IntroductionRates of potentially preventable hospitalisations (PPH) are used as a proxy measure of effectiveness of, or access to community-based health services. The validity of PPH as an indicator in Australia has not been confirmed. Available evidence suggests that patient-related, clinician-related and systems-related factors are associated with PPH, with differences between rural and metropolitan settings. Furthermore, the proportion of PPHs which are actually preventable is unknown. The Diagnosing Potentially Preventable Hospitalisations study will determine the proportion of PPHs for chronic conditions that are deemed preventable and identify potentially modifiable factors driving these, in order to develop effective interventions to reduce admissions and improve measures of health system performance.Methods and analysisThis mixed methods data linkage study of approximately 1000 eligible patients with chronic PPH admissions to one metropolitan and two regional hospitals over 12 months will combine data from multiple sources to assess the: extent of preventability of chronic PPH admissions; validity of the Preventability Assessment Tool (PAT) in identifying preventable admissions; factors contributing to chronic PPH admissions. Data collected from patients (quantitative and qualitative methods), their general practitioners, hospital clinicians and hospital records, will be linked with routinely collected New South Wales (NSW) Admitted Patient Data Collection, the NSW Registry of Births, Death and Marriages death registration and Australian Bureau of Statistics mortality data. The validity of the PAT will be assessed by determining concordance between clinician assessment and that of a ‘gold standard’ panel. Multivariable logistic regression will identify the main predictor variables of admissions deemed preventable, using study-specific and linked data.Ethics and disseminationThe NSW Population and Health Services Research Ethics Committee granted ethical approval. Dissemination mechanisms include engagement of policy stakeholders through a project Steering Committee, and the production of summary reports for policy and clinical audiences in addition to peer-review papers.

Aim:To investigate children's body image, perceptions of the academic abilities of thin and fat children and whether body image influences student's academic confidence and/or participation in school classroom activities.Methods: The Children's Body Image Scale (CBIS) depicting seven figures ranging from thin (A) to fat (G) and individual one-on-one interviews were completed by 15 children aged 8 to 10 years.Results: The thinnest CBIS figures (A, B) were the most nominated 'ideals'. Children with two largest figures, F or G were not nominated as ideal. Thin children were generally ranked as best and perceived as kind; happy; small eaters and socially successful. Fat children were perceived as unintelligent; lazy; greedy; unpopular; bullying and unable or unwilling to play physical games. Thin children were perceived as best at sport; dancing; mathematics and giving speeches. No fat children were perceived as best at any of the academic skills. Conclusion:Body image ideals and fat stereotypes are well entrenched among children although it did not appear to adversely affect their academic confidence and participation in school activities at this age. Teachers and health educators could promote children's participation in academic activities and encourage well being by implementing programs that increase acceptance of a wide range of healthy, and active body shapes.