We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To co-design support strategies to enable sustainable, healthy, affordable food provision, including waste mitigation practices, in Australian Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) settings.
Design:
Based on the co-design IDEAS framework (Ideate, DEsign, Assess & Share), this co-design process involved iterative interviews and focus groups with ECEC centre staff and workshops with Nutrition Australia. Interview and workshop themes were coded to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to develop initial prototypes for support strategies that were further developed and refined in focus groups.
Setting:
ECEC with onsite food provision, in Victoria, Australia.
Participants:
ECEC staff and a Victorian Government-funded programme delivered through Nutrition Australia that provides nutrition support to ECEC services.
Results:
ECEC staff interviews (n 17) suggested a lack of knowledge on the topic of sustainable healthy food provision and a need for resources and support for all staff and children. Workshops with Nutrition Australia built on interviews and suggested a focus on lower intensity strategies and a suggestion to embed knowledge-related activities into the children’s curriculum. Focus groups (n 8) further informed co-design of strategies, producing a visual representation of sustainable healthy food provision with supporting tips and a whole-of-centre approach that includes children through a classroom activity.
Conclusions:
The co-designed resources could provide feasible strategies for the adoption of sustainable, healthy and affordable provision practices in the ECEC setting. Involvement of a local government-funded health promotion service provides valuable research-to-practice contribution as well opportunity for scalable dissemination of resources through existing infrastructure.
To evaluate the clinical impact and features associated with repeat tracheal aspirate (TA) cultures in children admitted to the intensive care unit.
Design:
Retrospective cohort study.
Setting:
A 338-bed freestanding, tertiary pediatric academic medical center with pediatric medical intensive care unit (PICU) and cardiac intensive care units (CICU).
Patients:
Children ≤18 years of age who were admitted to either the PICU or CICU who had ≥2 TA cultures in a single intensive care admission.
Methods:
Patients with ≥2 TA cultures between 2018 and 2019 were included in this study. The following information was collected: patient demographics, clinical data summarizing patient condition at the time of culture collection, number of TA cultures per patient, antibiotic usage, and microbiologic data. Descriptive statistics established the frequency of TA collection, time between culturing, clinical reasoning for collection, antibiotic exposure, and development of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO).
Results:
Sixty-three patients had repeat TA cultures and accounted for 252 TA cultures during the study period. Most patients with repeat TA cultures were admitted to the PICU (71%) and were male (65%). A median of 3 TA cultures per patient were obtained with 50% of repeat cultures occurring within 7 days from the previous culture. Sixty-six percent of patients had the same organism cultured on ≥2 TA cultures. Most antibiotics were not modified or continued to treat the results of the TA culture.
Conclusions:
Repeat TA cultures frequently show the same pathogens, and results do not often influence antibiotic selection or usage. Repeat TA cultures did demonstrate the development of MDROs.
Child care environments offer an ideal setting for feeding interventions. CELEBRATE Feeding is an approach implemented in child care environments in two Maritime Provinces in Canada to support responsive feeding (RF) to foster children’s self-efficacy, self-regulation, and healthy relationships with food. This study aimed to describe RF in child care using established and enhanced scoring frameworks.
The Environment and Policy Assessment and Observation (EPAO) was modified to reflect RF environments and practices, resulting in our modified EPAO and a CELEBRATE scale. Observations were conducted in 18 child care rooms. Behaviours and environments were scored on both scales, creating 21 RF scores, with a score of ‘3’ indicating the most responsiveness. Descriptive analyses of the scores were conducted. The overall room averages were Mean (M) = 41.00, Standard Deviation (SD) = 7.07 (EPAO), and M = 37.92 SD = 6.50 (CELEBRATE). Most responsive scores among rooms within our EPAO and CELEBRATE scales, respectively, were ‘educators not using food to calm or encourage behaviour’ (M = 2.94, SD = 0.24; M = 2.98, SD = 0.06) and ‘not requiring children to sit at the table until finished’ (M = 2.89, SD = 0.47; M = 2.97, SD = 0.12). The least responsive scores within the EPAO were ‘educator prompts for children to drink water’ (M = 0.78, SD = 0.94) and ‘children self-serving’ (M = 0.83, SD = 0.38). The least responsive in the CELEBRATE scale were ‘enthusiastic role modelling during mealtime’ (M = 0.70, SD = 0.68) and ‘praise of mealtime behaviour unrelated to food intake’ (M = 0.74, SD = 0.55). The CELEBRATE scale captured unique observation information about RF to allow documenting change over time with detailed measurement to inform and support nutrition interventions within child care environments.
To describe environmentally sustainable (ES) and healthy food provision practices in childcare services in Victoria, Australia.
Design:
Cross-sectional study.
Setting:
Childcare services providing food onsite.
Participants:
Staff completed an online survey that explored ES food provision practices including purchasing seasonal/local food, food waste awareness/management, and food cost/child/d. A purposively sampled subgroup conducted weighed audits to determine compliance with guidelines and total waste, serving waste (prepared, not served) and plate waste.
Results:
Survey results found 8 % of services (n 129) had previously conducted food waste audits. Service audits (n 12) found 27 % total food waste (range: 9 % - 64 %). Statistically significant differences in plate waste were found between services who had previously conducted food waste audits (7 %) and those who had not (17 %) (P = 0·04). The most common ES practice was ‘providing seasonal food’; the least common was ‘maintaining a compost system’ and ‘less packaged foods’. Most services (95 %) purchased foods from supermarkets with 23 % purchasing from farmers’ markets. This was statistically lower for regional/rural services (8 %), compared to metropolitan services (27 %) (P = 0·04). Twenty-seven per cent of services spent AUD2·50 or less per child per day on food. Only one audited service provided a menu compliant with childcare food provision guidelines.
Conclusions:
Childcare settings procure and provide large volumes of food; however, food waste awareness appears limited, and environmentally sustainable food procurement practices may be less affordable and difficult to achieve. Understanding the impact of food waste awareness on food waste practices and food costs across time merits further research.
People aging with long-term physical disabilities (PAwLTPD), meaning individuals with onset of disability from birth through midlife, often require long-term support services (LTSS) to remain independence. The LTSS system is fragmented into aging and disability organizations with little communication between them. In addition, there are currently no evidence-based LTSS-type programs listed on the Administration for Community Living website that have been demonstrated to be effective for PAwLTPD. Because of these gaps, we have developed a community-based research network (CBRN), drawing on the practice-based research network model (PBRN), to bring together aging and disability organizations to address the lack of evidence-based programs for PAwLTPD.
Materials and Methods:
Community-based organizations serving PAwLTPD across the state of Missouri were recruited to join the CBRN. A formative process evaluation of the network was conducted after a year to evaluate the effectiveness of the network.
Results:
Nine community-based organizations across the state of Missouri joined the CBRN. CBRN members include three centers for independent living (CILs), three area agencies on aging (AAAs), one CIL/AAA hybrid, one non-CIL disability organization, and one non-AAA aging organization. To date, we have held seven meetings, provided educational opportunities for CBRN members, and launched an inaugural research study within the CBRN. Formative evaluation data indicate that CBRN members feel that participation in the CBRN is beneficial.
Conclusion:
The PBRN model appears to be a feasible framework for use with community-based organizations to facilitate communication between agencies and to support research aimed at addressing the needs of PAwLTPD.