Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31269926›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2019

A physical activity, nutrition and oral health intervention in nursery settings: process evaluation of the NAP SACC UK feasibility cluster RCT.

Rebecca Langford, Russell Jago, James White, Laurence Moore, Angeliki Papadaki, William Hollingworth, Chris Metcalfe, Dianne Ward, Rona Campbell, Sian Wells and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 2 to 4 years old.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors.

Rebecca LangfordDECIPHer, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK. Beki.langford@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7722-0808
Russell JagoCentre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Social Science Complex, 8 Priory Rd, Bristol, BS8 1TZ, UK.
James WhiteCentre for Trials Research, DECIPHer, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, 4th Floor Health Park, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK.
Laurence MooreInstitute of Health & Wellbeing, MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 200 Renfield Street, Glasgow, G2 3AX, UK.
Angeliki PapadakiCentre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Social Science Complex, 8 Priory Rd, Bristol, BS8 1TZ, UK.
William HollingworthBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Rd, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Chris MetcalfeBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Rd, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Dianne WardDepartment of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Centre for Health promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, 1700 M.L.K. Jr Blvd #7426, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USA.
Rona CampbellDECIPHer, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Rd, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Sian WellsDECIPHer, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Rd, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Ruth KippingDECIPHer, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Rd, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU14Department of Health PHR/12/153/39Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/14Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1National Institute for Health Research PHR project: 12/153/39
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe nutrition and physical activity self-assessment for childcare (NAP SACC) intervention has demonstrated effectiveness in the USA. A feasibility randomised controlled trial was conducted in England to adapt the intervention to the UK context. An embedded process evaluation focused on three key questions. 1. Was it feasible and acceptable to implement the intervention as planned? 2. How did the intervention affect staff and parent mediators? 3. Were the trial design and methods acceptable?

methodsTwelve nurseries in south-west England were recruited and randomised to intervention or control. The intervention comprised: NAP SACC UK Partner (Health Visitor) support to nurseries to review practice and policies against best practice, and then set goals to improve physical activity, nutrition and oral health; two staff training workshops; and a web-based parent support element. The process evaluation comprised: observations of Partner training (n = 1), Partner/manager meetings (n = 5) and staff workshops (n = 10); semi-structured interviews with Partners (n = 4), managers (n = 12), staff (n = 4) and parents (n = 20); analysis of self-assessment forms, goal setting forms and Partner logbooks; and assessment of staff and parent knowledge, motivation and self-efficacy mediators.

resultsOverall, NAP SACC UK was feasible to implement and acceptable to nursery staff, managers, Partners and parents. The intervention was implemented as planned in five of the six intervention nurseries. Partners and managers appreciated the opportunity to review and improve nursery practices and valued the relationship forged between them. Staff rated the training workshops highly, despite attending outside of working hours. Most goals set by nurseries were achieved. However, Partners raised concerns about Health Visitors' capacity to deliver the intervention in any subsequent roll out. Mediator scores improved in all but two areas in intervention staff and parents, with decreases or minimal changes in the control group. The web-based parent element was not well used and should be removed from any subsequent trial. The trial methods were acceptable to managers, staff, Partners and parents.

conclusionsImplementing and evaluating a physical activity and nutrition intervention in nursery settings is feasible and acceptable. A full RCT of NAP SACC UK (with appropriate modifications) is warranted.

trial registrationISRCTN16287377 (10 Apr 2015).

Indexed as

Child Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaExerciseOral HealthChild, PreschoolEnglandFeasibility StudiesHealth PromotionHumansNurseries, InfantProgram EvaluationChild careFeasibilityInterventionNutritionObesityOral healthPhysical activityPreschool childrenProcess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID31269926
PMCPMC6609387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.