Family reunion in a university law clinic: a model for law schools?

This paper outlines the establishing of a law clinic to assist individuals with their application under the refugee family reunion (RFR) provision. We consider that a significant gap exists in the scope of university law clinics to provide a dedicated RFR service, a gap which extends to service providers generally in many regions in the UK. The removal of legal aid for family reunion applications has negatively affected the efficacy of refugees and those with humanitarian protection status to be reunited with their families (a right provided under international law to which the UK is a signatory). Family reunion is a very current issue of concern given global developments and the political instability in many countries, and it is also a topic which is at the very heart of social justice, a philosophy which underpins many law clinics in universities. Law clinics allow universities and their students to use their talents and resources to positively change the lives of people in their local communities. Significantly, broadening the scope of law clinics to offer a RFR service will enrich the learning experience of staff and students involved in RFR clinics, help to produce the next generation of lawyers, policy and decision-makers with an awareness of the issues facing refugees and the human perspective of the crises affecting them, and facilitate research opportunities through effective data collection and analysis. Subsequent outputs can positively affect national policy on immigration, asylum, legal aid, and engagement with, and the education of, the public

The Identification and Support of Child Victims of Trafficking in Scotland: A Child Protection Model

In February 2013 an earlier version of this paper was presented to a stakeholder group, proposing a child-rights approach to the identification and protection of child victims of trafficking in Scotland; an approach that sought to prioritise the protection of children being a higher policy and practice importance than immigration control.  This updated paper, taking account of recent developments, proposes a model of child protection focused practice for child victims of trafficking in Scotland, underpinned by multiagency practice experience and research developed over the last 10 years. The proposal seeks to locate child trafficking practice firmly within existing devolved powers and legislation; any decisions regarding immigration control and residency remain firmly within the powers of the UK Government. This proposal does not necessitate any legislative changes and can be accommodated in existing child protection policy and practice in Scotland

Cost-Effectiveness Findings from the Agewell Pilot Study of Behaviour Change to Promote Health and Wellbeing in Later Life.

Background: Participation in cognitive and physical activities may help to maintain health and wellbeing in older people. The Agewell study explored the feasibility of increasing cognitive and physical activity in older people through a goal-setting approach. This paper describes the findings of the cost-effectiveness analysis. Method: Individuals over the age of 50 and attending an Agewell centre in North Wales were randomised to one of three conditions: control (IC), goal-setting (GS), or goal-setting with mentoring (GM). We undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing GS vs. IC, GM vs. IC and GM vs. GS. The primary outcome measure for this analysis was the QALY, calculated using the EQ-5D. Participants’ health and social care contacts were recorded and costed using national unit costs. Results: Seventy participants were followed-up at 12 months. Intervention set up and delivery costs were £252 per participant in the GS arm and £269 per participant in the GM arm. Mean health and social care costs over 12 months were £1,240 (s.d. £3,496) per participant in the IC arm, £1,259 (s.d. £3,826) per participant in the GS arm and £1,164 (s.d. £2,312) per participant in the GM arm. At a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY there was a 65% probability that GS was cost-effective compared to IC (ICER of £1,070). However, there was only a 41% probability that GM was cost-effective compared to IC (ICER of £2,830) at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY. Conclusion: Setting up and running the community based intervention was feasible. Due to the small sample size it is not possible to draw a firm conclusion about cost-effectiveness; however, our preliminary results suggest that goal- setting is likely to be cost-effective compared to the control condition of no goal-setting, the addition of mentoring was effective but not cost-effective.Lifelong Health and Well-being Programme through the Medical Research Counci

The Agewell trial: a pilot randomised controlled trial of a behaviour change intervention to promote healthy ageing and reduce risk of dementia in later life.

This is the final version of the article. Available from BioMed Central via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: Lifestyle factors represent prime targets for behaviour change interventions to promote healthy ageing and reduce dementia risk. We evaluated a goal-setting intervention aimed at promoting increased cognitive and physical activity and improving mental and physical fitness, diet and health. METHODS: This was a pilot randomised controlled trial designed to guide planning for a larger-scale investigation, provide preliminary evidence regarding efficacy, and explore feasibility and acceptability. Primary outcomes were engagement in physical and cognitive activity. Participants aged over 50 living independently in the community were recruited through a community Agewell Centre. Following baseline assessment participants were randomly allocated to one of three conditions: control (IC) had an interview in which information about activities and health was discussed; goal-setting (GS n = 24) had an interview in which they set behaviour change goals relating to physical, cognitive and social activity, health and nutrition; and goal-setting with mentoring (GM, n = 24) had the goal-setting interview followed by bi-monthly telephone mentoring. Participants and researchers were blinded to group assignment. Participants were reassessed after 12 months. RESULTS: Seventy-five participants were randomised (IC n = 27, GS n = 24, GM n = 24). At 12-month follow-up, the two goal-setting groups, taken together (GS n = 21, GM n = 22), increased their level of physical (effect size 0.37) and cognitive (effect size 0.15) activity relative to controls (IC n = 27). In secondary outcomes, the two goal-setting groups taken together achieved additional benefits compared to control (effect sizes ≥ 0.2) in memory, executive function, cholesterol level, aerobic capacity, flexibility, balance, grip strength, and agility. Adding follow-up mentoring produced further benefits compared to goal-setting alone (effect sizes ≥ 0.2) in physical activity, body composition, global cognition and memory, but not in other domains. Implementation of the recruitment procedure, assessment and intervention was found to be feasible and the approach taken was acceptable to participants, with no adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: A brief, low-cost goal-setting intervention is feasible and acceptable, and has the potential to achieve increased activity engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30080637.This trial was funded by Medical Research Council grant G1001888/1 to LC, JVH, IRJ, JT and CJW. The funding body played no role in the design of the study, in collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. We acknowledge the support of Age Cymru Gwynedd a Môn including John Clifford Jones, Maldwyn Roberts, Stephen Williams and Mici Plwm. We would like to thank Sharman Harris and Catrin Searell, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor, the volunteers at the Nefyn Agewell Centre, and all the members of the Nefyn Agewell Centre, and especially all those who took part in the research project. We are grateful to Professor Carol Brayne, Cambridge University, Professor Martin Knapp, London School of Economics, Professor Mike Martin, Zürich University, and Professor Robin Morris, King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry, who acted as external advisors to the project. Special thanks go to Andrew Brand for statistical advice

What is the most effective method of delivering Making Every Contact Count training? A rapid review

The Making Every Contact Count MECC programme encourages staff to have opportunistic brief behaviour change conversations with service users. It uses the day-to-day interactions that healthcare professionals, or those within other organisations, including the not-for-profit sector have with people, to support them in making positive changes to their physical and mental health, and wellbeing. The aim of this review is to assess which elements or types of MECC training, or comparable interventions, are most effective and preferred by those who would implement MECC in practice. The review included evidence available up until June 2024. 11 studies were included. These all focused on healthcare organisations and included health care or public health professionals, with two also including trainees who worked in a local authority. There was consistent evidence that training increased both trainee confidence and use of MECCrelated techniques immediately following training. There was some evidence that despite a slight reduction, these improvements were at least maintained up to one year later. There was no evidence on the longer-term effect, other than an indication that refresher training would be appreciated. There was also no evidence assessing whether improvements in trainee confidence and competence had any impact on service user behaviour change and outcomes. There was an indication that face-to-face training was preferred to online training. Barriers to MECC training attendance included a feeling that there was not enough time, and a lack of managerial support. Barriers to MECC utilisation included a feeling that there was not enough time, a lack of organisational and managerial support, a fear of upsetting patients, and a lack of awareness of downstream support services to refer service users to following healthy behaviour conversations. The evidence indicated that barriers to MECC training and utilisation could be overcome via provision of information about downstream support services, and improved organisational and managerial support for both attendance at MECC training and its use in practice. Further research is needed. This should include research into the impact from MECC on patient behaviour and eventual outcomes, and how these change following training

Earlier cancer diagnosis in primary care: a feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!

BackgroundUK cancer survival rates are much lower compared with other high-income countries. In primary care, there are opportunities for GPs and other healthcare professionals to act more quickly in response to presented symptoms that might represent cancer. ThinkCancer! is a complex behaviour change intervention aimed at primary care practice teams to improve the timely diagnosis of cancer.AimTo explore the costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in primary care.Design & settingFeasibility economic analysis using a micro-costing approach, which was undertaken in 19 general practices in Wales, UK.MethodFrom an NHS perspective, micro-costing methodology was used to determine whether it was feasible to gather sufficient economic data to cost the ThinkCancer!InterventionOwing to the COVID-19 pandemic, ThinkCancer! was mainly delivered remotely online in a digital format. Budget impact analysis (BIA) and sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the costs of face-to-face delivery of the ThinkCancer! intervention as intended pre-COVID-19.ResultsThe total costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention across 19 general practices in Wales was £25 030, with an average cost per practice of £1317 (standard deviation [SD]: 578.2). Findings from the BIA indicated a total cost of £34 630 for face-to-face delivery.ConclusionData collection methods were successful in gathering sufficient health economics data to cost the ThinkCancer!InterventionResults of this feasibility study will be used to inform a future definitive economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT)

Protocol for a feasibility study incorporating a randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!: a primary care intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in Wales

Abstract Background Compared to the rest of Europe, the UK has relatively poor cancer outcomes, with late diagnosis and a slow referral process being major contributors. General practitioners (GPs) are often faced with patients presenting with a multitude of non-specific symptoms that could be cancer. Safety netting can be used to manage diagnostic uncertainty by ensuring patients with vague symptoms are appropriately monitored, which is now even more crucial due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its major impact on cancer referrals. The ThinkCancer! workshop is an educational behaviour change intervention aimed at the whole general practice team, designed to improve primary care approaches to ensure timely diagnosis of cancer. The workshop will consist of teaching and awareness sessions, the appointment of a Safety Netting Champion and the development of a bespoke Safety Netting Plan and has been adapted so it can be delivered remotely. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the ThinkCancer! intervention for a future definitive randomised controlled trial. Methods The ThinkCancer! study is a randomised, multisite feasibility trial, with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis. Twenty-three to 30 general practices will be recruited across Wales, randomised in a ratio of 2:1 of intervention versus control who will follow usual care. The workshop will be delivered by a GP educator and will be adapted iteratively throughout the trial period. Baseline practice characteristics will be collected via questionnaire. We will also collect primary care intervals (PCI), 2-week wait (2WW) referral rates, conversion rates and detection rates at baseline and 6 months post-randomisation. Participant feedback, researcher reflections and economic costings will be collected following each workshop. A process evaluation will assess implementation using an adapted Normalisation Measure Development (NoMAD) questionnaire and qualitative interviews. An economic feasibility analysis will inform a future economic evaluation. Discussion This study will allow us to test and further develop a novel evidenced-based complex intervention aimed at general practice teams to expedite the diagnosis of cancer in primary care. The results from this study will inform the future design of a full-scale definitive phase III trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04823559. </jats:sec