaney, Sze Lin Yoong, John Wiggers, Sarah Preece, Nicole Lubans, Rachel Sutherland, Jessica Pinfold, Kay Smith and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher M WilliamsHunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Nicole NathanHunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia Hunter New England Area Health Service, Hunter New England Population Health, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Tessa DelaneyHunter New England Area Health Service, Hunter New England Population Health, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Sze Lin YoongHunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia Hunter New England Area Health Service, Hunter New England Population Health, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
John WiggersHunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia Hunter New England Area Health Service, Hunter New England Population Health, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Sarah PreeceHunter New England Area Health Service, Hunter New England Population Health, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Nicole LubansHunter New England Area Health Service, Hunter New England Population Health, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Rachel SutherlandHunter New England Area Health Service, Hunter New England Population Health, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Jessica PinfoldHunter New England Area Health Service, Hunter New England Population Health, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Kay SmithHunter New England Area Health Service, Hunter New England Population Health, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Tameka SmallHunter New England Area Health Service, Hunter New England Population Health, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Kathryn L ReillyHunter New England Area Health Service, Hunter New England Population Health, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Peter ButlerHunter New England Area Health Service, Hunter New England Population Health, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Rebecca J WyseHunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Luke WolfendenHunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6178-3868
Hunter New England Local Health District · AUHunter Medical Research Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA number of jurisdictions internationally have policies requiring schools to implement healthy canteens. However, many schools have not implemented such policies. One reason for this is that current support interventions cannot feasibly be delivered to large numbers of schools. A promising solution to support population-wide implementation of healthy canteen practices is audit and feedback. The effectiveness of this strategy has, however, not previously been assessed in school canteens. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an audit and feedback intervention, delivered by telephone and email, in increasing the number of school canteens that have menus complying with a government healthy-canteen policy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Seventy-two schools, across the Hunter New England Local Health District in New South Wales Australia, will be randomised to receive the multicomponent audit and feedback implementation intervention or usual support. The intervention will consist of between two and four canteen menu audits over 12 months. Each menu audit will be followed by two modes of feedback: a written feedback report and a verbal feedback/support via telephone. Primary outcomes, assessed by dieticians blind to group status and as recommended by the Fresh Tastes @ School policy, are: (1) the proportion of schools with a canteen menu containing foods or beverages restricted for sale, and; (2) the proportion of schools that have a menu which contains more than 50% of foods classified as healthy canteen items. Secondary outcomes are: the proportion of menu items in each category ('red', 'amber' and 'green'), canteen profitability and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained by from the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee and the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee. The findings will be disseminated in usual forums, including peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613000543785.

Indexed as

Health PolicyChildChild, PreschoolDietFood ServicesHealth Plan ImplementationHealth PromotionHumansManagement AuditNew South WalesResearch DesignSchoolsPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID26109111
PMCPMC4480036
OpenAlexW2937012619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.