Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34311695›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2021

Characteristics and practices of school-based cluster randomised controlled trials for improving health outcomes in pupils in the United Kingdom: a methodological systematic review.

Kitty Parker, Michael Nunns, ZhiMin Xiao, Tamsin Ford, Obioha C Ukoumunne

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Response to Commentary: Effect evaluation ofFrontiers in nutrition · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kitty ParkerNIHR Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula (PenARC), University of Exeter, Room 2.16, South Cloisters, St Luke's Campus, 79 Heavitree Rd, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK. kp477@exeter.ac.uk.
Michael NunnsCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
ZhiMin XiaoSchool of Health and Social Care, University of Essex, Colchester, CO4 3SQ, UK.
Tamsin FordDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, L5 Clifford Allbutt Building, Cambridge Biomedical Campus Box 58, Cambridge, CB2 0AH, UK.
Obioha C UkoumunneNIHR Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula (PenARC), University of Exeter, Room 2.16, South Cloisters, St Luke's Campus, 79 Heavitree Rd, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
University of Exeter · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Essex · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCluster randomised trials (CRTs) are increasingly used to evaluate non-pharmacological interventions for improving child health. Although methodological challenges of CRTs are well documented, the characteristics of school-based CRTs with pupil health outcomes have not been systematically described. Our objective was to describe methodological characteristics of these studies in the United Kingdom (UK).

methodsMEDLINE was systematically searched from inception to 30

resultsOf 3138 articles identified, 64 were included. CRTs with pupil health outcomes have been increasingly used in the UK school setting since the earliest included paper was published in 1993; 37 (58%) studies were published after 2010. Of the 44 studies that reported information, 93% included state-funded schools. Thirty six (56%) were exclusively in primary schools and 24 (38%) exclusively in secondary schools. Schools were randomised in 56 studies, classrooms in 6 studies, and year groups in 2 studies. Eighty percent of studies used restricted randomisation to balance cluster-level characteristics between trial arms, but few provided justification for their choice of balancing factors. Interventions covered 11 different health areas; 53 (83%) included components that were necessarily administered to entire clusters. The median (interquartile range) number of clusters and pupils recruited was 31.5 (21 to 50) and 1308 (604 to 3201), respectively. In half the studies, at least one cluster dropped out. Only 26 (41%) studies reported the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of the primary outcome from the analysis; this was often markedly different to the assumed ICC in the sample size calculation. The median (range) ICC for school clusters was 0.028 (0.0005 to 0.21).

conclusionsThe increasing pool of school-based CRTs examining pupil health outcomes provides methodological knowledge and highlights design challenges. Data from these studies should be used to identify the best school-level characteristics for balancing the randomisation. Better information on the ICC of pupil health outcomes is required to aid the planning of future CRTs. Improved reporting of the recruitment process will help to identify barriers to obtaining representative samples of schools.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareSchoolsChildHumansMEDLINERandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited KingdomChild and adolescent healthCluster randomised trialsPublic healthRandomised trialsResearch methodsSchoolsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34311695
PMCPMC8311976
OpenAlexW3183684471

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.