Pre-deployment programmes for building resilience in military and frontline emergency service personnel

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effectiveness of pre-deployment programmes for building resilience in military and front-line emergency service personnel

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 systematic review of mental health measurement scales for evaluating the effects of mental health prevention interventions

Background: Consistent and appropriate measurement is needed in order to improve understanding and evaluation of preventative interventions. This review aims to identify individual-level measurement tools used to evaluate mental health prevention interventions to inform harmonisation of outcome measurement in this area. Methods: Searches were conducted in PubMed, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane and OpenGrey for studies published between 2008 and 2018. that aimed to evaluate prevention interventions for common mental health problems in adults and used at least one measurement scale (PROSPERO CRD42018095519). For each study, mental health measurement tools were identified and reviewed for reliability, validity, ease-of-use, and cultural sensitivity. Results: 127 studies were identified that used 65 mental health measurement tools. Most were used by a single study (57%, N = 37) and measured depression (N = 20) or overall mental health (N = 18). The most commonly used questionnaire (15%) was the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). A further 125 tools were identified which measured non- mental health specific outcomes. Conclusions: There was little agreement in measurement tools used across mental health prevention studies, which may hinder comparison across studies. Future research on measurement properties and acceptability of measurements in applied and scientific settings could be explored. Further work on supporting researchers to decide on appropriate outcome measurement for prevention would be beneficial for the field