Understanding the implementation and effectiveness of a group-based early parenting intervention : a process evaluation protocol

BACKGROUND: Group-based early parenting interventions delivered through community-based services may be a potentially effective means of promoting infant and family health and wellbeing. Process evaluations of these complex interventions provide vital information on how they work, as well as the conditions which shape and influence outcomes. This information is critical to decision makers and service providers who wish to embed prevention and early interventions in usual care settings. In this paper, a process evaluation protocol for an early years parenting intervention, the Parent and Infant (PIN) program, is described. This program combines a range of developmentally-appropriate supports, delivered in a single intervention process, for parents and infants (0–2 years) and aimed at enhancing parental competence, strengthening parent-infant relationships and improving infant wellbeing and adjustment. METHODS: The process evaluation is embedded within a controlled trial and accompanying cost-effectiveness evaluation. Building from extant frameworks and evaluation methods, this paper presents a systematic approach to the process evaluation of the PIN program and its underlying change principles, the implementation of the program, the context of implementation and the change mechanisms which influence and shape parent and infant outcomes. We will use a multi-method strategy, including semi-structured interviews and group discussions with key stakeholders, documentary analysis and survey methodology. DISCUSSION: The integration of innovations into existing early years systems and services is a challenging multifaceted undertaking. This process evaluation will make an important contribution to knowledge about the implementation of such programs, while also providing an example of how theory-based research can be embedded within the evaluation of community-based interventions. We discuss the strengths of the research, such as the adoption of a collaborative approach to data collection, while we also identify potential challenges, including capturing and assessing complex aspects of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17488830 (Date of registration: 27/11/15). This trial was retrospectively registered. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1737-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

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