Evidence mapPaperPMID 41659242Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2026

Effectiveness of an environmental nutrition and physical activity intervention in early childhood education and care settings (NAPSACC UK): a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial.

Ruth Kipping, Sharon Anne Simpson, Kim Hannam, Peter S Blair, Russell Jago, Corby K Martin, Zoi Toumpakari, Laura Johnson, James Garbutt, Rachel Maishman and 16 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

Ruth KippingBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sharon Anne SimpsonMRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Kim HannamBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Peter S BlairBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Russell JagoBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Corby K MartinPennington Biomedical Research Centre, Baton Rouge, USA.
Zoi ToumpakariSchool for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Laura JohnsonBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
James GarbuttSchool for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rachel MaishmanBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
James WhiteSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Rebecca LangfordBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
William HollingworthBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Madeleine CochraneBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Laurence MooreMRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Chris MetcalfeBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Anne MartinMRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Stephanie ChambersSchool of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Thomas ReidBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Megan PardoeBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Alexandra DobellDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Marie MurphyDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Susan StrattonMRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Jemima CooperBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jodi TaylorBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Miranda PallanDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Early childhood education and care (ECEC) provision is widespread. NAPSACC UK is an intervention in ECECs designed to improve nutrition and physical activity policies, practice and provision through ECEC staff workshops, self-assessment and assistance over one year. It was adapted for the UK from the USA and we tested whether it reduced energy consumption and increased physical activity. Methods: Repeated cross-sectional, multicentre, two-arm, single-blind, parallel-group, cluster-randomised controlled trial including ECEC providers in the UK. The randomisation was conducted by a statistician who was blinded to ECEC provider identity, with allocation within each local authority area and by ECEC Index of Multiple Deprivation scores to minimise differences between arms. Participants were not blind to allocation. Co-primary outcomes after 12-months were child average total energy consumed per eating occasion in the ECEC (lunch or snack) and child accelerometer-assessed total physical activity on ECEC days. Secondary outcomes were moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, sedentary time, energy served and consumed at lunch and snacks, diet quality, and Body Mass Index z-score. The senior statistician and majority of co-investigators were blinded. Analysis was intention-to-treat. Trial registration is ISRCTN33134697 and is completed. Findings: Between 14 March 2022 and 25 March 2024 we enrolled 52 ECEC providers (25 intervention; 27 control) and 835 2-5 year-olds (401 intervention, 434 control). The co-primary outcomes were assessed 12 months after baseline with data provided by 382 children for nutrition and 244 children for physical activity. There was no evidence of a difference in the co-primary outcomes compared to control of average kcal per eating occasion in ECEC (adjusted geometric mean ratio 0.86 (95% CI 0.72-1.03; p = 0.09)) or total physical activity (adjusted mean difference (aMD) -2.13 min (95% CI -10.96 to 6.70; p = 0.64)). There was evidence of lower lunch energy served (aMD -69.1 kcal per occasion (95% CI -116 to -22.2; p = 0.004)) and consumed (aMD -67.7 kcal per occasion (95% CI -118.6 to -18.7, p = 0.009)) with the intervention. There was no evidence of differences in other secondary outcomes. No adverse events were reported. Interpretation: NAPSACC UK did not improve average kcal per eating occasion in ECEC or physical activity. Lower lunch energy servings and consumption closer to recommendations were observed as secondary outcomes. The lower fidelity to the intervention than intended and staffing pressures give insight into interpretation of the null result. Therefore, we recommend that policy-level and statutory changes, which require low agency by individual ECEC settings are research and policy priorities for nutrition and physical activity in ECEC. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR):127551.

Indexed as

ChildrenEarly childhood education and careNurseryNutritionPhysical activityPre-school

Identifiers

PMID41659242
PMCPMC12882655

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.