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.

Cognitive therapy and behavioural activation are both widely applied and effective psychotherapies for depression, but it is unclear which works best for whom. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis allows for examining moderators at the participant level and can provide more precise effect estimates than conventional meta-analysis, which is based on study-level data.

This article describes the protocol for a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis that aims to compare the efficacy of cognitive therapy and behavioural activation for adults with depression, and to explore moderators of treatment effect. (PROSPERO: CRD42022341602)

Systematic literature searches will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing cognitive therapy and behavioural activation for adult acute-phase depression. Investigators of these trials will be invited to share their participant-level data. One-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted with mixed-effects models to assess treatment effects and to examine various available demographic, clinical and psychological participant characteristics as potential moderators. The primary outcome measure will be depressive symptom level at treatment completion. Secondary outcomes will include post-treatment anxiety, interpersonal functioning and quality of life, as well as follow-up outcomes.

To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first IPD meta-analysis concerning cognitive therapy versus behavioural activation for adult depression. This study has the potential to enhance our knowledge of depression treatment by using state-of-the-art statistical techniques to compare the efficacy of two widely used psychotherapies, and by shedding more light on which of these treatments might work best for whom.