A randomized controlled trial of a proportionate universal parenting program delivery model (E-SEE Steps) to enhance child social-emotional wellbeing

Background Evidence for parenting programs to improve wellbeing in children under three is inconclusive. We investigated the fidelity, impact, and cost-effectiveness of two parenting programs delivered within a longitudinal proportionate delivery model (‘E-SEE Steps’). Methods Eligible parents with a child ≤ 8 weeks were recruited into a parallel two-arm, assessor blinded, randomized controlled, community-based, trial with embedded economic and process evaluations. Post-baseline randomization applied a 5:1 (intervention-to-control) ratio, stratified by primary (child social-emotional wellbeing (ASQ:SE-2)) and key secondary (maternal depression (PHQ-9)) outcome scores, sex, and site. All intervention parents received the Incredible Years® Baby Book (IY-B), and were offered the targeted Infant (IY-I)/Toddler (IY-T) program if eligible, based on ASQ:SE-2/PHQ-9 scores. Control families received usual services. Fidelity data were analysed descriptively. Primary analysis applied intention to treat. Effectiveness analysis fitted a marginal model to outcome scores. Cost-effectiveness analysis involved Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs). Results The target sample (N = 606) was not achieved; 341 mothers were randomized (285:56), 322 (94%) were retained to study end. Of those eligible for the IY-I (n = 101), and IY-T (n = 101) programs, 51 and 21 respectively, attended. Eight (of 14) groups met the 80% self-reported fidelity criteria. No significant differences between arms were found for adjusted mean difference scores; ASQ:SE-2 (3.02, 95% CI: -0.03, 6.08, p = 0.052), PHQ-9 (-0.61; 95% CI: -1.34, 0.12, p = 0.1). E-SEE Steps had higher costs, but improved mothers’ Health-related Quality of Life (0.031 Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gain), ICER of £20,062 per QALY compared to control. Serious adverse events (n = 86) were unrelated to the intervention. Conclusions E-SEE Steps was not effective, but was borderline cost-effective. The model was delivered with varying fidelity, with lower-than-expected IY-T uptake. Changes to delivery systems and the individual programs may be needed prior to future evaluation. Trial registration International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN11079129

A community-based parent-support programme to prevent child maltreatment : Protocol for a randomised controlled trial

The prevention of child abuse and neglect is a global public health priority due to its serious, long-lasting effects on personal, social, and economic outcomes. The Children At Risk Model (ChARM) is a wraparound-inspired intervention that coordinates evidence-based parenting- and home-visiting programmes, along with community-based supports, in order to address the multiple and complex needs of families at risk of child abuse or neglect. This paper presents the protocol for a study that will be carried out to evaluate this new service model (i.e. no results available as yet). The study comprises a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial, with embedded economic and process evaluations. The study will be conducted in two child-welfare agencies within socially disadvantaged settings in Ireland. Families with children aged 3-11 years who are at risk of maltreatment (n = 50) will be randomised to either the 20-week ChARM programme (n = 25) or to standard care (n = 25) using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcomes are incidences of child maltreatment and child behaviour and wellbeing. Secondary outcomes include quality of parent-child relationships, parental stress, mental health, substance use, recorded incidences of substantiated abuse, and out-of-home placements. Assessments will take place at pre-intervention, and at 6- and 12-month follow-up periods. The study is the first evaluation of a wraparound-inspired intervention, incorporating evidence-based programmes, designed to prevent child abuse and neglect within high risk families where children are still living in the home. The findings will offer a unique contribution to the development, implementation and evaluation of effective interventions in the prevention of child abuse and neglect. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registe

Ethnic inequalities in the incidence of diagnosis of severe mental illness in England: a systematic review and new meta-analyses for non-affective and affective psychoses.

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01758-yPURPOSE: Although excess risks particularly for a diagnosis of schizophrenia have been identified for ethnic minority people in England and other contexts, we sought to identify and synthesise up-to-date evidence (2018) for affective in addition to non-affective psychoses by specific ethnic groups in England. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of ethnic differences in diagnosed incidence of psychoses in England, searching nine databases for reviews (citing relevant studies up to 2009) and an updated search in three databases for studies between 2010 and 2018. Studies from both searches were combined in meta-analyses allowing coverage of more specific ethnic groups than previously. RESULTS: We included 28 primary studies. Relative to the majority population, significantly higher risks of diagnosed schizophrenia were found in Black African (Relative risk, RR 5.72, 95% CI 3.87-8.46, n = 9); Black Caribbean (RR 5.20, 95% CI 4.33-6.24, n = 21); South Asian (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.63-3.16, n = 14); White Other (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.59-3.14, n = 9); and Mixed Ethnicity people (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.32-3.80, n = 4). Significantly higher risks for diagnosed affective psychoses were also revealed: Black African (RR 4.07, 95% CI 2.27-7.28, n = 5); Black Caribbean (RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.78-4.74, n = 16); South Asian (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.07-2.72, n = 8); White Other (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.32-1.83, n = 5); Mixed Ethnicity (RR 6.16, 95% CI 3.99-9.52, n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: The risk for a diagnosis of non-affective and affective psychoses is particularly elevated for Black ethnic groups, but is higher for all ethnic minority groups including those previously not assessed through meta-analyses (White Other, Mixed Ethnicity). This calls for further research on broader disadvantages affecting ethnic minority people.Lankelly Chase Foundatio

Antiepileptic prophylaxis following severe traumatic brain injury within a military cohort

Traumatic brain injury increases the risk of both early and late seizures. Antiepileptic prophylaxis reduces early seizures, but their use beyond 1 week does not prevent the development of post-traumatic epilepsy. Furthermore, prolonged prophylaxis exposes patients to side effects of the drugs and has occupational implications. The American Academy of Neurology recommends that antiepileptic prophylaxis should be started for patients with severe traumatic brain injury and discontinued after 1 week. An audit is presented here that investigates the use of prophylaxis in a cohort of military patients admitted to the UK Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre (DMRC).Data were collected and analysed retrospectively from electronic and paper records between February 2009 and August 2012. The timing and duration of antiepileptic drug use and the incidence of seizures were recorded.During the study period, 52 patients with severe traumatic brain injury were admitted to the rehabilitation centre: 25 patients (48%) were commenced on prophylaxis during the first week following injury while 27 (52%) did not receive prophylaxis. Only one patient (2%) received prophylaxis for the recommended period of 1 week, 22 patients (42%) received prophylaxis for longer than 1 week with a mean duration of 6.2 months. Two patients (4%) had post-traumatic epilepsy and started on treatment at DMRC.The use of antiepileptic prophylaxis varies widely and is generally inconsistent with evidence-based guidance. This exposes some patients to a higher risk of early seizures and others to unnecessary use of antiepileptics. Better implementation of prophylaxis is required

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a universal, preventative-focused, parent and infant programme

Abstract Background This study assessed whether a relatively newly developed Parent and Infant (PIN) parenting support programme was cost-effective when compared to services as usual (SAU). Methods The cost-effectiveness of the PIN programme versus SAU was assessed from an Irish health and social care perspective over a 24-month timeframe and within the context of a non-randomised, controlled before-and-after trial. In total, 163 parent-infant dyads were included in the study (86 intervention, 77 control). The primary outcome measure for the economic evaluation was the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC). Results The average cost of the PIN programme was €647 per dyad. The mean (SE) cost (including programme costs) was €7,027 (SE €1,345) compared to €4,811 (SE €593) in the control arm, generating a (non-significant) mean cost difference of €2,216 (bootstrap 95% CI -€665 to €5,096; p = 0.14). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness of the PIN service was €614 per PSOC unit gained (bootstrap 95% CI €54 to €1,481). The probability that the PIN programme was cost-effective, was 87% at a willingness-to-pay of €1,000 per one unit change in the PSOC. Conclusions Our findings suggest that the PIN programme was cost-effective at a relatively low willingness-to-pay threshold when compared to SAU. This study addresses a significant knowledge gap in the field of early intervention by providing important real world evidence on the implementation costs and cost-effectiveness of a universal early years parenting programme. The challenges involved in assessing the cost-effectiveness of preventative interventions for very young children and their parents are also discussed. Trial registration ISRCTN17488830 (Date of registration: 27/11/15). This trial was retrospectively registered