Background Secondary schools are an important setting for preventing obesity in adolescence. Headteachers and chairs of governors are identified in national guidance as crucial stakeholders for school-based preventative action. Despite this, their views remain unexplored and unrepresented. Methods A sequential mixed method study was conducted. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of 22 secondary school headteachers and chairs of governors in England. Data were thematically analysed and informed the development of a descriptive cross-sectional survey, completed by 127 participants from the same population. Results Unhealthy dietary and sedentary behaviours were viewed as a more significant problem than adolescent obesity. Obesity was perceived as complex and multi-causal, and a range of stakeholders were deemed to have responsibility for its prevention, most notably parents. Support was identified for the role of secondary schools, although this was not an explicit priority and extensive internal and external barriers exist, which hinder preventative action. Conclusions Whilst secondary school settings in England remain an important setting for the prevention of adolescent obesity, it is crucial for policy makers and public health professionals to recognize the factors affecting school leaders’ ability and willingness to contribute to this agenda.

To assess variability in caries management decision-making by faculty and dental students. Understanding sources of variability during training can aid in implementing evidence-based clinical decision-making in caries management. Methods: A voluntary, anonymous survey including clinical scenarios was distributed online to dental students in their first (D1) and third-year (D3) of training, and to faculty in the Department of Cariology, Restorative Sciences and Endodontics.Results: The response rate was 100% (108/108) for D1 students, 56% (73/130) for D3 students, and 39% (34/88; 12 full-time and 22 part-time) for faculty. D1 students, who were completing a cariology course, were in general more conservative in restorative thresholds for less severe caries lesions than D3 students and sometimes clinical faculty (e.g., for lesions at the DEJ, a significantly [p < 0.05] higher percentage of D3 students would restore these [53%] compared to D1 students and faculty [19% and 18%, respectively; p > 0.05]). For all groups, the threshold for doing restorative intervention was shifted toward less severe caries lesions as the caries risk increased (e.g., very few respondents would restore an occlusal lesion confined to enamel, with significantly [p < 0.05] less percentage of D1 students [lower risk scenario-LR = 4%; higher risk scenario-HR = 22%] compared to D3 students and faculty [LR = 15% and 18%; HR = 66% and 62%, respectively; p > 0.05]). Class lectures/preclinical instructors were the most important factor influencing decision-making for D1 students, versus clinical experiences/instructors for D3 students. Conclusion:Although the majority of respondents used best-evidence deciding caries management, there was variability in how to manage less severe lesions, with caries risk influencing clinical thresholds, and clinical experiences influencing students' decision-making over time.