ABSTRACT
Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) settings are important environments to support children's physical activity (PA). In 2021, COVID-19 regulations recommended the provision of indoor-outdoor free-play programs in ECEC settings to reduce the transmission of COVID-19, resulting in an increased uptake of this practice. As the context has since changed, research suggests that ECEC services could cease the implementation of these practices. Therefore, this pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of a sustainment strategy to ensure the ongoing implementation (sustainment) of ECEC-delivered indoor-outdoor free-play programs. Twenty ECEC services located in New South Wales, Australia that have implemented indoor-outdoor free-play programs since the release of COVID-19 guidelines will be recruited. The services will be randomly allocated either the sustainment strategy or usual care. The "Sustaining Play, Sustaining Health" program consists of eight strategies, developed to address key barriers against and facilitators of sustainment informed by the Integrated Sustainability Framework. The outcomes will be assessed via internal project records, staff surveys, and a self-reported measure of free play. This study will provide important data to support the performance of a fully powered trial within Australian ECEC settings and to inform the development of future sustainment strategies.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Child , Humans , Child, Preschool , Australia , Pilot Projects , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , New South Wales , Health Promotion , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Governments commonly fund research with specific applications in mind. Such mechanisms may facilitate 'research translation' but funders may employ strategies that can also undermine the integrity of both science and government. We estimated the prevalence and investigated correlates of funder efforts to suppress health behaviour intervention trial findings. METHODS: Our sampling frame was lead or corresponding authors of papers (published 2007-2017) included in a Cochrane review, reporting findings from trials of interventions to improve nutrition, physical activity, sexual health, smoking, and substance use. Suppression events were based on a previous survey of public health academics. Participants answered questions concerning seven suppression events in their efforts to report the trial, e.g., [I was ] "asked to suppress certain findings as they were viewed as being unfavourable." We also examined the association between information on study funder, geographical location, targeted health behaviour, country democracy rating and age of publication with reported suppression. FINDINGS: We received responses from 104 authors (50%) of 208 eligible trials, from North America (34%), Europe (33%), Oceania (17%), and other countries (16%). Eighteen percent reported at least one of the seven suppression events relating to the trial in question. The most commonly reported suppression event was funder(s) expressing reluctance to publish because they considered the results 'unfavourable' (9% reported). We found no strong associations with the subject of research, funding source, democracy, region, or year of publication. CONCLUSIONS: One in five researchers in this global sample reported being pressured to delay, alter, or not publish the findings of health behaviour intervention trials. Regulation of funder and university practices, establishing study registries, and compulsory disclosure of funding conditions in scientific journals, are needed to protect the integrity of public-good research.