Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background This study assessed whether a relatively newly developed Parent and Infant (PIN) parenting support programme was cost-effective when compared to services as usual (SAU). Methods The cost-effectiveness of the PIN programme versus SAU was assessed from an Irish health and social care perspective over a 24-month timeframe and within the context of a non-randomised, controlled before-and-after trial. In total, 163 parent-infant dyads were included in the study (86 intervention, 77 control). The primary outcome measure for the economic evaluation was the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC). Results The average cost of the PIN programme was €647 per dyad. The mean (SE) cost (including programme costs) was €7,027 (SE €1,345) compared to €4,811 (SE €593) in the control arm, generating a (non-significant) mean cost difference of €2,216 (bootstrap 95% CI -€665 to €5,096; p  = 0.14). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness of the PIN service was €614 per PSOC unit gained (bootstrap 95% CI €54 to €1,481). The probability that the PIN programme was cost-effective, was 87% at a willingness-to-pay of €1,000 per one unit change in the PSOC. Conclusions Our findings suggest that the PIN programme was cost-effective at a relatively low willingness-to-pay threshold when compared to SAU. This study addresses a significant knowledge gap in the field of early intervention by providing important real world evidence on the implementation costs and cost-effectiveness of a universal early years parenting programme. The challenges involved in assessing the cost-effectiveness of preventative interventions for very young children and their parents are also discussed. Trial registration ISRCTN17488830 (Date of registration: 27/11/15). This trial was retrospectively registered.

Background Parental mental illness is common and can lead to dependent children incurring a high risk of developing mental disorders, physical illness, and impaired educational and occupational outcomes. Family Talk is one of the better known interventions designed to prevent the intergenerational transmission of mental illness. However, its evidence base is small, with few robust independent randomised controlled trials, and no associated process or cost evaluations. The PRIMERA (Promoting Research and Innovation in Mental hEalth seRvices for fAmilies and children) research programme involves a mixed method evaluation of Family Talk which is being delivered in mental health settings in Ireland to improve child and family psychosocial functioning in families with parental mental illness. Methods The study comprises a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT), with nested economic and process evaluations, to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness and implementation mechanisms of Family Talk compared to usual services. The study is being conducted in 15 adult and child mental health settings in Ireland. Families with a parent with mental illness, and children aged 5–18 years ( n  = 144 families) will be randomised to either the 7-session Family Talk programme ( n  = 96) or to standard care ( n  = 48) using a 2:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcomes are child psychosocial functioning and family functioning. Secondary outcomes are as follows: understanding and experience of parental mental illness, parental mental health, child and parental resilience, partner wellbeing and service utilisation. Blind assessments will take place at pre-intervention and at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Discussion Given the prevalence and burden of intergenerational mental illness, it is imperative that prevention through evidence-based interventions becomes a public health priority. The current study will provide an important contribution to the international evidence base for Family Talk whilst also helping to identify key implementation lessons in the scaling up of Family Talk, and other similar interventions, within routine mental health settings. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN13365858 . Registered 5th February 2019.

There is a social gradient to the determinants of health; low socioeconomic status (SES) has been linked to reduced educational attainment and employment prospects, which in turn affect physical and mental wellbeing. One goal of preventive interventions, such as parenting programs, is to reduce these health inequalities by supporting families with difficulties that are often patterned by SES. Despite these intentions, a recent individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of the Incredible Years (IY) parenting program found no evidence for differential benefit by socioeconomic disadvantage (Gardner et al. in Public Health Resesearch 5, 1–144, 2017). However, it did not examine whether this was influenced by engagement in the intervention. Using intervention arm data from this pooled dataset (13 trials; N = 1078), we examined whether there was an SES gradient to intervention attendance (an indicator of engagement). We ran mixed-effects Poisson regression models to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for program attendance for each of five (binary) markers of SES: low income; unemployment; low education status; teen parent; and lone parent status. The multilevel structure of the data allowed for comparison of within-trial and between-trial effects, including tests for contextual effects. We found evidence that low SES was associated with reduced attendance at parenting programs—an 8–19% reduction depending on the SES marker. However, there was no evidence that this association is impacted by differences in SES composition between trials or by the attendance levels of higher-SES families. The findings underscore the importance of developing and prioritizing strategies that enable engagement in parenting interventions and encourage program attendance by low-SES families.

The adoption and effective delivery of evidence-based interventions within “real-world” community-based, primary health care service settings are of crucial importance. In this paper, we explore the successes and challenges of implementing a new complex, group-based, early parenting intervention called the Parent and Infant (PIN) programme. This study involved a systematic analysis of the processes and factors that influence the implementation of the PIN programme; the analysis was guided and informed by the Implementation Outcome Framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. A documentary review, alongside a series of one-to-one interviews and small group discussions with a range of stakeholders (n = 44), and 7 focus groups (n = 24) were used as data sources. Factors that promoted programme adoption, acceptability, and implementation feasibility included programme characteristics and stakeholder attitudes, as well as organisational and systems factors (e.g. leadership and collaboration). Key challenges to implementation success included engagement and adoption barriers. This research provides a useful and important example of real-world, theory-driven implementation research which helped to identify interrelated processes, factors, and contexts which shape and influence the implementation of early intervention and prevention programmes, removed for blind review.

A proportionate universal (PU) approach to early years' service provision has been advocated to improve children's health and development and to reduce health inequality, by ensuring that services provide timely and high-quality parenting support commensurate with need. Process-oriented research is critical to examine the factors that contribute to, or hinder, the effective delivery/implementation of such a model in community-based family services. This study aimed to assess the delivery, acceptability and feasibility of a new PU parenting intervention model (called E-SEE Steps), using the Incredible Years® (IY) parent program, when delivered by trained health/family service staff in three \"steps\"-one universal step (the IY Babies Book), and two targeted steps (group-based IY Infant and Toddler programs). An embedded mixed-methods process evaluation within a pragmatic parallel two-arm, assessor blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted in community services in four local authorities in England. The process evaluation used qualitative data gathered via interviews and focus groups with intervention arm parents who were offered the targeted steps (n = 29), practitioners (n = 50), service managers (n = 7) and IY program mentors (n = 3). This was supplemented by quantitative data collected using group leader pre-training (n = 50) and post-delivery (n = 39) questionnaires, and research notes of service design decisions. The E-SEE Steps model was acceptable to most parents, particularly when it was accompanied by engagement strategies that supported attendance, such as providing childcare. Practitioners also highlighted the positive development opportunities provided by the IY training and supervision. However, participant views did not support the provision of the IY Babies book as a standalone universal component, and there were barriers to eligible parents-particularly those with low mood-taking up the targeted programs. Service providers struggled to align the PU model with their commissioned service contracts and with their staff capacity to engage appropriate parents, including tackling common barriers to attendance. Despite general enthusiasm and support for delivering high-quality parenting programs in community services in the England, several barriers exist to successfully delivering IY in a proportionate universal model within current services/systems.

Evidence for parenting programs to improve wellbeing in children under three is inconclusive. We investigated the fidelity, impact, and cost-effectiveness of two parenting programs delivered within a longitudinal proportionate delivery model ('E-SEE Steps'). Eligible parents with a child ≤ 8 weeks were recruited into a parallel two-arm, assessor blinded, randomized controlled, community-based, trial with embedded economic and process evaluations. Post-baseline randomization applied a 5:1 (intervention-to-control) ratio, stratified by primary (child social-emotional wellbeing (ASQ:SE-2)) and key secondary (maternal depression (PHQ-9)) outcome scores, sex, and site. All intervention parents received the Incredible Years® Baby Book (IY-B), and were offered the targeted Infant (IY-I)/Toddler (IY-T) program if eligible, based on ASQ:SE-2/PHQ-9 scores. Control families received usual services. Fidelity data were analysed descriptively. Primary analysis applied intention to treat. Effectiveness analysis fitted a marginal model to outcome scores. Cost-effectiveness analysis involved Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs). The target sample (N = 606) was not achieved; 341 mothers were randomized (285:56), 322 (94%) were retained to study end. Of those eligible for the IY-I (n = 101), and IY-T (n = 101) programs, 51 and 21 respectively, attended. Eight (of 14) groups met the 80% self-reported fidelity criteria. No significant differences between arms were found for adjusted mean difference scores; ASQ:SE-2 (3.02, 95% CI: -0.03, 6.08, p = 0.052), PHQ-9 (-0.61; 95% CI: -1.34, 0.12, p = 0.1). E-SEE Steps had higher costs, but improved mothers' Health-related Quality of Life (0.031 Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gain), ICER of £20,062 per QALY compared to control. Serious adverse events (n = 86) were unrelated to the intervention. E-SEE Steps was not effective, but was borderline cost-effective. The model was delivered with varying fidelity, with lower-than-expected IY-T uptake. Changes to delivery systems and the individual programs may be needed prior to future evaluation. International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN11079129.

In late 2018, motivated (and intrigued) by the scale of one of the largest and long-standing humanitarian crises in history, we embarked on two separate but related journeys to the island of Lesvos to work with unaccompanied refugee and asylum-seeking minors and to link in with NGOs working in the region. Peering through the prism of the current pandemic, the aim of this paper is to reflect on this life changing experience to share the on-the-ground reality and the true stories of war, violence and displacement as narrated by the children/young people with whom we worked and whom we met. In particular, we suggest that the integration of culturally appropriate and creative mental health and psychosocial support interventions in schools/educational settings might provide one way of supporting these children, as suggested by several authors in the international literature, but also in the context of a number of key learning based on our own experiences.

Prevention and early intervention programmes, which aim to educate and support parents and young children in the earliest stages of the family lifecycle, have become an increasingly popular policy strategy for tackling intergenerational disadvantage and developmental inequality. Evidence-based, joined-up services are recommended as best practice for achieving optimal outcomes for parents and their children; however, there are persistent challenges to the development, adoption and installation of these kinds of initiatives in community-based primary health care settings. In this paper, we present a description of the design and installation of a multi-stakeholder early parenting education and intervention service model called the Parent and Infant (PIN) programme. This new programme is delivered collaboratively on a universal, area-wide basis through routine primary care services and combines standardised parent-training with other group-based supports designed to educate parents, strengthen parenting skills and wellbeing and enhance developmental outcomes in children aged 0–2 years. The programme design was informed by local needs analysis and piloting to establish an in-depth understanding of the local context. The findings demonstrate that a hospitable environment is central to establishing interagency parenting education and supports. Partnership, relationship-building and strategic leadership are vital to building commitment and buy-in for this kind of innovation and programme implementation. A graduated approach to implementation which provides training/education and coaching as well as organisational and administrative supports for practice change, are also important in creating an environment conducive to collaboration. Further research into the impact, implementation and cost-effectiveness of the PIN programme will help to build an understanding of what works for parents and infants, as well as identifying lessons for the development and implementation of other similar complex prevention and intervention programmes elsewhere. This kind of research coupled with the establishment of effective partnerships involving service providers, parents, researchers and policy makers, is necessary to meeting the challenge of improving family education and enhancing the capacity of family services to help promote positive outcomes for children.

Background Ireland has over half a million family carers who provide care to a family member or loved one. Internationally, it is recognised that general practitioners (GPs) have a critical role to play in the identification and support of family carers, but, to date, no guidelines exist in Ireland to support GPs in this role. Aims The aim of this study was to examine how carers are currently supported (or not) by healthcare professionals in Ireland, with a particular focus on the role of the GP. Methods A mixed method design was used, involving a national online survey ( N  = 132) of family carers in Ireland and one-to-one interviews with 10 stakeholders (4 GPs; 6 carers). The quantitative data were analysed using a series of descriptive and inferential statistics; the interview data were analysed using framework analysis. Results Sixty-one per cent of the carer sample reported experiencing psychological distress, more than two-thirds of whom (69%) reported ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ being asked about their own health and wellbeing. Sixty-one per cent also felt misunderstood in terms of the challenges they face in their caring role. Three key themes were identified from the interview data including (1) GP role ambiguity; (2) navigating informal processes and (3) changing needs along the care trajectory. Conclusions The findings suggest important gaps in terms of the role of GPs vis-à-vis their support of family carers. GPs themselves indicated that they need both greater clarity regarding their role with family carers and more training and resources in this regard. A requirement for more streamlined communication and information provision was also highlighted by both GPs and carers. Carers reported a need for more information on the role of GPs in supporting carers as well as more support in addressing, in particular, the psychological complexities of carer identity and help seeking.