The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: The extent to which economic evaluations have included the healthcare resource and outcome-related implications of information provision in national newborn bloodspot screening programmes (NBSPs) is not currently known. OBJECTIVES: To identify if, and how, information provision has been incorporated into published economic evaluations of NBSPs. METHODS: A systematic review of economic evaluations of NBSPs (up to November 2014) was conducted. Three electronic databases were searched (Ovid: Medline, Embase, CINAHL) using an electronic search strategy combining a published economic search filter with terms related to national NBSPs and screening-related technologies. These electronic searches were supplemented by searching the NHS Economic Evaluations Database (NHS EED) and hand-searching identified study reference lists. The results were tabulated and summarised as part of a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 27 economic evaluations [screening-related technologies (n = 11) and NBSPs (n = 16)] were identified. The majority of economic evaluations did not quantify the impact of information provision in terms of healthcare costs or outcomes. Five studies did include an estimate of the time cost associated with information provision. Four studies included a value to reflect the disutility associated with parental anxiety caused by false-positive results, which was used as a proxy for the impact of imperfect information. CONCLUSION: A limited evidence base currently quantifies the impact of information provision on the healthcare costs and impact on the users of NBSPs; the parents of newborns. We suggest that economic evaluations of expanded NBSPs need to take account of information provision otherwise the impact on healthcare costs and the outcomes for newborns and their parents may be underestimated. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40258-015-0177-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Use of progression criteria to support monitoring and commissioning decision making of public health services: : lessons from Better Start Bradford

BACKGROUND:Commissioning and monitoring of community-based interventions is a challenge due to the complex nature of the environment and the lack of any explicit cut-offs to guide decision making. At what point, for example, is participant enrolment to interventions, course completion or satisfaction deemed to be acceptable or sufficient for continued funding? We aimed to identify and quantify key progression criteria for fourteen early years interventions by (1) agreeing the top three criteria for monitoring of successful implementation and progress; and (2) agreeing boundaries to categorise interventions as 'meeting anticipated target' (green); 'falling short of targets' (amber) and 'targets not being met' (red). METHODS:We ran three workshops in partnership with the UK's Big Lottery Fund commissioned programme 'Better Start Bradford' (implementing more than 20 interventions to improve the health, wellbeing and development of children aged 0-3) to support decision making by agreeing progression criteria for the interventions being delivered. Workshops included 72 participants, representing a range of professional groups including intervention delivery teams, commissioners, intervention-monitoring teams, academics and community representatives. After discussion and activities, final decisions were submitted using electronic voting devices. All participants were invited to reconsider their responses via a post-workshop questionnaire. RESULTS:Three key progression criteria were assigned to each of the 14 interventions. Overall, criteria that participants most commonly voted for were recruitment, implementation and reach, but these differed according to each intervention. Cut-off values used to indicate when an intervention moved to 'red' varied by criteria; the lowest being for recruitment, where participants agreed that meeting less than 65% of the targeted recruitment would be deemed as 'red' (falling short of target). CONCLUSIONS:Our methodology for monitoring the progression of interventions has resulted in a clear pathway which will support commissioners and intervention teams in local decision making within the Better Start Bradford programme and beyond. This work can support others wishing to implement a formal system for monitoring the progression of public health interventions

Implementation evaluation of multiple complex early years interventions: : an evaluation framework and study protocol

Introduction: Implementation evaluations are integral to understanding whether, how and why interventions work. However, unpicking the mechanisms of complex interventions is often challenging in usual service settings where multiple services are delivered concurrently. Furthermore, many locally developed and/or adapted interventions have not undergone any evaluation, thus limiting the evidence base available. Born in Bradford’s Better Start cohort is evaluating the impact of multiple early life interventions being delivered as part of the Big Lottery Fund’s ‘A Better Start’ programme to improve the health and well-being of children living in one of the most socially and ethnically diverse areas of the UK. In this paper, we outline our evaluation framework and protocol for embedding pragmatic implementation evaluation across multiple early years interventions and services. Methods and analysis: The evaluation framework is based on a modified version of The Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, our evaluation framework incorporates semistructured interviews, focus groups, routinely collected data and questionnaires. We will explore factors related to content, delivery and reach of interventions at both individual and wider community levels. Potential moderating factors impacting intervention success such as participants’ satisfaction, strategies to facilitate implementation, quality of delivery and context will also be examined. Interview and focus guides will be based on the Theoretical Domains Framework to further explore the barriers and facilitators of implementation. Descriptive statistics will be employed to analyse the routinely collected quantitative data and thematic analysis will be used to analyse qualitative data. Ethics and dissemination: The Health Research Authority (HRA) has confirmed our implementation evaluations do not require review by an NHS Research Ethics Committee (HRA decision 60/88/81). Findings will be shared widely to aid commissioning decisions and will also be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, summary reports, conferences and community newsletters

A randomised controlled feasibility trial and qualitative evaluation of an early years language development intervention: : study protocol of the ‘outcomes of Talking Together evaluation and results’ (oTTer) project

Background Problems with oral language skills in childhood have been linked with poor educational, employment, and mental health outcomes. In the UK, there is increasing concern about the oral language skills of children, particularly children from areas of social disadvantage. Research emphasises the importance of the home language environment as a fundamental bedrock for the development of oral language skills. It is vital, therefore, that support is available to help families in need to provide the optimal language environment for their child. Talking Together is a 6-week home visiting programme recently commissioned by Better Start Bradford to develop parents’ knowledge of the importance of a good language environment and help to improve parent-child interactions. This study represents the initial steps in developing a definitive trial of the Talking Together programme. Method This study is a two-arm randomised controlled feasibility study in which families referred into the Talking Together programme and consent to participate in the trial will be randomly allocated to either an intervention group or a waiting control group. We will assess the recruitment and retention rates, the representativeness of our sample, the appropriateness of our measures, and the sample size needed for a definitive trial. We will also carry out a qualitative evaluation to explore the acceptability of trial procedures for families and service providers, fidelity of delivery, time and resources for training, and barriers and facilitators to engagement with the programme. Clear progression criteria will be used to assess suitability for a definitive trial. Conclusion This feasibility study will inform the development of a definitive trial of this home-based visiting programme, which will add to the sparse evidence base on which practitioners can draw when supporting families in need. The lessons learnt from this feasibility study will also inform the wider evaluation work of the Better Start Bradford Innovation Hub. Trial registration The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry: study ID ISRCTN13251954. Date of registration: 21 February 2019 (the trial was retrospectively registered)

The key components of a successful model of midwifery-led continuity of carer, without continuity at birth: findings from a qualitative implementation evaluation

Abstract Background Recent UK maternity policy changes recommend that a named midwife supports women throughout their pregnancy, birth and postnatal care. Whilst many studies report high levels of satisfaction amongst women receiving, and midwives providing, this level of continuity of carer, there are concerns some midwives may experience burnout and stress. In this study, we present a qualitative evaluation of the implementation of a midwife-led continuity of carer model that excluded continuity of carer at the birth. Methods Underpinned by the Conceptual Model for Implementation Fidelity, our evaluation explored the implementation, fidelity, reach and satisfaction of the continuity of carer model. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with midwives (n = 7) and women (n = 15) from continuity of carer team. To enable comparisons between care approaches, midwives (n = 7) and women (n = 10) from standard approach teams were also interviewed. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Results For continuity of carer team midwives, manageable caseloads, extended appointment times, increased team stability, and flexible working patterns facilitated both care provided and midwives’ job satisfaction. Both continuity of carer and standard approach midwives reported challenges in providing postnatal continuity given the unpredictable timing of labour and birth. Time constraints, inadequate staffing and lack of administrative support were reported as additional barriers to implementing continuity of carer within standard approach teams. Women reported continuity was integral to building trust with midwives, encouraged them to disclose mental health issues and increased their confidence in making birth choices. Conclusions Our evaluation highlighted the successful implementation of a continuity of carer model for ante and postnatal care. Despite exclusion of the birth element in the model, both women and midwives expressed high levels of satisfaction in comparison to women and midwives within the standard approach. Implementation successes were largely due to structural and resource factors, particularly the combination of additional time and smaller caseloads of women. However, these resources are not widely available within the resources of maternity unit budgets. Future research should further explore whether a continuity of carer model focusing on antenatal and postnatal care delivery is a feasible and sustainable model of care for all women. </jats:sec

How behavioural science can contribute to health partnerships: The case of The Change Exchange

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Health partnerships often use health professional training to change practice with the aim of improving quality of care. Interventions to change practice can learn from behavioural science and focus not only on improving the competence and capability of health professionals but also their opportunity and motivation to make changes in practice. We describe a project that used behavioural scientist volunteers to enable health partnerships to understand and use the theories, techniques and assessments of behavioural science. Case studies: This paper outlines how The Change Exchange, a collective of volunteer behavioural scientists, worked with health partnerships to strengthen their projects by translating behavioural science in situ. We describe three case studies in which behavioural scientists, embedded in health partnerships in Uganda, Sierra Leone and Mozambique, explored the behaviour change techniques used by educators, supported knowledge and skill development in behaviour change, monitored the impact of projects on psychological determinants of behaviour and made recommendations for future project developments. Discussion: Challenges in the work included having time and space for behavioural science in already very busy health partnership schedules and the difficulties in using certain methods in other cultures. Future work could explore other modes of translation and further develop methods to make them more culturally applicable. Conclusion: Behavioural scientists could translate behavioural science which was understood and used by the health partnerships to strengthen their project work

Integrating research and system-wide practice in public health: lessons learnt from Better Start Bradford.

Many interventions that are delivered within public health services have little evidence of effect. Evaluating interventions that are being delivered as a part of usual practice offers opportunities to improve the evidence base of public health. However, such evaluation is challenging and requires the integration of research into system-wide practice. The Born in Bradford's Better Start experimental birth cohort offers an opportunity to efficiently evaluate multiple complex community interventions to improve the health, wellbeing and development of children aged 0-3 years. Based on the learning from this programme, this paper offers a pragmatic and practical guide to researchers, public health commissioners and service providers to enable them to integrate research into their everyday practice, thus enabling relevant and robust evaluations within a complex and changing system.Using the principles of co-production the key challenges of integrating research and practice were identified, and appropriate strategies to overcome these, developed across five key stages: 1) Community and stakeholder engagement; 2) Intervention design; 3) Optimising routinely collected data; 4) Monitoring implementation; and 5) Evaluation. As a result of our learning we have developed comprehensive toolkits ( https://borninbradford.nhs.uk/what-we-do/pregnancy-early-years/toolkit/ ) including: an operational guide through the service design process; an implementation and monitoring guide; and an evaluation framework. The evaluation framework incorporates implementation evaluations to enable understanding of intervention performance in practice, and quasi experimental approaches to infer causal effects in a timely manner. We also offer strategies to harness routinely collected data to enhance the efficiency and affordability of evaluations that are directly relevant to policy and practice.These strategies and tools will help researchers, commissioners and service providers to work together to evaluate interventions delivered in real-life settings. More importantly, however, we hope that they will support the development of a connected system that empowers practitioners and commissioners to embed innovation and improvement into their own practice, thus enabling them to learn, evaluate and improve their own services