141 research outputs found

    Implementing the United Kingdom's ten-year teenage pregnancy strategy for England (1999-2010): how was this done and what did it achieve?

    Get PDF
    In 1999, the UK Labour Government launched a 10-year Teenage Pregnancy Strategy for England to address the country's historically high rates and reduce social exclusion. The goal was to halve the under-18 conception rate. This study explores how the strategy was designed and implemented, and the features that contributed to its success. This study was informed by examination of the detailed documentation of the strategy, published throughout its 10-year implementation. The strategy involved a comprehensive programme of action across four themes: joined up action at national and local level; better prevention through improved sex and relationships education and access to effective contraception; a communications campaign to reach young people and parents; and coordinated support for young parents (The support programme for young parents was an important contribution to the strategy. In the short term by helping young parents prevent further unplanned pregnancies and, in the long term, by breaking intergenerational cycles of disadvantage and lowering the risk of teenage pregnancy.). It was implemented through national, regional and local structures with dedicated funding for the 10-year duration. The under-18 conception rate reduced steadily over the strategy's lifespan. The 2014 under-18 conception rate was 51% lower than the 1998 baseline and there have been significant reductions in areas of high deprivation. One leading social commentator described the strategy as 'The success story of our time' (Toynbee, The drop in teenage pregnancies is the success story of our time, 2013). As rates of teenage pregnancy are influenced by a web of inter-connected factors, the strategy was necessarily multi-faceted in its approach. As such, it is not possible to identify causative pathways or estimate the relative contributions of each constituent part. However, we conclude that six key features contributed to the success: creating an opportunity for action; developing an evidence based strategy; effective implementation; regularly reviewing progress; embedding the strategy in wider government programmes; and providing leadership throughout the programme. The learning remains relevant for the UK as England's teenage birth rate remains higher than in other Western European countries. It also provides important lessons for governments and policy makers in other countries seeking to reduce teenage pregnancy rates. BACKGROUND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSION

    Adapting the ASSIST model of informal peer-led intervention delivery to the Talk to FRANK drug prevention programme in UK secondary schools (ASSIST + FRANK): intervention development, refinement and a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Background: Illicit drug use increases the risk of poor physical and mental health. There are few effective drug prevention interventions. Objective: To assess the acceptability of implementing and trialling two school-based peer-led drug prevention interventions. Design: Stage 1 – adapt ASSIST, an effective peer-led smoking prevention intervention to deliver information from the UK national drug education website [see www.talktofrank.com (accessed 29 August 2017)]. Stage 2 – deliver the two interventions, ASSIST + FRANK (+FRANK) and FRANK friends, examine implementation and refine content. Stage 3 – four-arm pilot cluster randomised control trial (cRCT) of +FRANK, FRANK friends, ASSIST and usual practice, including a process evaluation and an economic assessment. Setting: Fourteen secondary schools (two in stage 2) in South Wales, UK. Participants: UK Year 8 students aged 12–13 years at baseline. Interventions: +FRANK is a UK informal peer-led smoking prevention intervention provided in Year 8 followed by a drug prevention adjunct provided in Year 9. FRANK friends is a standalone informal peer-led drug prevention intervention provided in Year 9. These interventions are designed to prevent illicit drug use through training influential students to disseminate information on the risks associated with drugs and minimising harms using content from www.talktofrank.com. Training is provided off site and follow-up visits are made in school. Outcomes: Stage 1 – +FRANK and FRANK friends intervention manuals and resources. Stage 2 – information on the acceptability and fidelity of delivery of the interventions for refining manuals and resources. Stage 3 – (a) acceptability of the interventions according to prespecified criteria; (b) qualitative data from students, staff, parents and intervention teams on implementation and receipt of the interventions; (c) comparison of the interventions; and (d) recruitment and retention rates, completeness of primary, secondary and intermediate outcome measures and estimation of costs. Results: +FRANK and FRANK friends were developed with stakeholders [young people, teachers (school management team and other roles), parents, ASSIST trainers, drug agency staff and a public health commissioner] over an 18-month period. In the stage 2 delivery of +FRANK, 12 out of the 14 peer supporters attended the in-person follow-ups but only one completed the electronic follow-ups. In the pilot cRCT, 12 schools were recruited, randomised and retained. The student response rate at the 18-month follow-up was 93% (1460/1567 students). Over 80% of peer supporters invited were trained and reported conversations on drug use and contact with trainers. +FRANK was perceived less positively than FRANK friends. The prevalence of lifetime illicit drug use was 4.1% at baseline and 11.6% at follow-up, with low numbers of missing data for all outcomes. The estimated cost per school was £1942 for +FRANK and £3041 for FRANK friends. All progression criteria were met. Conclusions: Both interventions were acceptable to students, teachers and parents, but FRANK friends was preferred to +FRANK. A limitation of the study was that qualitative data were collected on a self-selecting sample. Future work recommendations include progression to a Phase III effectiveness trial of FRANK friends. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14415936. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 5, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The work was undertaken with the support of the Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer). Joint funding (MR/KO232331/1) from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the Welsh Government and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK CRC, is gratefully acknowledged

    True gender ratios and stereotype rating norms

    Get PDF
    We present a study comparing, in English, perceived distributions of men and women in 422 named occupations with actual real world distributions. The first set of data was obtained from previous a large-scale norming study, whereas the second set was mostly drawn from UK governmental sources. In total, real world ratios for 290 occupations were obtained for our perceive vs. real world comparison, of which 205 were deemed to be unproblematic. The means for the two sources were similar and the correlation between them was high, suggesting that people are generally accurate at judging real gender ratios, though there were some notable exceptions. Beside this correlation, some interesting patterns emerged from the two sources, suggesting some response strategies when people complete norming studies. We discuss these patterns in terms of the way real world data might complement norming studies in determining gender stereotypicality

    A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of intraoperative cell salvage during caesarean section in women at risk of haemorrhage: the SALVO (cell SALVage in Obstetrics) trial

    Get PDF
    Background Caesarean section is associated with blood loss and maternal morbidity. Excessive blood loss requires transfusion of donor (allogeneic) blood, which is a finite resource. Cell salvage returns blood lost during surgery to the mother. It may avoid the need for donor blood transfusion, but reliable evidence of its effects is lacking. Objectives To determine if routine use of cell salvage during caesarean section in mothers at risk of haemorrhage reduces the rates of blood transfusion and postpartum maternal morbidity, and is cost-effective, in comparison with standard practice without routine salvage use. Design Individually randomised controlled, multicentre trial with cost-effectiveness analysis. Treatment was not blinded. Setting A total of 26 UK obstetric units. Participants Out of 3054 women recruited between June 2013 and April 2016, we randomly assigned 3028 women at risk of haemorrhage to cell salvage or routine care. Randomisation was stratified using random permuted blocks of variable sizes. Of these, 1672 had emergency and 1356 had elective caesareans. We excluded women for whom cell salvage or donor blood transfusion was contraindicated. Interventions Cell salvage (intervention) versus routine care without salvage (control). In the intervention group, salvage was set up in 95.6% of the women and, of these, 50.8% had salvaged blood returned. In the control group, 3.9% had salvage deployed. Main outcome measures Primary – donor blood transfusion. Secondary – units of donor blood transfused, time to mobilisation, length of hospitalisation, mean fall in haemoglobin, fetomaternal haemorrhage (FMH) measured by Kleihauer–Betke test, and maternal fatigue. Analyses were adjusted for stratification factors and other factors that were believed to be prognostic a priori. Cost-effectiveness outcomes – costs of resources and service provision taking the UK NHS perspective. Results We analysed 1498 and 1492 participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Overall, the transfusion rate was 2.5% in the intervention group and 3.5% in the control group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.01; p = 0.056]. In a planned subgroup analysis, the transfusion rate was 3.0% in the intervention group and 4.6% in the control group among emergency caesareans (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99), whereas it was 1.8% in the intervention group and 2.2% in the control group among elective caesareans (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.83) (interaction p = 0.46, suggesting that the difference in effect between subgroups was not statistically significant). Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups, except for FMH, which was higher under salvage in rhesus D (RhD)-negative women with RhD-positive babies (25.6% vs. 10.5%, adjusted OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 22.14; p = 0.013). No case of amniotic fluid embolism was observed. The additional cost of routine cell salvage during caesarean was estimated, on average, at £8110 per donor blood transfusion avoided. Conclusions The modest evidence for an effect of routine use of cell salvage during caesarean section on rates of donor blood transfusion was associated with increased FMH, which emphasises the need for adherence to guidance on anti-D prophylaxis. We are unable to comment on long-term antibody sensitisation effects. Based on the findings of this trial, cell salvage is unlikely to be considered cost-effective. Future work Research into risk of alloimmunisation among women exposed to cell salvage is needed. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66118656. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

    Impact of hepatobiliary service centralization on treatment and outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer and liver metastases

    Get PDF
    Background: Centralization of specialist surgical services can improve patient outcomes. The aim of this cohort study was to compare liver resection rates and survival in patients with primary colorectal cancer and synchronous metastases limited to the liver diagnosed at hepatobiliary surgical units (hubs) with those diagnosed at hospital Trusts without hepatobiliary services (spokes). Methods: The study included patients from the National Bowel Cancer Audit diagnosed with primary colorectal cancer between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2014 who underwent colorectal cancer resection in the English National Health Service. Patients were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics data to identify those with liver metastases and those who underwent liver resection. Multivariable random‐effects logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio of liver resection by presence of specialist hepatobiliary services on site. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: Of 4547 patients, 1956 (43·0 per cent) underwent liver resection. The 1081 patients diagnosed at hubs were more likely to undergo liver resection (adjusted odds ratio 1·52, 95 per cent c.i. 1·20 to 1·91). Patients diagnosed at hubs had better median survival (30·6 months compared with 25·3 months for spokes; adjusted hazard ratio 0·83, 0·75 to 0·91). There was no difference in survival between hubs and spokes when the analysis was restricted to patients who had liver resection (P = 0·620) or those who did not undergo liver resection (P = 0·749). Conclusion: Patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous metastases limited to the liver who are diagnosed at hospital Trusts with a hepatobiliary team on site are more likely to undergo liver resection and have better survival

    A cluster randomised trial of strategies to increase cervical screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC)

    Get PDF
    Acknowledgements The STRATEGIC study research team thanks Sara Rodgers and Laura Clark at the University of York for their input conducting qualitative interviews. We are grateful to Maggie Redshaw at the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU) for helpful suggestions to attempt to improve the response rate in our study. We also would like to thank the NPEU design team who significantly improved the look of our final questionnaire, and the NPEU administration team for their assistance preparing the mail-out material. Special thanks are given to our data entry team Sissi Hernandez-Quesada, Jacob Stevens and Pamela White. The authors would also like to thank Zeinab Abbas for her valuable assistance in the economic evaluation. We would like to express our gratitude to the teams at the English and Scottish screening agencies for their willingness to collaborate in this study. Finally, we thank all women who participated and completed the DCE survey. Any errors or omissions are entirely our own. We are indebted to the support provided by the Lancashire and South Cumbria Agency, without whom we could not have provided the interventions. We also wish to thank Linsey Nelson for her painstaking work in helping to compile this report. Funding Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research.Peer reviewedPublisher PD
    corecore