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.

Despite their widespread use, the evidence base for the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives remains mixed. Lack of clarity about ‘what good looks like’ in collaboratives remains a persistent problem. We aimed to identify the distinctive features of a state-wide collaboratives programme that has demonstrated sustained improvements in quality of care in a range of clinical specialties over a long period.

Qualitative case study involving interviews with purposively sampled participants, observations and analysis of documents.

The Michigan Collaborative Quality Initiatives programme.

38 participants, including clinicians and managers from 10 collaboratives, and staff from the University of Michigan and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.

We identified five features that characterised success in the collaboratives programme: learning from positive deviance; high-quality coordination; high-quality measurement and comparative performance feedback; careful use of motivational levers; and mobilising professional leadership and building community. Rigorous measurement, securing professional leadership and engagement, cultivating a collaborative culture, creating accountability for quality, and relieving participating sites of unnecessary burdens associated with programme participation were all important to high performance.

Our findings offer valuable learning for optimising collaboration-based approaches to improvement in healthcare, with implications for the design, structure and resourcing of quality improvement collaboratives. These findings are likely to be useful to clinicians, managers, policy-makers and health system leaders engaged in multiorganisational approaches to improving quality and safety.

Lacking diversity in pharmaceutical leadership positions could contribute to inequities in medicine access. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to determine the gender and racial identities of individuals who hold leadership positions in the Canadian pharmaceutical sector.

We compiled a list of all Canadian governmental bodies, pharmaceutical companies and insurance providers. We identified individuals who were part of the leadership team, including executives and members of the board of directors.

The main outcomes of the study were the racialisation and gender of the individuals in leadership positions. The gender and racialisation of an individual were determined by reviewing their name, pronouns and institutional profile through internet searches. Two members of the research team performed the assessment and a third reviewer resolved disagreements.

We identified 957 individuals holding leadership positions within the pharmaceutical sector, including 280 drug evaluation committee members, 12 governmental executive officers, 273 insurance company executive and board members and 392 executive and board members. Reviewers identified a total of 375 (39.2% of 957) women holding leadership roles, with most of these positions being held by governmental leaders (52.4% of 292) and a minority by insurance (37.0% of 273) and pharmaceutical (30.9% of 392) leaders. There were a total of 157 (16.4% of 957) racialised leaders, with most of these positions being held by governmental (18.5% of 292) and pharmaceutical (18.1% of 392) leaders, and a minority in insurance companies (11.7% of 273). Across the pharmaceutical sector, there were a total of 48 (5.0% of 957) racialised women and 327 (34.2% of 957) white women.

Leaders within the Canadian pharmaceutical sector are mostly white men, and racialised women hold few leadership roles. Public policy should recognise that these institutions are mostly led by white men and reasons for this disparity could be explored.