To determine changes in household purchases of drinks 1 year after implementation of the UK soft drinks industry levy (SDIL).

Controlled interrupted time series.

Households reporting their purchasing to a market research company (average weekly n=22 091), March 2014 to March 2019.

A two-tiered tax levied on soft drinks manufacturers, announced in March 2016 and implemented in April 2018. Drinks with ≥8 g sugar/100 mL (high tier) are taxed at £0.24/L, drinks with ≥5 to

Absolute and relative differences in the volume of, and amount of sugar in, soft drinks categories, all soft drinks combined, alcohol and confectionery purchased per household per week 1 year after implementation.

In March 2019, compared with the counterfactual, purchased volume of high tier drinks decreased by 140.8 mL (95% CI 104.3 to 177.3 mL) per household per week, equivalent to 37.8% (28.0% to 47.6%), and sugar purchased in these drinks decreased by 16.2 g (13.5 to 18.8 g), or 42.6% (35.6% to 49.6%). Purchases of low tier drinks decreased by 170.5 mL (154.5 to 186.5 mL) or 85.8% (77.8% to 93.9%), with an 11.5 g (9.1 to 13.9 g) reduction in sugar in these drinks, equivalent to 87.8% (69.2% to 106.4%). When all soft drinks were combined irrespective of levy tier or eligibility, the volume of drinks purchased increased by 188.8 mL (30.7 to 346.9 mL) per household per week, or 2.6% (0.4% to 4.7%), but sugar decreased by 8.0 g (2.4 to 13.6 g), or 2.7% (0.8% to 4.5%). Purchases of confectionery and alcoholic drinks did not increase.

Compared with trends before the SDIL was announced, 1 year after implementation, volume of all soft drinks purchased combined increased by 189 mL, or 2.6% per household per week. The amount of sugar in those drinks was 8 g, or 2.7%, lower per household per week. Further studies should determine whether and how apparently small effect sizes translate into health outcomes.

ISRCTN18042742.

In Australia, only 22% of male and 8% of female adolescents meet the muscle-strengthening physical activity guidelines, and few school-based interventions support participation in resistance training (RT). After promising findings from our effectiveness trial, we conducted a state-wide dissemination of the ‘Resistance Training for Teens’ (RT4T) intervention from 2015 to 2020. Despite high estimated reach, we found considerable variability in programme delivery and teachers reported numerous barriers to implementation. Supporting schools when they first adopt evidence-based programmes may strengthen programme fidelity, sustainability, and by extension, programme impact. However, the most effective implementation support model for RT4T is unclear.

To compare the effects of three implementation support models on the reach (primary outcome), dose delivered, fidelity, sustainability, impact and cost of RT4T.

We will conduct a hybrid type III implementation–effectiveness trial involving grade 9 and 10 (aged 14–16 years) students from 90 secondary schools in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Schools will be recruited across one cohort in 2023, stratified by school type, socioeconomic status and location, and randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive one of the following levels of implementation support: (1) ‘low’ (training and resources), (2) ‘moderate’ (training and resources+external support) or ‘high’ (training and resources+external support+equipment). Training includes a teacher workshop related to RT4T programme content (theory and practical sessions) and the related resources. Additional support will be provided by trained project officers from five local health districts. Equipment will consist of a pack of semiportable RT equipment (ie, weighted bars, dumbbells, resistance bands and inverted pull up bar stands) valued at ~$A1000 per school. Study outcomes will be assessed at baseline (T0), 6 months (T1) and 18 months (T2). A range of quantitative (teacher logs, observations and teacher surveys) and qualitative (semistructured interviews with teachers) methods will be used to assess primary (reach) and secondary outcomes (dose delivered, fidelity, sustainability, impact and cost of RT4T). Quantitative analyses will use logistic mixed models for dichotomous outcomes, and ordinal or linear mixed effects regression models for continuous outcomes, with alpha levels set at p

Ethics approval has been obtained from the University of Newcastle (H-2021-0418), the NSW Department of Education (SERAP:2022215), Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH00052) and the Catholic Schools Office. The design, conduct and reporting will adhere to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement, the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies statement and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. Findings will be published in open access peer-reviewed journals, key stakeholders will be provided with a detailed report. We will support ongoing dissemination of RT4T in Australian schools via professional learning for teachers.

ACTRN12622000861752.