The school food system varies widely between schools and across the UK. There is a need to understand evidence gaps in school food research to allow the development, implementation and evaluation of policies and interventions to support children’s healthy eating at school. This study aimed to conduct a priority setting exercise to co-produce research priorities in relation to the UK school food system.

The James Lind Alliance process informed this priority setting exercise; all key steps engaged a wide range of UK school food stakeholders (including teachers, parents, principals, school governors, policymakers, caterers). An initial online stakeholder survey identified perceived research priorities. In a second survey, stakeholders were asked to rank these priorities. Lastly, an online priority setting workshop with stakeholders elicited the most important research priorities.

In 2021, school food stakeholders (n=1280) completed the first survey, from which 136 research priorities were identified. In the second survey, participants (n=107) ranked these research priorities regarding their importance. Lastly, 30 workshop participants discussed and reached consensus on the research priorities. After final refinement by the research team, 18 priorities resulted, with the top 10 being related to the provision of free school meals (effectiveness of cost-effectiveness of different levels of eligibility, including universal provision), implementation of policy (including improving uptake) and food standards, issues around procurement, leadership, inequalities, social norms, the eating environment, food culture throughout the school setting and healthy eating.

The top 10 research priorities were elicited through a rigorous approach, including a wide range of stakeholders across the UK. These should be considered by policymakers, researchers and others to inform research, evidence-based policy development and, ultimately, improve the UK school food system.

This scoping review maps the extant literature on students’ and graduates’ mental health experiences throughout their university-to-work transitions. The current review investigates the methodological features of the studies, the main findings, and the theories that the studies draw on to conceptualise mental health and transitions.

This project used a scoping review methodology created and developed by Peters and colleagues and the Joanna Briggs Institute. The review searched academic databases and screened existing studies that met predetermined inclusion criteria.

Seven academic databases and Google Scholar were searched with sets of search terms.

The included studies examined participants who were final-year university students or those who had graduated from university within a 3-year period. Studies published in English since 2000 and from any country were included. The review included studies examining the negative dimensions of mental health. The review excluded studies focusing on medical students and graduates.

Basic information about the studies and their findings on mental health and university-to-work transitions was retrieved. The findings are presented in tables and in a qualitative thematic summary.

The scoping review included 12 studies. Mental health was often not explicitly defined and it’s theoretical foundations were not clearly articulated. The review identified factors, including a lack of social support and economic precarity, as sources of adverse mental health. Other protective factors in these studies—variables that guard against mental health problems—were identified, such as career preparedness and having a good job.

Despite the methodological focus on the negative aspects of mental health, people’s mental health experiences during university-to-work transitions are not uniformly negative. Clear conceptualisations of mental health in future studies will aid in developing resources to improve well-being.

This scoping review adhered to a protocol previously published in this journal and that is registered on the Open Science Framework website (https://osf.io/gw86x).

Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer living in more deprived areas experience worse survival than those in more affluent areas. Those living in more deprived areas face barriers to accessing timely, quality healthcare. These barriers may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in survival. We evaluated the literature for any association between socioeconomic group, hospital delay and treatments received among patients with colorectal cancer in the UK, a country with universal healthcare.

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCIE, AMED and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2023. Grey literature, including HMIC, BASE and Google Advanced Search, and forward and backward citation searches were conducted. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts and full-text articles. Observational UK-based studies were included if they reported socioeconomic measures and an association with either hospital delay or treatments received. The QUIPS tool assessed bias risk, and a narrative synthesis was conducted. The review is reported to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020.

41 of the 7209 identified references were included. 12 studies evaluated 7 different hospital intervals. There was a significant association between area-level deprivation and a longer time from first presentation in primary care to diagnosis. 32 studies evaluated treatments received. There were socioeconomic inequalities in surgery and chemotherapy but not radiotherapy.

Patients with colorectal cancer face inequalities across the cancer care continuum. Further research is needed to understand why and what evidence-based actions can reduce these inequalities in treatment. Qualitative research of patients and clinicians conducted across various settings would provide a rich understanding of the complex factors that drive these inequalities. Further research should also consider using a causal approach to future studies to considerably strengthen the interpretation. Clinicians can try and mitigate some potential causes of colorectal cancer inequalities, including signposting to financial advice and patient transport schemes.

CRD42022347652.

Headache is a common chief complaint of children presenting to emergency departments (EDs). Approximately 0.5%–1% will have emergent intracranial abnormalities (EIAs) such as brain tumours or strokes. However, more than one-third undergo emergent neuroimaging in the ED, resulting in a large number of children unnecessarily exposed to radiation. The overuse of neuroimaging in children with headaches in the ED is driven by clinician concern for life-threatening EIAs and lack of clarity regarding which clinical characteristics accurately identify children with EIAs. The study objective is to derive and internally validate a stratification model that accurately identifies the risk of EIA in children with headaches based on clinically sensible and reliable variables.

Prospective cohort study of 28 000 children with headaches presenting to any of 18 EDs in the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN). We include children aged 2–17 years with a chief complaint of headache. We exclude children with a clear non-intracranial alternative diagnosis, fever, neuroimaging within previous year, neurological or developmental condition such that patient history or physical examination may be unreliable, Glasgow Coma Scale score

Ethics approval was obtained for all participating sites from the University of Utah single Institutional Review Board. A waiver of informed consent was granted for collection of ED data. Verbal consent is obtained for follow-up contact. Results will be disseminated through international conferences, peer-reviewed publications, and open-access materials.