Citizen Science to improve healthy and active living among adolescents in four European countries: a protocol of the cluster randomised controlled trial of the Science Engagement to Empower aDolescentS (SEEDS) project.

INTRODUCTION: Improving healthy lifestyles of adolescents is challenging. Citizen Science is a way to engage them in the design and delivery of interventions, and may also increase their interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). The Science Engagement to Empower aDolescentS (SEEDS) project aims to use an equity-lens, and engage and empower boys and girls from deprived areas by designing and cocreating interventions to promote healthy lifestyles, and to seed interest in STEM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SEEDS is a cluster randomised controlled trial in four countries (Greece, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK). Each country will recruit six to eight high schools from lower socioeconomic neighbourhoods. Adolescents aged 13-15 years are the target population. High schools will be randomised into intervention or control group. Each country will select 15 adolescents from intervention schools called ambassadors, who will be involved throughout the project.In each country, focus groups with ambassadors and stakeholders will focus on physical activity, snacking behaviour and STEM. The input from focus groups will be used to shape Makeathon events, cocreation events where adolescents and stakeholders will develop the interventions. The resultant intervention will be implemented in the intervention schools during 6 months. In total, we aim to recruit 720 adolescents who will complete questionnaires related to healthy lifestyles and STEM outcomes at baseline (November 2021) and after the 6 months (June 2022). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The four countries obtained approval from their corresponding Ethics Committees (Greece: Bioethics Committee of Harokopio University; the Netherlands: The Medical Research Ethics Committee of the Erasmus Medical Center; Spain: The Drug Research Ethics Committee of the Pere Virgili Health Research Institute; UK: Sport and Health Sciences Ethics Committee of the University of Exeter). Informed consent will be collected from adolescents and their parents in line with General Data Protection Regulation legislation. The findings will be disseminated by conference presentations, publications in scientific peer-reviewed journals and during (local) stakeholders and public events. Lessons learnt and the main results will also be used to provide policy recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05002049.

Assessing public support for extending smoke-free policies beyond enclosed public places and workplaces: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Smoke-free enclosed public environments are effective in reducing exposure to secondhand smoke and yield major public health benefits. Building on this, many countries are now implementing smoke-free policies regulating smoking beyond enclosed public places and workplaces. In order to successfully implement such 'novel smoke-free policies', public support is essential. We aim to provide the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis assessing levels and determinants of public support for novel smoke-free policies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The primary objective of this review is to summarise the level of public support for novel smoke-free policies. Eight online databases (Embase.com, Medline ALL Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, WHO Library Database, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scientific Online Library Online, PsychINFO and Google Scholar) will be searched from 1 January 2004 by two independent researchers with no language restrictions. The initial search was performed on 15 April 2020 and will be updated prior to finalisation of the report. Studies are eligible if assessing support for novel smoke-free policies in the general population (age ≥16 years) and have a sample size of n≥400. Studies funded by the tobacco industry or evaluating support among groups with vested interest are excluded. The primary outcome is proportion of public support for smoke-free policies, subdivided according to the spaces covered: (1) indoor private spaces (eg, cars) (2) indoor semiprivate spaces (eg, multi-unit housing) (3) outdoor (semi)private spaces (eg, courtyards) (4) non-hospitality outdoor public spaces (eg, parks, hospital grounds, playgrounds) and (5) hospitality outdoor public spaces (eg, restaurant terraces). The secondary objective is to identify determinants associated with public support on three levels: (1) within-study determinants (eg, smoking status) (2) between-study determinants (eg, survey year) and (3) context-specific determinants (eg, social norms). Risk of bias will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and a sensitivity analysis will be performed excluding studies at high risk of bias. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No formal ethical approval is required. Findings will be disseminated to academics, policymakers and the general public.

Impact of expanding smoke-free policies beyond enclosed public places and workplaces on children's tobacco smoke exposure and respiratory health: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco smoke exposure (TSE) has considerable adverse respiratory health impact among children. Smoke-free policies covering enclosed public places are known to reduce child TSE and benefit child health. An increasing number of jurisdictions are now expanding smoke-free policies to also cover outdoor areas and/or (semi)private spaces (indoor and/or outdoor). We aim to systematically review the evidence on the impact of these 'novel smoke-free policies' on children's TSE and respiratory health. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 13 electronic databases will be searched by two independent reviewers for eligible studies. We will consult experts from the field and hand-search references and citations to identify additional published and unpublished studies. Study designs recommended by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group are eligible, without restrictions on the observational period, publication date or language. Our primary outcomes are: self-reported or parental-reported TSE in places covered by the policy; unplanned hospital attendance for wheezing/asthma and unplanned hospital attendance for respiratory infections. We will assess risk of bias of individual studies following the EPOC or Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool, as appropriate. We will conduct separate random effects meta-analyses for smoke-free policies covering (1) indoor private places, (2) indoor semiprivate places, (3) outdoor (semi)private places and (4) outdoor public places. We will assess whether the policies were associated with changes in TSE in other locations (eg, displacement). Subgroup analyses will be conducted based on country income classification (ie, high, middle or low income) and by socioeconomic status. Sensitivity analyses will be undertaken via broadening our study design eligibility criteria (ie, including non-EPOC designs) or via excluding studies with a high risk of bias. This review will inform policymakers regarding the implementation of extended smoke-free policies to safeguard children's health. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated to academics and the general public. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020190563.

Coffee consumption after myocardial infarction and risk of cardiovascular mortality: a prospective analysis in the Alpha Omega Cohort.

Background: Consumption of coffee, one of the most popular beverages around the world, has been associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in population-based studies. However, little is known about these associations in patient populations.Objective: This prospective study aimed to examine the consumption of caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee in relation to cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, ischemic heart disease (IHD) mortality, and all-cause mortality in patients with a prior myocardial infarction (MI).Design: We included 4365 Dutch patients from the Alpha Omega Cohort who were aged 60-80 y (21% female) and had experienced an MI <10 y before study enrollment. At baseline (2002-2006), dietary data including coffee consumption over the past month was collected with a 203-item validated food-frequency questionnaire. Causes of death were monitored until 1 January 2013. HRs for mortality in categories of coffee consumption were obtained from multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for lifestyle and dietary factors.Results: Most patients (96%) drank coffee, and the median total coffee intake was 375 mL/d (∼3 cups/d). During a median follow-up of 7.1 y, a total of 945 deaths occurred, including 396 CVD-related and 266 IHD-related deaths. Coffee consumption was inversely associated with CVD mortality, with HRs of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.54, 0.89) for >2-4 cups/d and 0.72 (0.55, 0.95) for >4 cups/d, compared with 0-2 cups/d. Corresponding HRs were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.57, 1.05) and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.95) for IHD mortality and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.71, 1.00) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.98) for all-cause mortality, respectively. Similar associations were found for decaffeinated coffee and for coffee with additives.Conclusion: Drinking coffee, either caffeinated or decaffeinated, may lower the risk of CVD and IHD mortality in patients with a prior MI. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03192410.