1.
Study protocol of the Health4Life initiative: a cluster randomised controlled trial of an eHealth school-based program targeting multiple lifestyle risk behaviours among young Australians.
Teesson, M, Champion, KE, Newton, NC, Kay-Lambkin, F, Chapman, C, Thornton, L, Slade, T, Sunderland, M, Mills, K, Gardner, LA, et al
BMJ open. 2020;(7):e035662
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Lifestyle risk behaviours, including alcohol use, smoking, poor diet, physical inactivity, poor sleep (duration and/or quality) and sedentary recreational screen time ('the Big 6'), are strong determinants of chronic disease. These behaviours often emerge during adolescence and co-occur. School-based interventions have the potential to address risk factors prior to the onset of disease, yet few eHealth school-based interventions target multiple behaviours concurrently. This paper describes the protocol of the Health4Life Initiative, an eHealth school-based intervention that concurrently addresses the Big 6 risk behaviours among secondary school students. METHODS AND ANALYSIS A multisite cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted among year 7 students (11-13 years old) from 72 Australian schools. Stratified block randomisation will be used to assign schools to either the Health4Life intervention or an active control (health education as usual). Health4Life consists of (1) six web-based cartoon modules and accompanying activities delivered during health education (once per week for 6 weeks), and a smartphone application (universal prevention), and (2) additional app content, for students engaging in two or more risk behaviours when they are in years 8 and 9 (selective prevention). Students will complete online self-report questionnaires at baseline, post intervention, and 12, 24 and 36 months after baseline. Primary outcomes are consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, sleep duration, sedentary recreational screen time and uptake of alcohol and tobacco use. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This study has been approved by the University of Sydney (2018/882), NSW Department of Education (SERAP no. 2019006), University of Queensland (2019000037), Curtin University (HRE2019-0083) and relevant Catholic school committees. Results will be presented to schools and findings disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. This will be the first evaluation of an eHealth intervention, spanning both universal and selective prevention, to simultaneously target six key lifestyle risk factors among adolescents. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000431123), 18 March 2019.
2.
Impact of baseline vitamin B12 status on the effect of vitamin B12 supplementation on neurologic function in older people: secondary analysis of data from the OPEN randomised controlled trial.
Miles, LM, Allen, E, Clarke, R, Mills, K, Uauy, R, Dangour, AD
European journal of clinical nutrition. 2017;(10):1166-1172
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES The available evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests that vitamin B12 supplementation does not improve neurologic function in older people with marginal but not deficient Vitamin B12 status. This secondary analysis used data from the Older People and Enhanced Neurological function (OPEN) randomised controlled trial to assess whether baseline vitamin B12 status or change in vitamin B12 status over 12 months altered the effectiveness of dietary vitamin B12 supplementation on neurologic function in asymptomatic older people with depleted vitamin B12 status at study entry. SUBJECTS/METHODS Vitamin B12 status was measured as serum concentrations of vitamin B12, holotranscobalamin, homocysteine and via a composite indicator (cB12). Neurological function outcomes included eleven electrophysiological measures of sensory and motor components of peripheral and central nerve function. Linear regression analyses were restricted to participants randomised into the intervention arm of the OPEN trial (n=91). RESULTS Analyses revealed an inconsistent pattern of moderate associations between some measures of baseline vitamin B12 status and some neurological responses to supplementation. The directions of effect varied and heterogeneity in effect across outcomes could not be explained according to type of neurological outcome. There was no evidence of differences in the neurological response to vitamin B12 supplementation according to change from baseline over 12 months in any indicator of B12 status. CONCLUSIONS This secondary analysis of high-quality data from the OPEN trial provides no evidence that baseline (or change from baseline) vitamin B12 status modifies the effect of vitamin B12 supplementation on peripheral or central nerve conduction among older people with marginal vitamin B12 status. There is currently insufficient evidence of efficacy for neurological function to support population-wide recommendations for vitamin B12 supplementation in healthy asymptomatic older people with marginal vitamin B12 status.