Parenting interventions for the prevention of unintentional injuries in childhood.

BACKGROUND: Parent education and training programmes can improve maternal psychosocial health, child behavioural problems and parenting practices. This review assesses the effects of parenting interventions for reducing child injury. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of parenting interventions for preventing unintentional injury in children aged under 18 years and for increasing possession and use of safety equipment and safety practices by parents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Preview, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, ERIC, DARE, ASSIA, Web of Science, SIGLE and ZETOC. We also handsearched abstracts from the World Conferences on Injury Prevention & Control and the journal Injury Prevention. The searches were conducted in January 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (non-RCTs) and controlled before and after studies (CBAs), which evaluated parenting interventions administered to parents of children aged 18 years and under, and reported outcome data on injuries for children (unintentional or unspecified intent), possession and use of safety equipment or safety practices (including the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) scale which contained an assessment of home safety) by parents. Parenting interventions were defined as those with a specified protocol, manual or curriculum aimed at changing knowledge, attitudes or skills covering a range of parenting topics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were selected, data were extracted and quality appraised independently by two authors. Pooled relative risks (RR) were estimated using random effect models. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty two studies were included in the review: 16 RCTs, two non-RCTs, one partially randomised trial which contained two randomised intervention arms and one non-randomised control arm, two CBA studies and one quasi randomised controlled trial. Seventeen studies provided interventions comprising parenting education and other support services; 15 of which were home visiting programmes and two of which were paediatric practice-based interventions. Two provided solely educational interventions. Nineteen studies recruited families who were from socio-economically disadvantaged populations, were at risk of adverse child outcomes or people who may benefit from extra support, such as single mothers, teenage mothers, first time mothers and mothers with learning difficulties. Ten RCTs involving 5074 participants were included in the meta-analysis, which indicated that intervention families had a statistically significant lower risk of injury than control families (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.94). Sensitivity analyses undertaken including only RCTs at low risk of various sources of bias found the findings to be robust to including only those studies at low risk of detection bias in terms of blinded outcome assessment and attrition bias in terms of follow up of fewer than 80% of participants in each arm. When analyses were restricted to studies at low risk of selection bias in terms of inadequate allocation concealment the effect size was no longer statistically significant. Several studies found statistically significant fewer home hazards or a greater number of safety practices in intervention families. Of ten studies reporting scores on the HOME scale, data from three RCTs were included in a meta-analysis which found no evidence of a difference in quality of the home environment between treatment arms (mean difference 0.57, 95% CI -0.59 to 1.72). Most of the studies reporting home safety practices, home hazards or composite home safety scores found statistically significant effects favouring intervention arm families. Overall, using GRADE, the quality of the evidence was rated as moderate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Parenting interventions, most commonly provided within the home using multi-faceted interventions are effective in reducing child injury. There is fairly consistent evidence that they also improve home safety. The evidence relates mainly to interventions provided to families from disadvantaged populations, who are at risk of adverse child health outcomes or whose families may benefit from extra support. Further research is required to explore mechanisms by which these interventions may reduce injury, the features of parenting interventions that are necessary or sufficient to reduce injury and the generalisability to different population groups.

A systematic review of comprehensive geriatric assessment to improve outcomes for frail older people being rapidly discharged from acute hospital: 'interface geriatrics'.

BACKGROUND: many frail older people who attend acute hospital settings and who are discharged home within short periods (up to 72 h) have poor outcomes. This review assessed the role of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) for such people. METHODS: standard bibliographic databases were searched for high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CGA in this setting. When appropriate, intervention effects were presented as rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: five trials of sufficient quality were included. There was no clear evidence of benefit for CGA interventions in this population in terms of mortality [RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.55-1.52)] or readmissions [RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.83-1.08)] or for subsequent institutionalisation, functional ability, quality-of-life or cognition. CONCLUSIONS: there is no clear evidence of benefit for CGA interventions in frail older people being discharged from emergency departments or acute medical units. However, few such trials have been carried out and their overall quality was poor. Further well designed trials are justified.

Why do breast cancer patients decline entry into randomised trials and how do they feel about their decision later: a prospective, longitudinal, in-depth interview study.

This paper presents an exploration of the reasons why breast cancer patients decline entry into randomised clinical trials of adjuvant cancer therapy. The study employed a qualitative, longitudinal design based on in-depth interview post diagnosis, with follow-up interviews at 6 and 12 months later. Twenty-two consecutive patients, newly diagnosed with breast cancer, who had declined entry into a clinical trial were prospectively recruited from five outpatient breast cancer clinics in the North Trent Cancer Network. Analysis of patients' narratives indicated that fear of the illness and limited understanding of medical research in general, compounded by unhelpful explanations of the trial purpose and process by health professionals, resulted in patients opting for the 'tried and tested' treatment. Some patients had persisting guilt about their decision not to take part. Many of the reasons why breast cancer patients decline entry to clinical trials could be addressed, as they tend to be a product of situational and process factors, rather than being rooted in deep-seated antipathy towards research.

Cancer care. Part 2. How cancer service users can influence research and practice.

There is increasing cooperation between NHS service providers and patients, who provide feedback on the care they receive and make suggestions for research and changes in practice. This article discusses why such links are necessary and describes the cancer research open day organised by a cancer network as one example of a forum for such exchanges of information to take place. The authors believe this example of collaborative interaction between patients and health professionals can be adapted and used by nurses working in a variety of health care settings.

The feasibility of using a parenting programme for the prevention of unintentional home injuries in the under-fives: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Unintentional injury is the leading cause of preventable death of children over the age of 1 year in the UK and a major cause of attendance at emergency departments. Children having one injury are at increased risk of further injuries. Parenting programmes can reduce injuries in preschool children if delivered in the home and on a one-to-one basis. It is not known if group-based programmes delivered outside the home are effective. OBJECTIVES: To develop (1) a parenting programme to prevent recurrent unintentional home injuries in preschool children and (2) a tool for parents to report unintentional home injuries occurring to their preschool children. To assess the feasibility of delivering and evaluating the parenting programme through a cluster randomised controlled trial, specifically to (1) assess methods for the recruitment and retention of parents; (2) determine the training, equipment and facilities needed for the delivery of the programme; (3) establish appropriate primary and secondary outcome measures and methods for their collection; (4) determine how 'normal care' in a comparison arm should be defined; and (5) determine the resource utilisation and costing data that would need to be collected for the cost-effectiveness component of a future trial; and (6) produce estimates of effect sizes to inform sample size estimation for a main trial. DESIGN: Feasibility multicentre, cluster, randomised, unblinded trial. SETTING: Eight children's centres in Bristol and Nottingham, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-six parents of preschool children who had sustained an unintentional injury requiring medical attention in the previous 12 months. INTERVENTIONS: The First-aid Advice and Safety Training (FAST) parent programme, comprising parenting support and skills combined with first aid and home safety advice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Parent-reported medically attended injuries in the index child and any preschool siblings sustained during a 6-month period of observation. RESULTS: An 8-week parenting programme was produced, designed with participant-friendly, incrementally progressive content. A slimline, month-to-a-view injury calendar, spiral bound and suitable for hanging on a wall, was designed for parents to record injuries occurring to their preschool children during the 6-month period of observed time. Fifty-one parents were recruited (40 meeting eligibility criteria plus 11 following 'open invite' to participate); 15 parents completed the FAST parent programme and 49 provided data at baseline and during follow-up. Completion of the programme was significantly greater for participants using the 'open invite' approach (85%) than for those recruited using the original eligibility criteria (31%). Prototype resource use checklists, unit costs and total costs were developed for phases 0, 1 and 2 of the study for use in a future trial. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study has developed an innovative injury prevention intervention and a tool to record parent-reported injuries in preschool children. It was not feasible to recruit parents of children who had sustained a recent injury, or to ask health visitor teams to identify potential participants and to deliver the programme. A trial should target all families attending children's centres in disadvantaged areas. The intervention could be delivered by a health professional supported by a member of the children's centre team in a community setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03605270. SOURCE OF FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Overcoming the challenges to consumer involvement in cancer research.

INTRODUCTION: Within the last decade, there have been many government initiatives to promote consumer involvement in research, especially in cancer. At the same time, the number and influence of consumer groups themselves have expanded. However, the organizational infrastructure necessary to facilitate consumer involvement has not been developed. Consequently, consumer involvement has tended to remain essentially localized and project driven, with no strategic or regional lead. OPPORTUNITIES FOR INVOLVEMENT AND IDENTIFICATION OF CONSUMERS: The opportunities for consumers to influence the research process at each stage of the research process are identified. The different types of consumer involvement are also examined. Novel ways of identifying and recruiting consumers that have been adopted by one cancer network are discussed. THE STRATEGIES USED IN ONE CANCER NETWORK: An organizational model designed by one cancer network for involving consumers in research is illustrated. Three innovations are examined in detail. First, how three open consumer conferences have increased awareness of research among service users. Second, the recruitment of consumers to sit on project steering groups and a committee that provides a strategic overview of current research. Third, the establishment of a Consumer Panel for Research where reimbursed, trained consumers are able to provide a considered consumer perspective in a range of settings. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer networks need to take the lead in the development of an organizational infrastructure to facilitate consumer involvement. The model developed in Sheffield could be generalizable to other diseases and other health-care settings.

Palliative care research protocols: a special case for ethical review?

Between October 2001 and May 2002 the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of each Multicentre Research Ethics Committee (MREC) in England, Wales and Scotland took part in a semi-structured interview to ascertain the attitudes of MRECs to palliative care research. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using a grounded theory approach. Most respondents said each protocol was reviewed on its own merits, according to broad ethical principles, but were equivocal as to whether palliative care protocols posed particular or different challenges compared to those from other specialties. Respondents said they reviewed only a small number of palliative care protocols, and that they were less experienced with some of the study methods utilized, particularly qualitative designs. Four main themes emerged from the analysis. Respondents expressed concerns about the protocol itself--in regard to safeguarding the principles of autonomy and justice. There were concerns about how the research would be carried out, especially the protection of patients and the influence and input of the researcher in the process. The third theme concerned the impact of the research on the participant, particularly intrusion, potential distress and the existence of support mechanisms. Fourthly, respondents identified patient groups receiving palliative care (children, the elderly, bereaved families, patients in intensive therapy units, and those from ethnic groupings), who they considered might be particularly vulnerable.

Brief encounters of aggression and violence in primary care: a team approach to coping strategies.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to investigate the extended primary care team's experience of aggression and violence from patients, in order to promote the formulation of multiprofessional team procedures for critical incident management and organizational development. METHODS: A qualitative study based on in-depth interviews and focus groups with primary health care teams and community staff was carried out in one inner London and one outer London health authority area. Key issues and themes were derived from transcripts of 30 individual interviews and five focus group discussions. RESULTS: Key issues identified during interviews informed focus group discussions. The focus groups identified existing and proposed responses to the problem of aggressive encounters. No practice had a protocol for dealing with incidents, and few kept records, but the incidence of violence and aggression was perceived to be increasing. Receptionists were most at risk, and relied on experience to cope with incidents. Due to being usually excluded from team meetings, they were not able to benefit from peer support and advice. Negative management tactics, such as patient appeasement or exclusion, were the norm. Recommendations include formal record keeping, communication skills training and team responsibility for incident management and for the development of practice protocols to ensure the consistency of response. Improvements to the working environment need to balance staff security with patient-friendliness, and constitute only one aspect of a measured response to the problem. CONCLUSIONS: The success of the focus group format in this context suggests that entire primary care teams could be led in workshops to review their experiences and formulate responses on an inclusive, multidisciplinary basis. These findings fit in with the concept of systems analysis in risk management protocols. We recommend that the team collectively formulate protocols for managing threatening encounters, with agreed mechanisms and thresholds for recording and reporting. Together with improved support systems within the extended teams and post-incident analysis of adverse events, this would allow a formal approach to identifying systematic weaknesses and solutions that benefit the staff involved.