1
|
Spiga F, Davies AL, Tomlinson E, Moore TH, Dawson S, Breheny K, Savović J, Gao Y, Phillips SM, Hillier-Brown F, Hodder RK, Wolfenden L, Higgins JP, Summerbell CD. Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 5 to 11 years old. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 5:CD015328. [PMID: 38763517 PMCID: PMC11102828 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd015328.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/21/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prevention of obesity in children is an international public health priority given the prevalence of the condition (and its significant impact on health, development and well-being). Interventions that aim to prevent obesity involve behavioural change strategies that promote healthy eating or 'activity' levels (physical activity, sedentary behaviour and/or sleep) or both, and work by reducing energy intake and/or increasing energy expenditure, respectively. There is uncertainty over which approaches are more effective and numerous new studies have been published over the last five years, since the previous version of this Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of interventions that aim to prevent obesity in children by modifying dietary intake or 'activity' levels, or a combination of both, on changes in BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events. SEARCH METHODS We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials in children (mean age 5 years and above but less than 12 years), comparing diet or 'activity' interventions (or both) to prevent obesity with no intervention, usual care, or with another eligible intervention, in any setting. Studies had to measure outcomes at a minimum of 12 weeks post baseline. We excluded interventions designed primarily to improve sporting performance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methods. Our outcomes were body mass index (BMI), zBMI score and serious adverse events, assessed at short- (12 weeks to < 9 months from baseline), medium- (9 months to < 15 months) and long-term (≥ 15 months) follow-up. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS This review includes 172 studies (189,707 participants); 149 studies (160,267 participants) were included in meta-analyses. One hundred forty-six studies were based in high-income countries. The main setting for intervention delivery was schools (111 studies), followed by the community (15 studies), the home (eight studies) and a clinical setting (seven studies); one intervention was conducted by telehealth and 31 studies were conducted in more than one setting. Eighty-six interventions were implemented for less than nine months; the shortest was conducted over one visit and the longest over four years. Non-industry funding was declared by 132 studies; 24 studies were funded in part or wholly by industry. Dietary interventions versus control Dietary interventions, compared with control, may have little to no effect on BMI at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.10; 5 studies, 2107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at medium-term follow-up (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12; 9 studies, 6815 participants; low-certainty evidence) or zBMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.01; 7 studies, 5285 participants; low-certainty evidence). Dietary interventions, compared with control, probably have little to no effect on BMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.13; 2 studies, 945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and zBMI at short- or medium-term follow-up (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.01; 8 studies, 3695 participants; MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.02; 9 studies, 7048 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Five studies (1913 participants; very low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: one reported serious adverse events (e.g. allergy, behavioural problems and abdominal discomfort) that may have occurred as a result of the intervention; four reported no effect. Activity interventions versus control Activity interventions, compared with control, may have little to no effect on BMI and zBMI at short-term or long-term follow-up (BMI short-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.13; 14 studies, 4069 participants; zBMI short-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; 6 studies, 3580 participants; low-certainty evidence; BMI long-term: MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.10; 8 studies, 8302 participants; zBMI long-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04; 6 studies, 6940 participants; low-certainty evidence). Activity interventions likely result in a slight reduction of BMI and zBMI at medium-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05; 16 studies, 21,286 participants; zBMI: MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.02; 13 studies, 20,600 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Eleven studies (21,278 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events; one study reported two minor ankle sprains and one study reported the incident rate of adverse events (e.g. musculoskeletal injuries) that may have occurred as a result of the intervention; nine studies reported no effect. Dietary and activity interventions versus control Dietary and activity interventions, compared with control, may result in a slight reduction in BMI and zBMI at short-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.01; 27 studies, 16,066 participants; zBMI: MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.00; 26 studies, 12,784 participants; low-certainty evidence) and likely result in a reduction of BMI and zBMI at medium-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.00; 21 studies, 17,547 participants; zBMI: MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; 24 studies, 20,998 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dietary and activity interventions compared with control may result in little to no difference in BMI and zBMI at long-term follow-up (BMI: MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16; 16 studies, 22,098 participants; zBMI: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.01; 22 studies, 23,594 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nineteen studies (27,882 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: four studies reported occurrence of serious adverse events (e.g. injuries, low levels of extreme dieting behaviour); 15 studies reported no effect. Heterogeneity was apparent in the results for all outcomes at the three follow-up times, which could not be explained by the main setting of the interventions (school, home, school and home, other), country income status (high-income versus non-high-income), participants' socioeconomic status (low versus mixed) and duration of the intervention. Most studies excluded children with a mental or physical disability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The body of evidence in this review demonstrates that a range of school-based 'activity' interventions, alone or in combination with dietary interventions, may have a modest beneficial effect on obesity in childhood at short- and medium-term, but not at long-term follow-up. Dietary interventions alone may result in little to no difference. Limited evidence of low quality was identified on the effect of dietary and/or activity interventions on severe adverse events and health inequalities; exploratory analyses of these data suggest no meaningful impact. We identified a dearth of evidence for home and community-based settings (e.g. delivered through local youth groups), for children living with disabilities and indicators of health inequities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesca Spiga
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Annabel L Davies
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Eve Tomlinson
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Theresa Hm Moore
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West (ARC West) at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Sarah Dawson
- NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West (ARC West) at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Katie Breheny
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Jelena Savović
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West (ARC West) at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Yang Gao
- Department of Sport, Physical Education and Health, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon, Hong Kong
| | - Sophie M Phillips
- Department of Sport and Exercise Science, Durham University, Durham, UK
- Fuse - Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Child Health and Physical Activity Laboratory, School of Occupational Therapy, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Frances Hillier-Brown
- Fuse - Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Human Nutrition Research Centre and Population Health Sciences Institute, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, UK
| | - Rebecca K Hodder
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
- Population Health Research Program, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, Australia
- National Centre of Implementation Science, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
| | - Luke Wolfenden
- Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, Australia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
| | - Julian Pt Higgins
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West (ARC West) at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
- NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Carolyn D Summerbell
- Department of Sport and Exercise Science, Durham University, Durham, UK
- Fuse - Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Felmingham T, Bolton KA, Fraser P, Allender S, Brown AD. Measuring Shifts in Mental Models in the Prevention of Childhood Obesity in Rural Australia. HEALTH EDUCATION & BEHAVIOR 2023; 50:662-670. [PMID: 37128853 PMCID: PMC10492428 DOI: 10.1177/10901981231165339] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
Group model building is a participatory workshop technique used in system dynamics for developing community consensus to address complex problems by consensus building on individual assumptions. This study examines changes in individual mental models of the complex problem of childhood obesity following participation in group model building (GMB), as part of a larger community-based system dynamics project. Data are drawn from GMB participants across six community sites in the Whole of Systems Trial of Prevention Strategies for Childhood Obesity (WHO STOPS) in rural and regional Victoria, Australia. Each community participated in two GMB sessions resulting in a causal loop diagram (CLD) of drivers of childhood obesity for each community. Presurvey and postsurvey captured participants' perspectives before and after (n = 25) participation in both GMB sessions and a blend of inductive and deductive qualitative content analysis was used to code individual responses. Three calculations were used to determine the number of responses, whether responses were a result of persuasion from others, and comparison of responses to those found in the CLD. Our study found participant mental models shifted during the course of the GMB sessions, with some responses persuaded by others and 75% of new insights identified in CLDs created by communities. The GMB process created a platform for participants to share ideas and learn from each other. In addition, participants listed new insights about childhood obesity in their community through developing CLDs.
Collapse
|
3
|
Bader B, Coenen M, Hummel J, Schoenweger P, Voss S, Jung-Sievers C. Evaluation of community-based health promotion interventions in children and adolescents in high-income countries: a scoping review on strategies and methods used. BMC Public Health 2023; 23:845. [PMID: 37165313 PMCID: PMC10170055 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-15691-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2022] [Accepted: 04/16/2023] [Indexed: 05/12/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In recent decades, community-based interventions have been increasingly adopted in the field of health promotion and prevention. While their evaluation is relevant for health researchers, stakeholders and practitioners, conducting these evaluations is also challenging and there are no existing standards yet. The objective of this review is to scope peer-reviewed scientific publications on evaluation approaches used for community-based health promotion interventions. A special focus lies on children and adolescents' prevention. METHODS A scoping review of the scientific literature was conducted by searching three bibliographic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO). The search strategy encompassed search terms based on the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) scheme. Out of 6,402 identified hits, 44 articles were included in this review. RESULTS Out of the 44 articles eligible for this scoping review, the majority reported on studies conducted in the USA (n = 28), the UK (n = 6), Canada (n = 4) and Australia (n = 2). One study each was reported from Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Scotland, respectively. The included studies described interventions that mostly focused on obesity prevention, healthy nutrition promotion or well-being of children and adolescents. Nineteen articles included more than one evaluation design (e.g., process or outcome evaluation). Therefore, in total we identified 65 study designs within the scope of this review. Outcome evaluations often included randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 34.2%) or specific forms of RCTs (cluster RCTs; 9.8%) or quasi-experimental designs (26.8%). Process evaluation was mainly used in cohort (54.2%) and cross-sectional studies (33.3%). Only few articles used established evaluation frameworks or research concepts as a basis for the evaluation. CONCLUSION Few studies presented comprehensive evaluation study protocols or approaches with different study designs in one paper. Therefore, holistic evaluation approaches were difficult to retrieve from the classical publication formats. However, these publications would be helpful to further guide public health evaluators, contribute to methodological discussions and to inform stakeholders in research and practice to make decisions based on evaluation results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bettina Bader
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Michaela Coenen
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Julia Hummel
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Petra Schoenweger
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Stephan Voss
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Caroline Jung-Sievers
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rod MH, Rod NH, Russo F, Klinker CD, Reis R, Stronks K. Promoting the health of vulnerable populations: Three steps towards a systems-based re-orientation of public health intervention research. Health Place 2023; 80:102984. [PMID: 36773380 DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2023.102984] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2022] [Revised: 12/20/2022] [Accepted: 02/02/2023] [Indexed: 02/11/2023]
Abstract
This paper proposes a novel framework for the development of interventions in vulnerable populations. The framework combines a complex systems lens with syndemic theory. Whereas funding bodies, research organizations and reporting guidelines tend to encourage intervention research that (i) focuses on singular and predefined health outcomes, (ii) searches for generalizable cause-effect relationships, and (iii) aims to identify universally effective interventions, the paper suggests that a different direction is needed for addressing health inequities: We need to (i) start with exploratory analysis of population-level data, and (ii) invest in contextualized in-depth knowledge of the complex dynamics that produce health inequities in specific populations and settings, while we (iii) work with stakeholders at multiple levels to create change within systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Morten Hulvej Rod
- Health Promotion Research, Copenhagen University Hospital - Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark; National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark; Institute for Advanced Study, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Naja Hulvej Rod
- Institute for Advanced Study, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Section of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen K, Denmark
| | - Federica Russo
- Institute for Advanced Study, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Philosophy & ILLC, Amsterdam University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Charlotte Demant Klinker
- Health Promotion Research, Copenhagen University Hospital - Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark
| | - Ria Reis
- Department of Public Health & Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Karien Stronks
- Institute for Advanced Study, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Felmingham T, Backholer K, Hoban E, Brown AD, Nagorcka-Smith P, Allender S. Success of community-based system dynamics in prevention interventions: A systematic review of the literature. Front Public Health 2023; 11:1103834. [PMID: 37033017 PMCID: PMC10080052 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1103834] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2022] [Accepted: 03/07/2023] [Indexed: 04/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Systems thinking approaches are increasingly being used to help communities understand and develop responses to preventing complex health problems. Less is known about how success is characterized and what influences success in these approaches. We present a systematic review of how concepts of success are understood and evaluated in the peer reviewed literature of studies using systems thinking in community prevention. We searched five databases for peer-reviewed literature published between 2000 and 2022, with search terms related to systems thinking, prevention and community. Studies were included if they; reported using community-based systems thinking to prevent a public health problem; described the engagement and empowerment of community members to address a public health issue; and, were published in English. Thirty-four articles were identified from 10 countries. Twenty-one aimed to prevent a chronic disease (e.g., obesity) and 16 measured success using specific tools, 10 of which used semi-structured interviews or surveys. Measures of success included implementation processes, cultural appropriateness, the number or type of actions implemented, effectiveness of community action, and changes in individual thinking or mental models, population health outcomes, data collected, or systems level measures. Implementation factors influencing success included the capacity to engage participants, composition and experience of facilitators, strength of coordination teams, allocation of resources, adaptation to participant feedback, use of multiple systems approaches, workshop process providing time and methods to allow new insights, flexible delivery, and diversity of perspectives. Findings from each of the articles indicated that approaches increased a range of outcomes including community action, strategic thinking, future planning and evaluation, community buy-in, community voice, contribution and leadership, in addition to developing shared visions and goals and creating new, ongoing collaborations, among many others. Measures of success varied, suggesting more empirical reporting of proposed outcomes of system science in communities would be valuable. While the measurement of success in the use of systems thinking in community-based prevention efforts is limited, there are helpful examples we can look to for future measurement of success.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tiana Felmingham
- Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
- School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
- *Correspondence: Tiana Felmingham,
| | - Kathryn Backholer
- Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
- School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
| | - Elizabeth Hoban
- School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
| | - Andrew D. Brown
- Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
- School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
| | - Phoebe Nagorcka-Smith
- Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
- School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
| | - Steven Allender
- Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
- School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Nau T, Bauman A, Smith BJ, Bellew W. A scoping review of systems approaches for increasing physical activity in populations. Health Res Policy Syst 2022; 20:104. [PMID: 36175916 PMCID: PMC9524093 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-022-00906-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2022] [Accepted: 09/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction The past decade has increasingly seen systems approaches as a featured theme in public health studies and policy documents. This trend is evident in the area of physical activity, which is a significant global health risk factor that is addressed in WHO’s Global Action Plan on Physical Activity. We undertook a comprehensive scoping review to characterize the application of systems approaches to physical activity, to develop a typology of the objectives, themes and methods of research papers that purported to apply systems thinking to this issue. Methods We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO) for studies published during the period 2010–2021 that explicitly applied systems approaches or methods to investigate and/or address population physical activity. A framework using systems-based methodological approaches was adapted to classify physical activity studies according to their predominant approach, covering basic descriptive, complex analytical and advanced forms of practice. We selected case studies from retained studies to depict the current “state of the art”. Results We included 155 articles in our narrative account. Literature reporting the application of systems approaches to physical activity is skewed towards basic methods and frameworks, with most attention devoted to conceptual framing and predictive modelling. There are few well-described examples of physical activity interventions which have been planned, implemented and evaluated using a systems perspective. There is some evidence of “retrofitted” complex system framing to describe programmes and interventions which were not designed as such. Discussion We propose a classification of systems-based approaches to physical activity promotion together with an explanation of the strategies encompassed. The classification is designed to stimulate debate amongst policy-makers, practitioners and researchers to inform the further implementation and evaluation of systems approaches to physical activity. Conclusion The use of systems approaches within the field of physical activity is at an early stage of development, with a preponderance of descriptive approaches and a dearth of more complex analyses. We need to see movement towards a more sophisticated research agenda spanning the development, implementation and evaluation of systems-level interventions. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00906-2.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tracy Nau
- Prevention Research Collaboration, Charles Perkins Centre, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. .,The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Adrian Bauman
- Prevention Research Collaboration, Charles Perkins Centre, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Ben J Smith
- Prevention Research Collaboration, Charles Perkins Centre, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - William Bellew
- Prevention Research Collaboration, Charles Perkins Centre, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|