Cited by 41School Health and Nursing EducationStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsHealth Policy Implementation Science

Characteristics and practices of school-based cluster randomised controlled trials for improving health outcomes in pupils in the United Kingdom: a methodological systematic review

Open access
Parker, Kitty, Nunns, Michael, Xiao, ZhiMin, Ford, Tamsin, Ukoumunne, Obioha C.·2021·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

Background: Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) are increasingly used to evaluate non-pharmacological interventions for improving child health. Although methodological challenges of CRTs are well documented, the characteristics of school-based CRTs with pupil health outcomes have not been systematically described. Our objective was to describe methodological characteristics of these studies in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: MEDLINE was systematically searched from inception to 30 th June 2020. Included studies used the CRT design in schools and measured primary outcomes on pupils. Study characteristics were described using descriptive statistics. Results: Of 3138 articles identified, 64 were included. CRTs with pupil health outcomes have been increasingly used in the UK school setting since the earliest included paper was published in 1993; 37 (58%) studies were published after 2010. Of the 44 studies that reported information, 93% included state-funded schools. Thirty six (56%) were exclusively in primary schools and 24 (38%) exclusively in secondary schools. Schools were randomised in 56 studies, classrooms in 6 studies, and year groups in 2 studies. Eighty percent of studies used restricted randomisation to balance cluster-level characteristics between trial arms, but few provided justification for their choice of balancing factors. Interventions covered 11 different health areas; 53 (83%) included components that were necessarily administered to entire clusters. The median (interquartile range) number of clusters and pupils recruited was 31.5 (21 to 50) and 1308 (604 to 3201), respectively. In half the studies, at least one cluster dropped out. Only 26 (41%) studies reported the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of the primary outcome from the analysis; this was often markedly different to the assumed ICC in the sample size calculation. The median (range) ICC for school clusters was 0.028 (0.0005 to 0.21). Conclusions: The increasing pool of school-based CRTs examining pupil health outcomes provides methodological knowledge and highlights design challenges. Data from these studies should be used to identify the best school-level characteristics for balancing the randomisation. Better information on the ICC of pupil health outcomes is required to aid the planning of future CRTs. Improved reporting of the recruitment process will help to identify barriers to obtaining representative samples of schools.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12874-021-01348-0

Cites

116 of 116 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [8]Murray DM Design and Anaylsis of Group-Randomized Trials 1998 New York Oxford University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Parker, K., Nunns, M., Xiao, Z., Ford, T., & Ukoumunne, O. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of Essex (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Parker, Kitty
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2021-07-26
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
152-152
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3183684471
Cited by
41
References
116
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 14
FWCI
1.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (10/3006/07, NIHR-INF-1447)
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • NIHR Evaluation Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (10/3006/07)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
child health interventions, intra-cluster correlation, cluster size, school recruitment, primary and secondary schools, trial reporting quality, United Kingdom
MeSH terms
Child, United Kingdom, Humans, Schools, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, MEDLINE, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review