Developing standards for reporting implementation studies of complex interventions (StaRI): a systematic review and e-Delphi

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited

National succession planning framework for children's services section two: resources

"This section provides a range of materials to support use of section one of the national succession planning framework for children’s services" - Page 1

The completeness of intervention descriptions in published National Institute of Health Research HTA-funded trials: a cross-sectional study

ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to assess whether National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the HTA journal were described in sufficient detail to replicate in practice.SettingRCTs published in the HTA journal.Participants98 RCTs published in the HTA journal up to March 2011. Completeness of the intervention description was assessed independently by two researchers using a checklist, which included assessments of participants, intensity, schedule, materials and settings. Disagreements in scoring were discussed in the team; differences were then explored and resolved.Primary and secondary outcome measuresProportion of trials rated as having a complete description of the intervention (primary outcome measure). The proportion of drug trials versus psychological and non-drug trials rated as having a complete description of the intervention (secondary outcome measures).ResultsComponents of the intervention description were missing in 68/98 (69.4%) reports. Baseline characteristics and descriptions of settings had the highest levels of completeness with over 90% of reports complete. Reports were less complete on patient information with 58.2% of the journals having an adequate description. When looking at individual intervention types, drug intervention descriptions were more complete than non-drug interventions with 33.3% and 30.6% levels of completeness, respectively, although this was not significant statistically. Only 27.3% of RCTs with psychological interventions were deemed to be complete, although again these differences were not significant statistically.ConclusionsEnsuring the replicability of study interventions is an essential part of adding value in research. All those publishing clinical trial data need to ensure transparency and completeness in the reporting of interventions to ensure that study interventions can be replicated

Quality interoperability within digital libraries: the DL.org perspective

Quality is the most dynamic aspect of DLs, and becomes even more complex with respect to interoperability. This paper formalizes the research motivations and hypotheses on quality interoperability conducted by the Quality Working Group within the EU-funded project DL.org (<a href="http://www.dlorg.eu">http://www.dlorg.eu/</a>). After providing a multi-level interoperability framework – adopted by DL.org - the authors illustrate key-research points and approaches on the way to the interoperability of DLs quality, grounding them in the DELOS Reference Model. By applying the DELOS Reference Model Quality Concept Map to their interoperability motivating scenario, the authors subsequently present the two main research outcomes of their investigation - the Quality Core Model and the Quality Interoperability Survey

Study protocol: evaluation of a parenting and stress management programme: a randomised controlled trial of Triple P discussion groups and stress control

<br>Background: Children displaying psychosocial problems are at an increased risk of negative developmental outcomes. Parenting practices are closely linked with child development and behaviour, and parenting programmes have been recommended in the treatment of child psychosocial problems. However, parental mental health also needs to be addressed when delivering parenting programmes as it is linked with parenting practices, child outcomes, and treatment outcomes of parenting programmes. This paper describes the protocol of a study examining the effects of a combined intervention of a parenting programme and a cognitive behavioural intervention for mental health problems.</br> <br>Methods: The effects of a combined intervention of Triple P Discussion Groups and Stress Control will be examined using a randomised controlled trial design. Parents with a child aged 3?8?years will be recruited to take part in the study. After obtaining informed consent and pre-intervention measures, participants will be randomly assigned to either an intervention or a waitlist condition. The two primary outcomes for this study are change in dysfunctional/ineffective parenting practices and change in symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress. Secondary outcomes are child behaviour problems, parenting experiences, parental self-efficacy, family relationships, and positive parental mental health. Demographic information, participant satisfaction with the intervention, and treatment fidelity data will also be collected. Data will be collected at pre-intervention, mid-intervention, post-intervention, and 3-month follow-up.</br> <br>Discussion: The aim of this paper is to describe the study protocol of a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effects of a combined intervention of Triple P Discussion Groups and Stress Control in comparison to a waitlist condition. This study is important because it will provide evidence about the effects of this combined intervention for parents with 3?8?year old children. The results of the study could be used to inform policy about parenting support and support for parents with mental health problems. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01777724, UTN: U1111-1137-1053.</br&gt

Putting Community First: A Promising Approach to Federal Collaboration for Environmental Improvement: An Evaluation of the Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Demonstration Program

This report is an independent evaluation of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Demonstration Program, a community-driven process that uses the best available data to help communities set priorities and take action on their greatest environmental risks. CARE fosters local partnerships that seek participation from business, government, organizations, residents and EPA staff. It also supports a public, transparent planning and implementation process based on collaborative decision-making and shared action.Key FindingsThe National Academy Panel overseeing this effort was impressed by the dedication of the EPA staff to this unique initiative and commended the EPA for its efforts to partner with communities in achieving important long-term and sustainable environmental improvements at the local level. Recommended actions for the CARE Program include: (1) develop and implement a multifaceted information sharing approach; (2) coordinate and refine internal program management activities; and (3) develop a strategic plan and a business plan for CARE