Recruitment of participants into research studies remains a major concern for investigators. Using clinical teams to identify potentially eligible patients can present a significant barrier. To overcome this, we implemented a process for using our patient portal, called MyChart, as a new institutional recruitment option utilizing our electronic health record’s existing functionality.

To streamline the institutional approval process, we established a working group comprised of representatives from human subject protection, information technology, and privacy and vetted our process with many stakeholder groups. Our specific process for study approval is described and started with a consultation with our recruitment and retention function funded through our Clinical and Translational Science Award.

The time from consultation to the first message(s) sent ranged from 84 to 442 days and declined slightly over time. The overall patient response rate to MyChart messages about available research studies was 23% with one third of those saying they were interested in learning more. The response rate for Black and Hispanic patients was about 50% that of White patients.

Many different types of studies from any medical specialty successfully identified interested patients using this option. Study teams needed support in defining appropriate inclusion/exclusion criteria to identify the relevant population in the electronic health records and they needed assistance writing study descriptions in plain language. Using MyChart for recruitment addressed a critical barrier and opened up the opportunity to provide a full recruitment consultation to identify additional recruitment channels the study teams would not have considered otherwise.

Describing our institution’s off-label use of gabapentin to treat irritability after superior cavopulmonary connection surgery and its impact on subsequent opiate and benzodiazepine requirements.

This is a single-center retrospective cohort study including infants who underwent superior cavopulmonary connection operation between 2011 and 2019.

Gabapentin was administered in 74 subjects (74/323, 22.9%) during the observation period, with a median (IQR) starting dose of 5.7 (3.3, 15.0) mg/kg/day and a maximum dose of 10.7 (5.5, 23.4) mg/kg/day. Infants who underwent surgery in 2015–19 were more likely to receive gabapentin compared with those who underwent surgery in 2011–14 (p < 0.0001). Infants prescribed gabapentin were younger at surgery (137 versus 146 days, p = 0.007) and had longer chest tube durations (1.8 versus 0.9 days, p < 0.001), as well as longer postoperative intensive care (5.8 versus 3.1 days, p < 0.0001) and hospital (11.5 versus 7.0 days, p < 0.0001) lengths of stays. The year of surgery was the only predisposing factor associated with gabapentin administration in multivariate analysis. In adjusted linear regression, infants prescribed gabapentin on postoperative day 0–4 (n = 64) had reduced benzodiazepine exposure in the following 3 days (−0.29 mg/kg, 95% CI −0.52 – −0.06, p = 0.01) compared with those not prescribed gabapentin, while no difference was seen in opioid exposure (p = 0.59).

Gabapentin was used with increasing frequency during the study period. There was a modest reduction in benzodiazepine requirements associated with gabapentin administration and no reduction in opioid requirements. A randomised controlled trial could better assess gabapentin’s benefits postoperatively in children with congenital heart disease.

To determine the reach, adoption, implementation and effectiveness of an intervention to increase children’s vegetable intake in long day care (LDC).

A 12-week pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, informed by the multiphase optimisation strategy (MOST), targeting the mealtime environment and curriculum. Children’s vegetable intake and variety was measured at follow-up using a modified Short Food Survey for early childhood education and care and analysed using a two-part mixed model for non-vegetable and vegetable consumers. Outcome measures were based on the RE-AIM framework.

Australian LDC centres.

Thirty-nine centres, 120 educators and 719 children at follow-up.

There was no difference between intervention and waitlist control groups in the likelihood of consuming any vegetables when compared with non-vegetable consumers for intake (OR = 0·70, (95 % CI 0·34–1·43), P = 0·32) or variety (OR = 0·73 (95 % CI 0·40–1·32), P = 0·29). Among vegetable consumers (n 652), there was no difference between groups in vegetable variety (exp(b): 1·07 (95 % CI:0·88–1·32, P = 0·49) or vegetable intake (exp(b): 1·06 (95 % CI: 0·78, 1·43)), P = 0·71) with an average of 1·51 (95 % CI 1·20–1·82) and 1·40 (95 % CI 1·08–1·72) serves of vegetables per day in the intervention and control group, respectively. Intervention educators reported higher skills for promoting vegetables at mealtimes, and knowledge and skills for teaching the curriculum, than control (all P < 0·001). Intervention fidelity was moderate (n 16/20 and n 15/16 centres used the Mealtime environment and Curriculum, respectively) with good acceptability among educators. The intervention reached 307/8556 centres nationally and was adopted by 22 % eligible centres.

The pragmatic self-delivered online intervention positively impacted educator’s knowledge and skills and was considered acceptable and feasible. Intervention adaptations, using the MOST cyclic approach, could improve intervention impact on children’ vegetable intake.

To evaluate the impact of a menu box delivery service tailored to the long-day care (LDC) setting on improving menu compliance with recommendations, children’s diet quality and dietary intake while in care.

A cluster randomised controlled trial in LDC centres randomly assigned to an intervention (menu box delivery) or comparison (menu planning training) group. The primary outcome was child food provision and dietary intake. Secondary outcomes include menu compliance and process evaluation, including acceptability, fidelity and menu cost (per child, per day).

South Australian LDC centres.

Eight LDC centres (n 224 children) provided data.

No differences were observed in serves/d between intervention and comparison centres, for provision (intervention, 0·9 inter-quartile range (IQR) 0·7–1·2; comparison, 0·8 IQR 0·5–1·3) or consumption (intervention, 0·5 IQR 0·2–0·8; comparison, 0·5 IQR 0·3–0·9) of vegetables. Child food provision and dietary intake were similar across both groups for all food groups (P < 0·05). At follow-up, all intervention centres met menu planning guidelines for vegetables, whereas only one comparison centre met guidelines. Intervention centre directors found the menu box delivery more acceptable than cooks. Cost of the intervention was AUD$2·34 greater than comparison centres (intervention, AUD$4·62 (95 % CI ($4·58, $4·67)); comparison, AUD$2·28 (95 % CI ($2·27, $2·30)) per child, per day).

Menu compliance can be improved via a menu delivery service, delivering equivalent impacts on child food provision and dietary intake compared with an online training programme. Further exploration of cooks acceptability and cost is essential before scaling up to implementation.

To inform a package of initiatives to increase children’s vegetable intake while in long day care (LDC) by evaluating the independent and combined effects of three initiatives targeting food provision, the mealtime environment and the curriculum.

Using the Multiphase Optimisation Strategy (MOST) framework, a 12-week, eight-condition (n 7 intervention, n 1 control) randomised factorial experiment was conducted. Children’s dietary intake data were measured pre- and post-initiative implementation using the weighed plate waste method (1× meal and 2× between-meal snacks). Vegetable intake (g/d) was calculated from vegetable provision and waste. The optimal combination of initiatives was determined using a linear mixed-effects model comparing between-group vegetable intake at follow-up, while considering initiative fidelity and acceptability.

LDC centres in metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia.

32 centres, 276 staff and 1039 children aged 2–5 years.

There were no statistically significant differences between any of the intervention groups and the control group for vegetable intake (all P > 0·05). The curriculum with mealtime environment group consumed 26·7 g more vegetables/child/day than control (ratio of geometric mean 3·29 (95 % CI 0·96, 11·27), P = 0·06). Completion rates for the curriculum (> 93 %) and mealtime environment (61 %) initiatives were high, and acceptability was good (4/5 would recommend), compared with the food provision initiative (0–50 % completed the menu assessment, 3/5 would recommend).

A programme targeting the curriculum and mealtime environment in LDC may be useful to increase children’s vegetable intake. Determining the effectiveness of this optimised package in a randomised controlled trial is required, as per the evaluation phase of the MOST framework.