Statistical analysis plan for the SOLUTIONS randomised controlled trial with internal pilot: Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) in 10-17-year-olds presenting at policy custody.

BACKGROUND: Within England, children and young people entering police custody are referred to Liaison and Diversion (L&D) teams. These teams liaise with healthcare and other support services aiming to divert children and young people away from the criminal justice system. Although targeted psychological interventions are not typically offered to children and young people by L&D teams, evidence suggests that Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) leads to a reduction in internalising and externalising behaviour problems. METHODS: A two-arm individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) with internal pilot and process evaluation will be conducted with approximately 448 children and young people aged 10-17 years presenting at police custody suites who are referred to the L&D team or recruited via online routes if they have previously presented at any police custody suite in England. The primary outcome is the Self-Report Delinquency Measure (SRDM) at 6 months post-randomisation. Analyses will be performed using intention-to-treat. RESULTS: The statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the trial is described. The plan details of analyses to be undertaken which will be reported in the primary and any secondary publications. The plan was developed and published prior to locking our database and unblinding to treatment allocation. DISCUSSION: This RCT will evaluate the effectiveness of SFBT in reducing offending behaviours in CYP presenting at police custody suites including testing of moderating factors and sensitivity of the primary analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN14195235. Registered on June 16, 2023.

Recording harms in randomised controlled trials of behaviour change interventions: a qualitative study of UK clinical trials units and NIHR trial investigators.

BACKGROUND: Harms, also known as adverse events (AEs), are recorded and monitored in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure participants' safety. Harms are recorded poorly or inconsistently in RCTs of Behaviour Change Interventions (BCI); however, limited guidance exists on how to record harms in BCI trials. This qualitative study explored experiences and perspectives from multi-disciplinary trial experts on recording harms in BCI trials. METHODS: Data were collected through fifteen in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews and three focus groups with thirty-two participants who work in the delivery and oversight of clinical trials. Participants included multi-disciplinary staff from eight CTUs, Chief investigators, and patient and public representatives. Interviews and focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. RESULTS: Five themes were identified, namely perception and understanding of harm, proportionate reporting and plausibility, the need for a multi-disciplinary approach, language of BCI harms and complex harms for complex interventions. Participants strongly believed harms should be recorded in BCI trials; however, making decisions on "how and what to record as harms" was difficult. Recording irrelevant harms placed a high burden on trial staff and participants, drained trial resources and was perceived as for little purpose. Participants believed proportionate recording was required that focused on events with a strong plausible link to the intervention. Multi-disciplinary trial team input was essential for identifying and collecting harms; however, this was difficult in practice due to lack of knowledge on harms from BCIs, lack of input or difference in opinion. The medical language of harms was recognised as a poor fit for BCI trial harms but was familiar and established within internal processes. Future guidance on this topic would be welcomed and could include summarised literature. CONCLUSIONS: Recording harms or adverse events in behaviour change intervention trials is complex and challenging; multi-disciplinary experts in trial design and implementation welcome forthcoming guidance on this topic. Issues include the high burden of recording irrelevant harms and use of definitions originally designed for drug trials. Proportionate recording of harms focused on events with a strong plausible link to the intervention and multi-disciplinary team input into decision making are essential.

Solutions Trial: Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) in 10-17-year-olds presenting at police custody: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Within England, children and young people (CYP) who come into police custody are referred to Liaison and Diversion (L&D) teams. L&D teams have responsibility for liaising with healthcare and other support services while working to divert CYP away from the criminal justice system but have traditionally not provided targeted psychological interventions to CYP. Considering evidence that Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) leads to a reduction in internalising and externalising behaviour problems in CYP, the aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to determine whether there is a difference between services as usual (SAU) plus SFBT offered by trained therapists working within a L&D team, and SAU alone, in reducing offending behaviours in 10-17-year-olds presenting at police custody. METHODS: Design: two-arm individually RCT with internal pilot and process evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: N = approximately 448 CYP aged 10-17 years presenting at one of three police custody suites in the area served by Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust (LSCFT) who are referred to the L&D team. Participants will be recruited and allocated to intervention:control on a 1:1 basis. Interviews will be performed with 30-40 CYP in the intervention arm, 15 CYP in the control arm, up to 20 parents/guardians across both arms, up to 15 practitioners, and up to 10 site staff responsible for screening CYP for the trial. Intervention and control: Those allocated to the intervention will be offered SAU plus SFBT, and control participants will receive SAU only. PRIMARY OUTCOME: CYP frequency of offending behaviours assessed through the Self-Report Delinquency Measure (SRDM) at 12 months post-randomisation. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: criminal offence data (national police database); emotional and behavioural difficulties (self-report and parent/guardian reported); gang affiliation (self-report). Process evaluation: evaluation of acceptability and experiences of the CYP, parents/guardians, site staff and practitioners; fidelity of SFBT delivery. DISCUSSION: This two-arm individually RCT will evaluate the effectiveness of SFBT in reducing offending behaviours in CYP presenting at police custody suites within the area served by LSCFT. Our process evaluation will assess the fidelity of delivery of SFBT, the factors affecting implementation, the acceptability of SFBT in CYP aged 10-17 years and recruitment and reach. We will also examine systems and structures for future delivery, therefore assessing overall scalability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov  ISRCTN14195235 . Registered on June 16, 2023.

Recording harms in randomized controlled trials of behavior change interventions: a scoping review and map of the evidence.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials evaluate diverse interventions. This can include medical interventions such as drugs or surgical procedures, or behavior change interventions (BCIs) that aim to change a habit, belief, or attitude to improve health, for example, healthy eating, psychological wellbeing. Harms are often recorded poorly or inconsistently within randomized controlled trials of BCIs. This scoping review aimed to collate and describe literature on categories, definitions, and mechanisms of harms from BCIs; methods of identifying plausible harms; and recommendations for recording harms. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A scoping review was conducted. Three databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) were searched. Reference list checking and citation searching were performed. Articles were included if they discussed (1) interventions that aimed to modify behavior, (2) categories or mechanisms of harms, and (3) methods or recommendations for recording harms. All research designs were included. One reviewer reviewed titles, abstracts, and full texts; queries were checked with another reviewer. Data were extracted and synthesized descriptively by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer. A thematic map was constructed to summarize the review findings. Harms described from specific BCIs were identified, and examples were selected and summarized. RESULTS: The review included 37 articles. Nineteen of 37 articles contributed to a thematic review. Three articles described categories of harms; categories of harm included physical, psychological, group and social interactions, cultural, equity, opportunity cost, environmental, and economic. Seven articles included mechanisms or underlying factors for harms including feelings of failure leading to shame or stigma, and group interventions enabling knowledge exchange on unhealthy behaviors. Twelve articles provided recommendations for recording harms, including taking a proportionate approach by focusing on the most plausible and important harms, collecting different perspectives on whether harms had occurred (eg, caregivers and family members), and using qualitative research methods to identify harms. One article described a three-step method to identify plausible harms from an intervention, and six articles supported aspects of the method. Eighteen of 37 articles contributed to a review which collated harms arising from specific interventions, for example, a peer support intervention in inflammatory bowel disease caused distressing conversations which might lead to anxiety and confrontation with a possible negative future. CONCLUSION: BCIs can cause harm. This review identified categories and proposed mechanisms of harms, as well as methods and recommendations for identifying and recording harms in BCIs for inclusion in forthcoming recommendations.

Protocol for a feasibility study of a cancer symptom awareness campaign to support the rapid diagnostic centre referral pathway in a socioeconomically deprived area: Targeted Intensive Community-based campaign To Optimise Cancer awareness (TIC-TOC).

INTRODUCTION: Rapid diagnostic centres (RDCs) are being implemented across the UK to accelerate the assessment of vague suspected cancer symptoms. Targeted behavioural interventions are needed to augment RDCs that serve socioeconomically deprived populations who are disproportionately affected by cancer, have lower cancer symptom awareness and are less likely to seek help for cancer symptoms. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of delivering and evaluating a community-based vague cancer symptom awareness intervention in an area of high socioeconomic deprivation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Intervention materials and messages were coproduced with local stakeholders in Cwm Taf Morgannwg, Wales. Cancer champions will be trained to deliver intervention messages and distribute intervention materials using broadcast media (eg, local radio), printed media (eg, branded pharmacy bags, posters, leaflets), social media (eg, Facebook) and attending local community events. A cross-sectional questionnaire will include self-reported patient interval (time between noticing symptoms to contacting the general practitioner), cancer symptom recognition, cancer beliefs and barriers to presentation, awareness of campaign messages, healthcare resource use, generic quality of life and individual and area-level deprivation indicators. Consent rates and proportion of missing data for patient questionnaires (n=189) attending RDCs will be measured. Qualitative interviews and focus groups will assess intervention acceptability and barriers/facilitators to delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was given by the London-West London & GTAC Research Ethics (21/LO/0402). This project will inform a potential future controlled study to assess intervention effectiveness in reducing the patient interval for vague cancer symptoms. The results will be critical to informing national policy and practice regarding behavioural interventions to support RDCs in highly deprived populations.

Moving on trial: protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of models of housing and support to reduce risks of COVID-19 infection and homelessness.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that around 160,000 households in Britain experience homelessness each year, although no definitive statistics exist. Between March and September 2020, as part of the initial 'Everyone In' government response to COVID-19 in England, 10,566 people were living in emergency accommodation and nearly 18,911 people had been moved into settled accommodation. However, some forms of temporary accommodation may not be suitable as shared facilities make it impossible for people to adhere to government guidelines to reduce the spread of COVID-19. METHODS: This is parallel group, pilot randomised controlled trial. The target is to recruit three local authorities, each of which will recruit 50 participants (thus a total of approximately 150 participants). Individuals are eligible if they are aged 18 and over, in a single-person homeless household, temporarily accommodated by the LA with recourse to public funds. Participants will be randomised to receive settled accommodation (intervention group) or temporary accommodation (control group). The intervention group includes settled housing such as Private Rented Sector (low and medium support), Social Housing (low and medium support), and Housing First (High support). The control group will maintain treatment as usual. The follow-up period will last 6 months. The primary outcome is to assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention, and acceptability of trial processes against progression criteria laid out in a traffic light system (green: all criteria are met, the trial should progress as designed in this pilot; amber: the majority of criteria are met and with adaptations to methods all criteria could be met; red: the minority of criteria are met and the pilot RCT should not proceed). Secondary outcomes include assessment of completeness of data collection at 3 and 6 months and percentage of participants consenting to data linkage, as well as a process evaluation and economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: This trial will address feasibility questions associated with progression to a fully powered effectiveness trial of models of housing to reduce risk of COVID-19 infection and homelessness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN69564614 . Registered on December 16, 2020.

Nurse-led home-visitation programme for first-time mothers in reducing maltreatment and improving child health and development (BB:2-6): longer-term outcomes from a randomised cohort using data linkage.

OBJECTIVES: Measure effectiveness of family nurse partnership (FNP) home-visiting programme in reducing maltreatment and improving maternal health and child health, developmental and educational outcomes; explore effect moderators, mediators; describe costs. DESIGN: Follow-up of BB:0-2 trial cohort (ISRCTN:23019866) up to age 7 years in England using record linkage. PARTICIPANTS: 1618 mothers aged 19 years or younger and their firstborn child(ren) recruited to BB:0-2 trial at less than 25 weeks gestation and not mandatorily withdrawn from trial or opted out. Intervention families were offered up to a maximum of 64 home visits by specially trained nurses from pregnancy until firstborn child was 2 years old, plus usually provided health and social care support. Comparator was usual care alone. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: state-verified child-in-need status recorded at any time during follow-up. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: referral to social services, child protection registration (plan), child-in-need categorisation, looked-after status, recorded injuries and ingestions any time during follow-up, early childcare and educational attendance, school readiness and attainment at key stage 1 (KS1), healthcare costs. RESULTS: Match rates for 1547 eligible children (1517 singletons, 15 sets of twins) were 98.3% (NHS Digital) and 97.4% (National Pupil Database). There was no difference between study arms in the proportion of children being registered as in need (adjusted OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.31), or for any other measure of maltreatment. Children in the FNP arm were more likely to achieve a good level of development at reception age (school readiness) (adjusted OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.52). After adjusting for birth month, children in FNP arm were more likely to reach the expected standard in reading at KS1 (adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.57). We found no trial arm differences for resource use and costs. CONCLUSIONS: FNP did not improve maltreatment or maternal outcomes. There was evidence of small advantages in school readiness and attainment at KS1. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23019866.

Attitudes towards the collection and linkage of maltreatment data for research: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Factors that affect public and professionals' attitudes towards the collection and linkage of health and other data have been explored in the literature. Thus far there has been no study exploring attitudes towards the collection of child maltreatment data. OBJECTIVES: Our aim is to explore attitudes regarding the collection and linkage of maltreatment data for research. METHODS: Participants included younger mothers, older mothers, care-experienced young people, and professionals who were responsible for recording child maltreatment data. Four face-to-face focus groups were conducted, one with younger mothers (n = 6), one with older mothers (n = 10), and two with care-experienced young people (n = 6 and n = 5). An online focus group was conducted with professionals (n = 10), two of whom additionally participated in telephone interviews. Transcribed audio-recorded data were inductively coded, a portion were double-coded by a second researcher, and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified. The first concerned issues of consent, specifically the conditions for providing consent and factors influencing this. The second concerned trust in data security and validity, the organisations and individuals providing and using the data, and how the information provided shapes attitudes. The third theme explored the benefits of research and the researchers' role in child protection. Participants wanted the choice of providing consent for data collection, especially when consenting on behalf of another, but there were concerns that maltreated children were unidentifiable in anonymised datasets. Care-experienced young people were concerned about data collection from Social Services records due to their sensitivity. There was a general lack of understanding about how research data is viewed and the accuracy of records. CONCLUSIONS: Novel findings in the study were strongly related to the sensitive nature of the topic. The findings may be particularly useful when designing research studies and participant materials and a co-productive approach to this should be taken.

The READ-IT study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial of using a support worker/family carer mediated online reading programme to teach early reading skills to adults with intellectual disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals with intellectual disability (ID) have not learnt basic reading skills by the time that they reach adulthood, potentially limiting their access to critical information. READ-IT is an online reading programme developed from the Headsprout® Early Reading (HER®) intervention and supplemented by support strategies tailored for adults with ID. HER® has been successfully used to teach adults with ID to read in a forensic setting by trained staff. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of delivering READ-IT to adults with ID by family carers/support workers and will assess whether it would be feasible to conduct a later definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the effectiveness of the programme. The study will aim to contribute to the evidence base on improving outcomes for adults with ID and their caregivers. METHODS: This study is a feasibility RCT, with embedded process evaluation. Forty-eight adults with ID will be recruited and allocated to intervention: control on a 1:1 basis. Intervention families will be offered the READ-IT programme immediately, continuing to receive usual practice and control participants will be offered the opportunity to receive READ-IT at the end of the trial follow-up period and will continue to receive usual practice. Data will be collected at baseline and 6 months post-randomisation. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will inform a potential future definitive trial, to evaluate the effectiveness of READ-IT to improve reading skills. Such a trial would have significant scientific impact internationally in the intellectual disability field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11409097.

What are the challenges when recruiting to a trial in children's social care? A qualitative evaluation of a trial of foster carer training.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are comparatively rare in UK social work, but can offer distinct advantages. Confidence in Care (CiC) is an RCT with embedded process evaluation evaluating Fostering Changes (FC), a 12-week training programme for foster and kinship carers to increase skills and coping strategies. In order to mitigate challenges in participant recruitment, an engagement strategy was designed to maximise this. Our aim is to explore experiences of key study stakeholders towards trial recruitment and identify broader messages about recruitment to social care trials. METHODS: Three focus groups were conducted, two with field-based recruiting staff (n = 7) and one with carers who attended the FC programme (n = 8). Five interviews were conducted with trainers who delivered FC, eight with foster carers who attended the programme, 18 with Foster Carers who elected not to take part in the programme, and 12 with social workers from participating trial sites. In addition, an away day for FC trainers was observed and discussions related to recruitment were noted. Transcribed audio-recorded data were inductively coded, double-coded by a second researcher, and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Six themes were identified. The first addressed pragmatic aspects of the intervention affecting recruitment (e.g. committing to a 12-week programme). A second focussed on accuracy of communication about the trial between provider agencies and carers. A third concerned the ability of recruiting staff to contact carers, a particular challenge in group-based recruitment. A fourth addressed trial methods and their communication (e.g. relationship between trial team and recruiting staff). A fifth explored lack of differentiation by carers between the roles of the various professionals (e.g. FC facilitators and provider agencies). The sixth addressed perceived differences between recruitment into social care and health studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment challenges in this social care setting were similar to those in healthcare. Some (e.g. gatekeeping by professional staff) may be rooted in randomisation anxiety, or unfamiliarity with research methods. Researchers more familiar with healthcare recruitment were however encouraged about the experience of working in this care setting. The original recruitment strategy and adaptations form the basis of further recommendations for research practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN19090228 . Registered on 11 January 2017.

Early Positive Approaches to Support (E-PAtS) for Families of Young Children With Intellectual Disability: A Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial.

Background: Parents of children with intellectual disabilities are likely to experience poorer mental well-being and face challenges accessing support. Early Positive Approaches to Support (E-PAtS) is a group-based programme, co-produced with parents and professionals, based on existing research evidence and a developmental systems approach to support parental mental well-being. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of community service provider organisations delivering E-PAtS to parents/family caregivers of young children with intellectual disability, to inform a potential definitive randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of E-PAtS. Methods: This study was a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial, with embedded process evaluation. Up to two parents/family caregivers of a child (18 months to <6 years old) with intellectual disability were recruited at research sites and allocated to intervention (E-PAtS and usual practise) or control (usual practise) on a 1:1 basis at cluster (family) level. Data were collected at baseline and 3 and 12 months' post-randomisation. The following feasibility outcomes were assessed: participant recruitment rates and effectiveness of recruitment pathways; retention rates; intervention adherence and fidelity; service provider recruitment rates and willingness to participate in a future trial; barriers and facilitating factors for recruitment, engagement, and intervention delivery; and feasibility of collecting outcome measures. Results: Seventy-four families were randomised to intervention or control (n = 37). Retention rates were 72% at 12 months post-randomisation, and completion of the proposed primary outcome measure (WEMWBS) was 51%. Recruitment of service provider organisations and facilitators was feasible and intervention implementation acceptable. Adherence to the intervention was 76% and the intervention was well-received by participants; exploratory analyses suggest that adherence and attendance may be associated with improved well-being. Health economic outcome measures were collected successfully and evidence indicates that linkage with routine data would be feasible in a future trial. Conclusions: The E-PAtS Feasibility RCT has demonstrated that the research design and methods of intervention implementation are generally feasible. Consideration of the limitations of this feasibility trial and any barriers to conducting a future definitive trial, do however, need to be considered by researchers. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.isrctn.com, identifier: ISRCTN70419473.

Qualitative process evaluation of the Fostering Changes program for foster carers as part of the Confidence in Care randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fostering Changes is an in-service training program for foster carers designed to enhance carer skills, coping strategies and carer-child relationships. The training program has been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial comparing Fostering Changes to usual care. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a qualitative process evaluation drawing on stakeholder perspectives to describe the logic model of Fostering Changes, identify potential mechanisms of impact of the program and enhance understanding of the trial results. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Participants were stakeholders in the Fostering Changes program delivered in Wales, UK including foster carers invited to attend the program (18 attendees, eight non-attendees), two program developers, five trainers, 12 social workers who attended or recruited to the program. METHODS: Total population sampling with qualitative data collection methods. Qualitative data were subject to thematic analysis. RESULTS: A logic model summarising the program resources, activities and anticipated outcomes was generated. Implementation themes were quality of training, setting and group composition. Mechanisms of impact were identified with themes falling into two categories, group process and skills development. Potential barriers to effectiveness included a poor fit between the carer needs and the program in relation to levels of challenge being faced, age-appropriate content and responsiveness. Contextual factors were also relevant, including the existing relationship between foster carers and the agency and the perceived value of training. CONCLUSIONS: Although the group aspects of the program were well received, the program itself did not help foster carers deal with more complex challenges and needed to be more targeted in terms of carers needs and circumstances.

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the fostering changes programme.

BACKGROUND: Many looked after young people in Wales are cared for by foster or kinship carers, usually as a consequence of maltreatment or developmentally traumatising experiences within a family context. Confidence in Care is a pragmatic unblinded individually randomised controlled parallel group trial evaluating a training programme to improve foster carer self-efficacy, when compared to usual care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether group-based training improves foster carer self-efficacy. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Participants are foster carers, currently looking after children aged 2+ years for at least 12 weeks. Carers from households where one or more carer had previously attended the training were not eligible. Sixteen local authorities and three independent fostering providers in Wales took part. METHODS: The primary outcome measure was the Carer Efficacy Questionnaire assessed at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, Quality of Attachment Questionnaire, Carer Defined Problems Scale, Carer Coping Strategies, placement moves. RESULTS: 312 consented foster carers were allocated to FC (n = 204) or usual care (n = 108) group. 65.3 % of FC group participants attended sufficient training sessions (8/12, including sessions three and four). There were no differences in carer-reported self-efficacy at 12 months (adjusted difference in means (95 % CI): -0.19 (-1.38 to 1.00)). Small differences in carer-reported child behaviour difficulties and carer coping strategies over time favoured the intervention but these effects diminished from three to 12 months. No other intervention effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Although well-received by participants, training was associated with small and mostly short-term benefit for trial secondary outcomes.

Monitoring adverse social and medical events in public health trials: assessing predictors and interpretation against a proposed model of adverse event reporting.

BACKGROUND: Although adverse event (AE) monitoring in trials focusses on medical events, social outcomes may be important in public or social care trials. We describe our approach to reporting and categorising medical and other AE reports, using a case study trial. We explore predictors of medical and social AEs, and develop a model for conceptualising safety monitoring. METHODS: The Building Blocks randomised controlled trial of specialist home visiting recruited 1618 first-time mothers aged 19 years or under at 18 English sites. Event reports collected during follow-up were independently reviewed and categorised as either Medical (standard Good Clinical Practice definition), or Social (trial-specific definition). A retrospectively developed system was created to classify AEs. Univariate analyses explored the association between baseline participant and study characteristics and the subsequent reporting of events. Factors significantly associated at this stage were progressed to binary logistic regressions to assess independent predictors. RESULTS: A classification system was derived for reported AEs that distinguished between Medical or Social AEs. One thousand, three hundred and fifteen event reports were obtained for mothers or their babies (1033 Medical, 257 Social). Allocation to the trial intervention arm was associated with increased likelihood of Medical rather than Social AE reporting. Poorer baseline psycho-social status predicted both Medical and Social events, and poorer psycho-social status better predicted Social rather than Medical events. Baseline predictors of Social AEs included being younger at recruitment (OR = 0.78 (CI = 0.67 to 0.90), p = 0.001), receiving benefits (OR = 1.60 (CI = 1.09 to 2.35), p = 0.016), and having a higher antisocial behaviour score (OR = 1.22 (CI = 1.09 to 1.36), p < 0.001). Baseline predictors of Medical AEs included having a limiting long-term illness (OR = 1.37 (CI = 1.01 to 1.88), p = 0.046), poorer mental health (OR = 1.03 (CI = 1.01 to 1.05), p = 0.004), and being in the intervention arm of the trial (OR = 1.34 (CI = 1.07 to 1.70), p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Continuity between baseline and subsequent adverse experiences was expected despite potentially beneficial intervention impact. We hypothesise that excess events reported for intervention-arm participants is likely attributable to surveillance bias. We interpreted our findings against a new model that explicates processes that may drive event occurrence, presentation and reporting. Focussing only upon Medical events may miss the well-being and social circumstances that are important for interpreting intervention safety and participant management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN23019866. Registered on 20 April 2009.

Establishing the international prevalence of self-reported child maltreatment: a systematic review by maltreatment type and gender.

BACKGROUND: Estimating the prevalence of child maltreatment is challenging due to the absence of a clear 'gold standard' as to what constitutes maltreatment. This systematic review aims to review studies using self-report maltreatment to capture prevalence rates worldwide. METHODS: PubMed, Ovid SP and grey literature from the NSPCC, UNICEF, The UK Government, and WHO from 2000 to 2017 were searched. The literature review focused on the variation found in self-reported lifetime prevalence for each type of maltreatment between studies by continent and gender, and how methodological differences may explain differences found. RESULTS: Sexual abuse is the most commonly studied form of maltreatment across the world with median (25th to 75th centile) prevalence of 20.4% (13.2% to 33.6%) and 28.8% (17.0% to 40.2%) in North American and Australian girls respectively, with lower rates generally for boys. Rates of physical abuse were more similar across genders apart from in Europe, which were 12.0% (6.9% to 23.0%) and 27.0% (7.0% to 43.0%) for girls and boys respectively, and often very high in some continents, for example, 50.8% (36.0% to 73.8%) and 60.2% (43.0% to 84.9%) for girls and boys respectively in Africa. Median rates of emotional abuse were nearly double for girls than boys in North America (28.4% vs 13.8% respectively) and Europe (12.9% vs 6.2% respectively) but more similar across genders groups elsewhere. Median rates of neglect were highest in Africa (girls: 41.8%, boys: 39.1%) and South America (girls: 54.8%, boys: 56.7%) but were based on few studies in total, whereas in the two continents with the highest number of studies, median rates differed between girls (40.5%) and boys (16.6%) in North America but were similar in Asia (girls: 26.3%, boys: 23.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Median prevalence rates differ substantially by maltreatment category, gender and by continent. The number of studies and available data also varies and relatively little is known about prevalence for some forms of maltreatment, particularly outside of the North American context. Prevalence rates require caution in interpretation as some variation will reflect methodological differences, including the data collection methods, and how the maltreatment is defined.

Assessing the impact of specialist home visiting upon maltreatment in England: a feasibility study of data linkage from a public health trial to routine health and social care data.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up for public health trials may benefit from greater use of routine data. Our trial of a home-visiting intervention for first-time teenage mothers assessed outcomes to the child's second birthday. To examine its medium-term impact, particularly upon maltreatment outcomes, we designed a study using routine records. METHODS: We aimed to establish the feasibility of our study design, which combines trial data with routine health, social care and education data using a dissent-based linkage model. Trial participant identifiers were linked to routine health, social care and education data if women did not dissent. Data were forwarded to a safe haven and further linked to de-identified trial outcome data. The feasibility study aimed first to establish the acceptability of data linkage through a discussion group of young mothers and by levels of dissent received by the research team. Second, we assessed levels of accurate linkage to both health (via NHS Digital) and education and social care (both via National Pupil Database, NPD). Third, we assessed the availability of data and levels of missingness for key outcomes received for a sample of target study years. RESULTS: Of 1545 mother-child dyads contacted, eight women opted out. The engagement exercise with stakeholders found support for the principle of data linkage, including in the context of maltreatment. Some contributors preferred opt-in consent. Most (99.9%) health records were matched on either three or all four identifiers. Fifty participants were not matched to any health data. Primary outcome data from NPD are derived from any one of three fields, all of which were satisfactorily returned and provided an indication of cases for analysis. Missing data for secondary outcomes varied from 0% (Child looked after status) to 70% (Anatomical Area A&E diagnosis) however when combined with other variables the levels of missingness for outcome decrease. CONCLUSIONS: Through study set-up and in this pilot, we provide evidence that the main study is feasible, satisfies governance requirements and is likely to generate data of sufficient quality to address our main research questions. Observed levels of missingness or low event rates are likely to affect some secondary analysis (e.g. state transition modelling) although overall were satisfactory.

Evaluating the long-term impact of the Fostering Changes training programme for foster carers in Wales, the Confidence in Care trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Fostering Changes programme was developed by the Adoption and Fostering National Team at the Maudsley Hospital, South London, in conjunction with King's College London. It is a 12-week group-based training programme for foster and kin carers, which aims to build positive relationships between carers and children, encourage positive child behaviour and set appropriate limits, through a practical skills-based approach. The programme also aims to improve foster carers' understanding of the causes of children's social and emotional difficulties and their confidence in applying this knowledge in various situations. METHODS: This is a pragmatic open-label individually randomised controlled trial, with embedded process evaluation. A total of 237 participants will be recruited from Welsh Local Authorities and Independent Fostering Providers; those allocated to the intervention group will be offered enrolment in the next Fostering Changes programme group at their site. Participants in the control group will be offered the Fostering Changes programme at the end of the follow-up period. Data will be collected at baseline, immediately following the 12 week Fostering Changes intervention, and 12 months from the start of the Fostering Changes programme. The primary outcome measure assesses the extent to which carers feel able to cope with and make positive changes to the lives of their foster children and is measured by the Carer Efficacy Questionnaire at 12 months. DISCUSSION: The trial will determine whether the Fostering Changes programme, in the long term, can deliver important, significant differences to the way foster carers build positive relationships with their foster children, encourage positive child behaviour and set appropriate limits, compared with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number, ISRCTN19090228 . Registered on 11 January 2017.

Challenges in accessing routinely collected data from multiple providers in the UK for primary studies: Managing the morass.

INTRODUCTION: Researchers are increasingly using routinely collected data in addition to, or instead of, other data collection methods. The UK government continues to invest in research centres to encourage use of these data, and trials and cohort studies utilise data linkage methods in the follow-up of participants. This does not come without its limitations and challenges, such as data access delays. OBJECTIVE: This paper outlines the challenges faced by three projects utilising individual-level routinely-collected linked data for the longer-term follow-up of participants. METHODS: These studies are varied in design, study population and data providers. One researcher was common to the three studies and collated relevant study correspondence, formal documentary evidence such as data sharing agreements and, where relevant, meeting records to review. Key themes were identified and reviewed by other members of the research teams. Mitigating strategies were identified and discussed with a data provider representative and a broader group of researchers to finalise the recommendations presented. RESULTS: The challenges discussed are grouped into five themes: Data application process; Project timelines; Dependencies and considerations related to consent; Information Governance; Contractual. In presenting our results descriptively we summarise each case study, identify the main cross-cutting themes and consider the potential for mitigation of challenges. CONCLUSIONS: We make recommendations that identify responsibilities for both researchers and data providers for mitigating and managing data access challenges. A continued conversation within the research community and with data providers is needed to continue to enable researchers to access and utilise the wealth of routinely-collected data available. The suggestions made in this paper will help researchers be better prepared to deal with the challenges of applying for data from multiple data providers.

Assessing the medium-term impact of a home-visiting programme on child maltreatment in England: protocol for a routine data linkage study.

INTRODUCTION: Child maltreatment involves acts of omission (neglect) or commission (abuse) often by caregivers that results in potential or actual harm to a child. The Building Blocks trial (ISRCTN23019866) assessed the short-term impact of an intensive programme of antenatal and postnatal visiting by specially trained nurses to support young pregnant women in England. The Building Blocks: 2-6 Study will assess the medium-term impacts of the programme for mothers and children (n=1562), through the linkage of routinely collected data to the trial data, with a particular emphasis on the programme's impact on preventing child maltreatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We have developed a bespoke model of data linkage whereby outcome data for the trial cohort will be retrieved by linked anonymous data abstraction from NHS Digital, Office for National Statistics and the Department for Education's National Pupil Database. Participants will be given reasonable opportunity to opt out of this study prior to data transfer. The information centres will match participants to the information held in their databases using standard identifiers and send extracts to a third-party safe haven. The study will have 80% power to detect a 4% difference (4%vs8%) for the binary primary outcome of child in need status (from birth to key stage 1) at a two-sided 5% alpha level by following up 602 children in each trial arm. Analysis will be by intention to treat using logistic multilevel modelling. A cost-and-consequences analysis will extend the time frame of the economic analysis from the original trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the National Health Service Wales Research Ethics Committee and the Health Research Authority's Confidentiality Advisory Group. Methods of innovative study design and findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences; results will be of interest to clinical and policy stakeholders in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23019866.