Examining individual social status using the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status: : Findings from the Born in Bradford study

Subjective social status is how a person perceives their social class relative to other people and has frequently been associated with people's health and well-being. A frequently used measure of subjective social status is the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status that depicts social status as a 10 rung ladder, asking individuals to rank themselves on this ladder relative to other people, either in their local neighbourhood or wider society. The Born in Bradford's Better Start birth cohort study aims to understand the lives, relationships, wellbeing, and social and economic circumstances of pregnant women and their children in three inner city areas of Bradford, UK. Pregnant mothers were asked to report their subjective social status, using the MacArthur subjective social status scales, comparing themselves to other people in their local neighbourhood and in England as a whole. This paper explores the characteristics of the women who gave responses, examines associations between the MacArthur subjective social status measures and other subjective and objective measures and looks specifically at the characteristics of women who reported either very low or very high subjective social status. On average, women reported that they had a higher social status compared to others within their local neighbourhood (mean ladder rung = 6) and, although participants were from areas of Bradford with very high levels of deprivation, 23% placed themselves on the top three rungs, 8–10. Respondents reported that they had an average social status when comparing themselves to people in all of England (mean ladder rung = 5) and 13% placed themselves on the top rungs 8–10. These findings raise important questions about the interpretation of the MacArthur scale of subjective social status

The feasibility of an objective measure of the parent-child relationship in health visiting practice : assessment of the Maternal Postnatal Attachment Scale

Background: Positive parent infant relationships are key to achieving long term child outcomes. Identifying parents who may need support is difficult because of a lack of robust assessment tools. Working in partnership with health services we piloted the Maternal Postnatal Attachment Scale (MPAS) in a deprived, multi-ethnic urban community in Bradford, UK. The pilot aimed to assess the clinical utility of MPAS to identify need for support: Was it administered to a representative group of women? Is MPAS valid for this population? Methods: Data were linked to a cohort study in the pilot area (Born in Bradford’s Better Start - BiBBS). Chi Square tests assessed sample representativeness (age, ethnicity, parity, English language, education, deprivation). Exploratory factor analysis explored MPAS’ validity. Results: 563 women in BiBBS were eligible, 210 (37%) completed MPAS.  No differences were found between completers and non-completers, suggestive of a representative sample. In total, 336 women (including a number of women living in the service area who had not participated in BiBBS) completed MPAS in the pilot.  MPAS had ceiling effects and a satisfactory factor structure could not be identified, indicating poor psychometric properties. Conclusions: Health visitors were successful in administering MPAS to a representative sample, but the lack of psychometric robustness indicates that MPAS is unsuitable for routine use in this setting. A gap for such a measure remains

Implementing the Maternal Postnatal Attachment Scale (MPAS) in universal services : Qualitative interviews with health visitors

Background: A secure parent-infant relationship lays the foundations for children’s development, however there are currently no measurement tools recommended for clinical practice. We evaluated the clinical utility of a structured assessment of the parent-infant relationship (the Maternal Postnatal Attachment Scale, MPAS) in a deprived, multi-ethnic urban community in England. This paper answers the question: what are health visitors’ views on the parent-infant relationship, and experiences of piloting the MPAS? It explores the barriers and facilitators to implementation, and complements the paper on psychometric properties and representativeness reported in Dunn et al (2022).   Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 health visitors and data were analysed using thematic analysis.  Results: Health visitors saw identification and support of the parent-infant relationship as an important part of their role, and reported benefits of the MPAS, including opening conversation and identifying and reporting concerns. Challenges included timing and workload, the appropriateness of language, perceived intrusiveness and understanding of the questions, and the length of the tool. Suggestions for improvements to the tool were put forward.  Conclusions: The experiences, benefits and challenges identified help to explain results in Dunn et al, and the wide-ranging challenges identified would hinder assessment of the parent-infant relationship in routine practice. Further work with health professionals and parents has been undertaken to co-produce an acceptable, feasible and reliable tool for clinical practice

Growing up in Bradford:Protocol for the age 7-11 follow up of the Born in Bradford birth cohort

Background: Born in Bradford (BiB) is a prospective multi-ethnic pregnancy and birth cohort study that was established to examine determinants of health and development during childhood and, subsequently, adult life in a deprived multi-ethnic population in the north of England. Between 2007 and 2010, the BiB cohort recruited 12,453 women who experienced 13,776 pregnancies and 13,858 births, along with 3353 of their partners. Forty five percent of the cohort are of Pakistani origin. Now that children are at primary school, the first full follow-up of the cohort is taking place. The aims of the follow-up are to investigate the determinants of children's pre-pubertal health and development, including through understanding parents' health and wellbeing, and to obtain data on exposures in childhood that might influence future health. Methods: We are employing a multi-method approach across three data collection arms (community-based family visits, school based physical assessment, and whole classroom cognitive, motor function and wellbeing measures) to follow-up over 9000 BiB children aged 7-11 years and their families between 2017 and 2021. We are collecting detailed parent and child questionnaires, cognitive and sensorimotor assessments, blood pressure, anthropometry and blood samples from parents and children. Dual x-ray absorptiometry body scans, accelerometry and urine samples are collected on subsamples. Informed consent is collected for continued routine data linkage to health, social care and education records. A range of engagement activities are being used to raise the profile of BiB and to disseminate findings. Discussion: Our multi-method approach to recruitment and assessment provides an efficient method of collecting rich data on all family members. Data collected will enhance BiB as a resource for the international research community to study the interplay between ethnicity, socioeconomic circumstances and biology in relation to cardiometabolic health, mental health, education, cognitive and sensorimotor development and wellbeing.</p

Mental health policy process: a comparative study of Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Mental illnesses are increasingly recognised as a leading cause of disability worldwide, yet many countries lack a mental health policy or have an outdated, inappropriate policy. This paper explores the development of appropriate mental health policies and their effective implementation. It reports comparative findings on the processes for developing and implementing mental health policies in Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia as part of the Mental Health and Poverty Project.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study countries and respondents were purposively selected to represent different levels of mental health policy and system development to allow comparative analysis of the factors underlying the different forms of mental health policy development and implementation. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and document analysis. Data analysis was guided by conceptual framework that was developed for this purpose. A framework approach to analysis was used, incorporating themes that emerged from the data and from the conceptual framework.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mental health policies in Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia are weak, in draft form or non-existent. Mental health remained low on the policy agenda due to stigma and a lack of information, as well as low prioritisation by donors, low political priority and grassroots demand. Progress with mental health policy development varied and respondents noted a lack of consultation and insufficient evidence to inform policy development. Furthermore, policies were poorly implemented, due to factors including insufficient dissemination and operationalisation of policies and a lack of resources.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Mental health policy processes in all four countries were inadequate, leading to either weak or non-existent policies, with an impact on mental health services. Recommendations are provided to strengthen mental health policy processes in these and other African countries.</p

Research-policy partnerships - experiences of the Mental Health and Poverty Project in Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia

Background: Partnerships are increasingly common in conducting research. However, there is little published evidence about processes in research-policy partnerships in different contexts. This paper contributes to filling this gap by analysing experiences of research-policy partnerships between Ministries of Health and research organisations for the implementation of the Mental Health and Poverty Project in Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia. Methods: A conceptual framework for understanding and assessing research-policy partnerships was developed and guided this study. The data collection methods for this qualitative study included semi-structured interviews with Ministry of Health Partners (MOHPs) and Research Partners (RPs) in each country. Results: The term partnership was perceived by the partners as a collaboration involving mutually-agreed goals and objectives. The principles of trust, openness, equality and mutual respect were identified as constituting the core of partnerships. The MOHPs and RPs had clearly defined roles, with the MOHPs largely providing political support and RPs leading the research agenda. Different influences affected partnerships. At the individual level, personal relationships and ability to compromise within partnerships were seen as important. At the organisational level, the main influences included the degree of formalisation of roles and responsibilities and the internal structures and procedures affecting decision-making. At the contextual level, political environment and the degree of health system decentralisation affected partnerships. Conclusions: Several lessons can be learned from these experiences. Taking account of influences on the partnership at individual, organisation and contextual/system levels can increase its effectiveness. A common understanding of mutually-agreed goals and objectives of the partnership is essential. It is important to give attention to the processes of initiating and maintaining partnerships, based on clear roles, responsibilities and commitment of parties at different levels. Although partnerships are often established for a specific purpose, such as carrying out a particular project, the effects of partnership go beyond a particular initiative

Born in Bradford's Better Start: an experimental birth cohort study to evaluate the impact of early life interventions.

BACKGROUND: Early interventions are recognised as key to improving life chances for children and reducing inequalities in health and well-being, however there is a paucity of high quality research into the effectiveness of interventions to address childhood health and development outcomes. Planning and implementing standalone RCTs for multiple, individual interventions would be slow, cumbersome and expensive. This paper describes the protocol for an innovative experimental birth cohort: Born in Bradford's Better Start (BiBBS) that will simultaneously evaluate the impact of multiple early life interventions using efficient study designs. Better Start Bradford (BSB) has been allocated £49 million from the Big Lottery Fund to implement 22 interventions to improve outcomes for children aged 0-3 in three key areas: social and emotional development; communication and language development; and nutrition and obesity. The interventions will be implemented in three deprived and ethnically diverse inner city areas of Bradford. METHOD: The BiBBS study aims to recruit 5000 babies, their mothers and their mothers' partners over 5 years from January 2016-December 2020. Demographic and socioeconomic information, physical and mental health, lifestyle factors and biological samples will be collected during pregnancy. Parents and children will be linked to their routine health and local authority (including education) data throughout the children's lives. Their participation in BSB interventions will also be tracked. BiBBS will test interventions using the Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) approach and other quasi-experimental designs where TwiCs are neither feasible nor ethical, to evaluate these early life interventions. The effects of single interventions, and the cumulative effects of stacked (multiple) interventions on health and social outcomes during the critical early years will be measured. DISCUSSION: The focus of the BiBBS cohort is on intervention impact rather than observation. As far as we are aware BiBBS is the world's first such experimental birth cohort study. While some risk factors for adverse health and social outcomes are increasingly well described, the solutions to tackling them remain elusive. The novel design of BiBBS can contribute much needed evidence to inform policy makers and practitioners about effective approaches to improve health and well-being for future generations

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

Dolutegravir twice-daily dosing in children with HIV-associated tuberculosis: a pharmacokinetic and safety study within the open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority ODYSSEY trial

Background: Children with HIV-associated tuberculosis (TB) have few antiretroviral therapy (ART) options. We aimed to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of dolutegravir twice-daily dosing in children receiving rifampicin for HIV-associated TB. Methods: We nested a two-period, fixed-order pharmacokinetic substudy within the open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority ODYSSEY trial at research centres in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Children (aged 4 weeks to <18 years) with HIV-associated TB who were receiving rifampicin and twice-daily dolutegravir were eligible for inclusion. We did a 12-h pharmacokinetic profile on rifampicin and twice-daily dolutegravir and a 24-h profile on once-daily dolutegravir. Geometric mean ratios for trough plasma concentration (Ctrough), area under the plasma concentration time curve from 0 h to 24 h after dosing (AUC0–24 h), and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) were used to compare dolutegravir concentrations between substudy days. We assessed rifampicin Cmax on the first substudy day. All children within ODYSSEY with HIV-associated TB who received rifampicin and twice-daily dolutegravir were included in the safety analysis. We described adverse events reported from starting twice-daily dolutegravir to 30 days after returning to once-daily dolutegravir. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02259127), EudraCT (2014–002632-14), and the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91737921). Findings: Between Sept 20, 2016, and June 28, 2021, 37 children with HIV-associated TB (median age 11·9 years [range 0·4–17·6], 19 [51%] were female and 18 [49%] were male, 36 [97%] in Africa and one [3%] in Thailand) received rifampicin with twice-daily dolutegravir and were included in the safety analysis. 20 (54%) of 37 children enrolled in the pharmacokinetic substudy, 14 of whom contributed at least one evaluable pharmacokinetic curve for dolutegravir, including 12 who had within-participant comparisons. Geometric mean ratios for rifampicin and twice-daily dolutegravir versus once-daily dolutegravir were 1·51 (90% CI 1·08–2·11) for Ctrough, 1·23 (0·99–1·53) for AUC0–24 h, and 0·94 (0·76–1·16) for Cmax. Individual dolutegravir Ctrough concentrations were higher than the 90% effective concentration (ie, 0·32 mg/L) in all children receiving rifampicin and twice-daily dolutegravir. Of 18 children with evaluable rifampicin concentrations, 15 (83%) had a Cmax of less than the optimal target concentration of 8 mg/L. Rifampicin geometric mean Cmax was 5·1 mg/L (coefficient of variation 71%). During a median follow-up of 31 weeks (IQR 30–40), 15 grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred among 11 (30%) of 37 children, ten serious adverse events occurred among eight (22%) children, including two deaths (one tuberculosis-related death, one death due to traumatic injury); no adverse events, including deaths, were considered related to dolutegravir. Interpretation: Twice-daily dolutegravir was shown to be safe and sufficient to overcome the rifampicin enzyme-inducing effect in children, and could provide a practical ART option for children with HIV-associated TB