Protocol: Interventions aimed at preventing out-of-home placement of children: A systematic review.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The aim of the present review is to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of interventions for at-risk families aimed at preventing the out-of-home placement of children or increasing the likelihood that children are reunited with their birth families following temporary care arrangements. The review has two objectives: (1) To assess the effectiveness of interventions for at-risk families with children aged between 0 and 17 years old on measures of out-of-home placement and on secondary outcomes. (2) To identify factors that modify intervention effectiveness (e.g., prior placements, parental risk factors such as substance abuse, mental health issues, age, minority status, child risk factors such as disabilities, age, and gender).

Involuntary closures of for-profit care homes in England by the Care Quality Commission.

Adult social care services in England are struggling, and sometimes failing, to supply the quality of care deserved by the most vulnerable people in society. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is responsible for protecting the recipients of this crucial public service. Their strongest enforcement is the ability to cancel the registration-the legal right to operate-of a health or social care provider. Using novel data from the CQC, we show that the proportion of care home closures due to CQC enforcements, relative to all closures, is increasing. Since 2011, 816 care homes (representing 19 918 registered beds) have been involuntarily closed by the CQC. Our results show that effectively all involuntary closures (804/816) occurred in for-profit care homes. This data emphasises the need for a comprehensive assessment of the impact of for-profit provision on the quality and sustainability of adult social care in England.

For-profit outsourcing and its effects on placement stability and locality for children in care in England, 2011-2022: A longitudinal ecological analysis.

BACKGROUND: The responsibility of local authorities in England to provide children in care with stable, local placements has become increasingly difficult due to the rising number of children in need of care and a shortage of available placements. It is unclear if the trend of outsourcing children's social care to private companies has exacerbated this challenge. This paper examines how the outsourcing of children's social care to the private market has influenced placement locality and long-term stability over time. METHODS: We created a novel dataset of multiple administrative data sources on the outsourcing, placement locality and stability, and characteristics of children in care between 2011 and 2022. We conducted time-series fixed-effects regression analysis of the impact of for-profit outsourcing on placement locality and stability from 2011 to 2022. RESULTS: Our fully adjusted models demonstrate that for-profit outsourcing is consistently associated with more children being placed outside their home local authority and greater placement instability. We found that an increase of 1 % point of for-profit outsourcing was associated with an average increase of 0.10 % points (95 % CI 0.02-0.17; p = 0.01) more children experiencing placement disruption, and 0.23 % points (95 % CI 0.15-0.30; p < 0.001) more children being placed outside their home local authority. We estimate that an additional 17,001 (95 % CI 9015-24,987) out-of-area placements can be attributed to increases in for-profit provision. DISCUSSION: Our analyses show that placement stability and distance have deteriorated or stagnated over the last decade, and that the local authorities that rely most on outsourcing have the highest rates of placement disruptions and out-of-area placements.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To what extent has the learning progress of school-aged children slowed down during the COVID-19 pandemic? A growing number of studies address this question, but findings vary depending on context. Here we conduct a pre-registered systematic review, quality appraisal and meta-analysis of 42 studies across 15 countries to assess the magnitude of learning deficits during the pandemic. We find a substantial overall learning deficit (Cohen's d = -0.14, 95% confidence interval -0.17 to -0.10), which arose early in the pandemic and persists over time. Learning deficits are particularly large among children from low socio-economic backgrounds. They are also larger in maths than in reading and in middle-income countries relative to high-income countries. There is a lack of evidence on learning progress during the pandemic in low-income countries. Future research should address this evidence gap and avoid the common risks of bias that we identify.

Outsourcing and children's social care: A longitudinal analysis of inspection outcomes among English children's homes and local authorities.

Most residential children's social care services in England, including children's homes, are operated by for-profit companies, but the implications of this development are not well understood. This paper aims to address this gap by undertaking the first longitudinal and comprehensive evaluation of the associations between for-profit outsourcing and quality of service provision among English local authorities and children's homes. To enable investigation of the implications of outsourcing children's residential social care services, we create and analyse a novel and longitudinal dataset covering more than 13,000 children's home inspections by Ofsted (the independent regulator of children's social care in England) over a period of 7 years (2014-2021). We also investigate the association between Ofsted local authority (LA) ratings and the reliance of LAs on for-profit and third sector outsourcing of children in care placements. Our analysis shows that for-profit providers are statistically significantly more likely to be rated of lower quality than both public and third sector services. For-profit children's homes also violate a greater number of requirements and receive more recommendations compared to other ownership types. These findings are robust to model specification and consistent over the full analysed period. At LA level, we find provisional evidence that LA Ofsted ratings are negatively correlated with the percentage of for-profit outsourcing, suggesting that LAs which outsource a greater amount of their children in care placements perform less well than those which do not. These findings are of significant concern given the focus of these services on society's most vulnerable service users. However, caution is needed in terms of regulating the sector going forward, as the role of for-profit provision cannot be replaced without substantial coordination and long-term planning.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of cash transfers on subjective well-being and mental health in low- and middle-income countries.

Cash transfers (CTs) are increasingly recognized as a scalable intervention to alleviate financial hardship. A large body of evidence evaluates the impact of CTs on subjective well-being (SWB) and mental health (MH) in low- and middle-income countries. We undertook a systematic review, quality appraisal and meta-analysis of 45 studies examining the impact of CTs on self-reported SWB and MH outcomes, covering a sample of 116,999 individuals. After an average follow-up time of two years, we find that CTs have a small but statistically significant positive effect on both SWB (Cohen's d = 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09, 0.18) and MH (d = 0.07, 95% CI 0.05, 0.09) among recipients. CT value, both relative to previous income and in absolute terms, is a strong predictor of the effect size. Based on this review and the large body of existing research demonstrating a positive impact of CTs on other outcomes (for example, health and income), there is evidence to suggest that CTs improve lives. To enable comparisons of the relative efficacy of CTs to improve MH and SWB, future research should meta-analyse the effects of alternative interventions in similar contexts.

Addressing epistemic injustice in HIV research: a call for reporting guidelines on meaningful community engagement.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the widely recognized ethical and practical benefits of community engagement in HIV research, epistemic injustice persists within the field. Namely, the knowledge held by communities disproportionately affected by HIV is systematically afforded less credibility than that of more privileged academic researchers. In order to illustrate what this looks like in practice, we synthesized the extent of reporting on community engagement within recent high-impact HIV intervention research papers. However, we also posit that the HIV research sector has the potential to devise and showcase world-leading examples of equitable research-community partnerships and suggest actionable key steps to achieving this goal. DISCUSSION: In the absence of reporting requirements within the publishing process, it is difficult to infer whether and how the community have been consulted in the design, implementation, analysis and/or interpretation of findings. As an illustrative exercise, we offer a rapid synthesis of the extent of reporting on community engagement in HIV research from 2017 to 2019, which highlighted sporadic and very low rates of reporting of community engagement in recent high-impact HIV intervention studies. Of note is that none of the included studies reported on community engagement through all stages of the research process. There were also discrepancies in how community involvement was reported. We provide three actionable recommendations to enhance reporting on community engagement in HIV research: (1) community-led organizations, researchers and scientific journals should band together to develop, publish and require adherence to standardized guidelines for reporting on community involvement in HIV research; (2) research funders should (continue to) require details about how relevant communities have been engaged prior to the submission of funding requests; and (3) researchers should take proactive measures to describe their engagement with community organizations in a clear and transparent manner. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear and urgent need for guidelines that facilitate transparent and consistent reporting on community engagement in HIV intervention research. Without standardized reporting requirements and accountability mechanisms within the research sector, the extent of meaningful community engagement cannot be established and may remain a catchphrase rather than reality.

Outsourcing and children's social care services: an observational longitudinal analysis of inspection outcomes among English children's homes and local authorities.

BACKGROUND: Most children's social care services in England are operated by for-profit companies, but the implications of this development are not well understood. We aimed to evaluate the associations between for-profit outsourcing and quality of service provision among local authorities and children's home providers in England, UK. METHODS: We did an observational longitudinal analysis of inspection outcomes among English children's homes and local authorities. We created and analysed a novel, longitudinal dataset of inspections from Ofsted (ie, the independent regulator of children's social care in England) over a period of 7 years (2014-21; n=13 452). We also analysed the association between Ofsted local authority ratings (n=147) and the use of for-profit outsourcing. FINDINGS: We found that for-profit children's home providers are significantly more likely to be rated of lower quality than both public and third sector services across all provider level Ofsted inspection domains. For example, for-profit providers have 33·7% lower odds (odds ratio [OR] 0·663; 95% CI 0·522-0·842) than local authority providers of being rated "Outstanding", "Good", or "Requires Improvement", as opposed to "Inadequate" in the main "Overall Experiences" Ofsted category. For-profit services also violate more legal requirements (OR 0·380 [95% CI 0·186-0·575]) and receive more recommendations (0·391 [0·242-0·540]) than local authority providers. These findings are robust to model specification and consistent over the full analysed period. Further, we found provisional evidence that local authority Ofsted ratings are negatively correlated with the percentage of for-profit outsourcing, suggesting that poorly performing local authorities tend to outsource a greater amount of their services than well performing local authorities. INTERPRETATION: Our findings are of considerable concern given the focus of these services on society's most vulnerable service users. However, caution is needed in terms of regulating the sector going forward, as the role of for-profit providers cannot be replaced without substantial coordination and long-term planning. FUNDING: The John Fell Fund and the Carlsberg Foundation.

Outsourced austerity or improved services? A systematic review and thematic synthesis of the experiences of social care providers and commissioners in quasi-markets.

Social care services are commonly delivered by a combination of for-profit, public, and non-profit sector providers. These services are often commissioned in quasi-markets, in which providers from all sectors compete for public service contracts. The outsourcing of social services to private providers has resulted in a predominantly for-profit provision. Despite the rationale that open bidding facilitates better services and improved consumer choice, the outsourcing of social care has been criticized for prioritising cost-efficiency above service quality and effectiveness. However, the experiences and perspectives of those operating within quasi-markets (providers and commissioners) are poorly understood. To address this gap, we systematically identified, appraised, and thematically synthesised existing qualitative research on social care commissioners and providers (for-profit, public, and non-profit) published in the last 20 years (2000-2020). Twenty-six studies examining the perspectives of social care providers and commissioners relating to the quasi-market provision of social care were included. The synthesis demonstrates consistent concern among non-profit and public providers with regard to spending cuts in the care sector, whereas for-profit providers were primarily concerned with creating a profitable market strategy by carefully analysing opportunities in the commissioning system. All provider types described flaws in the commissioning process, especially with regards to the contracting conditions, which were reported to force providers into deteriorating employment conditions, and also to negatively impact quality of care. These findings suggest that in a commissioning environment characterised by austerity and public budget cuts, it is insufficient to assume that increasing the market share of non-profits will alleviate issues grounded in insufficient funding and flawed contracting criteria. In other words, no ownership type can compensate for inadequate funding of social care services.

Is area deprivation associated with greater impacts of COVID-19 in care homes across England? A preliminary analysis of COVID-19 outbreaks and deaths.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted care homes and vulnerable populations, exacerbating existing health inequalities. However, the role of area deprivation in shaping the impacts of COVID-19 in care homes is poorly understood. We examine whether area deprivation is linked to higher rates of COVID-19 outbreaks and deaths among care home residents across upper tier local authorities in England (n=149). METHODS: We constructed a novel dataset from publicly available data. Using negative binomial regression models, we analysed the associations between area deprivation (Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI) and Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) extent) as the exposure and COVID-19 outbreaks, COVID-19-related deaths and all-cause deaths among care home residents as three separate outcomes-adjusting for population characteristics (size, age composition, ethnicity). RESULTS: COVID-19 outbreaks in care homes did not vary by area deprivation. However, COVID-19-related deaths were more common in the most deprived quartiles of IDAOPI (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 1.23, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.47) and IMD extent (IRR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.34), compared with the least deprived quartiles. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that area deprivation is a key risk factor in COVID-19 deaths among care home residents. Future research should look to replicate these results when more complete data become available.

A systematic review of the associations between care home ownership and COVID-19 outbreaks, infections and mortality.

Social care markets often rely on the for-profit sector to meet service demand. For-profit care homes have been reported to suffer higher rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections and deaths, but it is unclear whether these worse outcomes can be attributed to ownership status. To address this, we designed and prospectively registered a living systematic review protocol ( CRD42020218673 ). Here we report on the systematic review and quality appraisal of 32 studies across five countries that investigated ownership variation in COVID-19 outcomes among care homes. We show that, although for-profit ownership was not consistently associated with a higher risk of a COVID-19 outbreak, there was evidence that for-profit care homes had higher rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths. We also found evidence that for-profit ownership was associated with personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages. Variation in COVID-19 outcomes is not driven by ownership status alone, and factors related to staffing, provider size and resident characteristics were also linked to poorer outcomes. However, this synthesis finds that for-profit status and care home characteristics associated with for-profit status are linked to exacerbated COVID-19 outcomes.

Barriers and facilitators systematic reviews in health: A methodological review and recommendations for reviewers.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews cataloguing the barriers to and facilitators of various outcomes are increasingly popular, despite criticisms of this type of review on philosophical, methodological, and practical grounds. The aims of this review are to appraise, analyze, and discuss the reporting and synthesis practices used in recently published barriers and facilitators reviews in health services research. METHODS: All English-language peer-reviewed systematic reviews that synthesized research on barriers and facilitators in a health services context were eligible for inclusion. We searched 11 databases over a 13-month period (1 November 2017-30 November 2018) using an exhaustive list of search terms for "barrier(s)," "facilitator(s)," and "systematic review." RESULTS: One hundred reviews were included. We found a high degree of variation in the synthesis practices used in these reviews, with the majority employing aggregative (rather than interpretive) approaches. The findings echo common critiques of this review type, including concerns about the reduction of complex phenomena to simplified, discrete factors. Although several reviews highlighted the "complexity" of barriers and facilitators, this was usually not analyzed systematically. Analysis of the subsample of reviews that explicitly discussed the barriers and facilitators approach revealed some common issues. These tended to be either conceptual/definitional (eg, ideas about interrelationships and overlap between factors) and methodological/practical (eg, challenges related to aggregating heterogeneous research). CONCLUSION: Barriers and facilitators reviews should (a) clearly operationally define "barrier" and "facilitator," (b) explicitly describe how factors are extracted and subsequently synthesized, and (c) provide critical reflection on the contextual variability and reliability of identified factors.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions designed for mothers who experienced child sexual abuse.

BACKGROUND: Past experiences of child sexual abuse (CSA) have been shown to have a pernicious effect on the parenting behaviors of mothers. As a result, interventions have been developed to address these effects. However, a systematic synthesis of the effectiveness of such interventions has not been conducted. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of existing literature on interventions that have been developed and evaluated for mothers who experienced CSA. METHODS: Studies were located through a sensitive search strategy in nine academic databases and search engines, and through handsearching reference lists of included studies and their subsequent citations. Two authors independently completed screening, full text review, data extraction, and quality appraisal. RESULTS: Searches revealed a paucity of literature, with four intervention studies located. All four interventions consisted of therapy, with three of these interventions using a group-based format. One of the included intervention studies used reiki as an adjunct to therapy. Decreases in negative mental health symptoms were reported through both validated measures and interviews. No validated measures to assess parenting were used in any intervention, though some qualitative results indicated changes in parenting. Qualitative results also suggested that most mothers were satisfied with the interventions. Studies were of limited quality - none used a randomized trial design, and only one a control group. CONCLUSIONS: Given the limitations of the identified intervention studies for mothers who experienced CSA, there is a clear need to develop evidence-based interventions for this population given the unique detrimental effects of CSA on parenting. Avenues for future intervention development are discussed.

A systematic review of stakeholder perceptions of supervised injection facilities.

INTRODUCTION: Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) have been developed to address the public health burden associated with substance use. While these facilities have been associated with a number of positive outcomes, stakeholder opinion (the opinions of those potentially affected by these facilities) is likely to influence their future development. This systematic review aims to answer the question, "how do stakeholders perceive SIFs?" MATERIALS AND METHODS: Articles were located through nine academic databases, by searching for grey literature, by contacting health departments in countries where SIFs have been implemented, by searching articles that cited included articles, and by searching the reference lists of included articles. Two reviewers screened all articles. Data was double-extracted and quality appraised. All extracted perceptions were analyzed by two coders. RESULTS: Forty-seven articles were synthesized. Key themes included (1) benefits of SIFs, such as the increased safety of people who use drugs (PWUD) and the education that was provided at these facilities; (2) concerns regarding SIFs, such as the location of these facilities and existing rules and regulations; and (3) suggestions for SIFs, such as changing restrictions and regulations. Perceptions often fluctuated between stakeholders with first-hand experience of SIFs (e.g. staff and PWUD) and stakeholders not involved in the operation of SIFs (e.g. the general public). CONCLUSION: The findings of this review illustrate how perceptions vary and align across different types of SIFs. Going forward, it will be important to draw on these insights to facilitate a more informed discussion on the implementation and continuation of these facilities.

Does sector matter for the quality of care services? A secondary analysis of social care services regulated by the Care Inspectorate in Scotland.

OBJECTIVES: Social services are increasingly commissioned to third and for-profit sector providers, but little is known about whether and how these changes influence quality indicators. We assessed quality-related outcomes across for-profit, public and third sector organisations delivering social care services. DESIGN: A secondary analysis was conducted on publically available data collected by the independent regulator of social care organisations in Scotland. All outcomes are reported as predicted probabilities derived from multivariate logistic regression coefficients. Generalised ordered logit models are utilised for the quality domains and the risk assessment score and logistic regression for whether complaints or requirements were issued to organisations. SETTING: Organisations inspected by the Care Inspectorate in Scotland. POPULATION: 13 310 social care organisations (eg, nursing homes and day care organisations). PRIMARY OUTCOMES: The quality and risk domains collected by the Care Inspectorate and complaints and requirements issued to organisations within the last 3 years. RESULTS: Controlling for multiple factors, we find that public and third sector providers performed consistently and statistically significantly better than for-profit organisations on most outcomes. For example, for-profit services were the most likely to be rated as high and medium risk (6.9% and 13.2%, respectively), and the least likely to be classified as low risk (79.9%). Public providers had the highest probability of being categorised as low risk (91.1%), and the lowest probability of having their services classified as medium (6.9%) and high risk (2%), followed by third sector providers (86%, 8.5% and 4.5%, respectively). Public providers performed better than third sector providers in some outcomes, but differences were relatively low and inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Public and third sector providers were rated considerably higher than their for-profit counterparts on most observed outcomes. Regulators might use this information to consider how social care providers across sector are incentivised to manage their resources.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based interventions among third sector organisations: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The third sector is becoming a growing provider of public, social, and health services. However, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of third sector organisations (TSOs), and their capacity to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs). Understanding implementation aspects of service delivery remains an important issue in clinical practice, but is poorly understood in the context of TSOs. This is problematic, since implementation issues are known to be critical for effective intervention outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To identify and synthesise existing research on what barriers and facilitators influence the implementation process of TSOs delivering EBIs. METHODS: This review is reported according to PRISMA guidelines and was pre-registered in PROSPERO. Key databases were searched using relevant terms, experts in the field were contacted, and websites were reviewed. All identified studies were double-screened, and data were extracted independently by two authors. Included studies were synthesised using thematic analysis and were quality appraised. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were included, most of which were conducted in North America. The thematic synthesis identified resource limitations, in particular staff and finance, to be the most reported barrier to TSOs implementing EBIs. Organisational culture, including factors such as alignment between the mission of the TSO and EBI, and support/prioritisation of the implementation process were the most reported facilitators. These findings generalise across the included studies and are robust to study quality assessment. CONCLUSIONS: While it is often assumed that good outcomes follow when implementing interventions that have been developed and tested according to best practice, little attention has been paid to how EBIs are best transported, contextualised, and implemented by third sector providers. This systematic review found that TSOs faced considerable challenges in implementing EBIs, which were primarily a lack of support and expertise, and unclear/insufficient guidelines on how to adapt EBIs to different populations. To address these challenges, it is important to engage with central stakeholders, such as funders, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners, to discuss how these needs can be met. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42017073090 .

What are the barriers and facilitators for third sector organisations (non-profits) to evaluate their services? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The third sector is becoming a more common provider of social and health services, but little is known about how third sector organisations (TSOs) evaluate their activities. Past research has reported that the third sector is under increasing pressure to evaluate its impact and performance by government and other commissioning bodies. However, in responding to this increased pressure to undertake evaluation, research suggests that many TSOs struggle to evaluate their activities following the principles of evidence-based practice (EBP). Yet, there has been no systematic effort to investigate why the third sector is struggling to provide good quality evidence of its effects. METHODS: This systematic review is reported following the PRISMA guidelines. Ten interdisciplinary databases were searched using a search string developed following best practice and in consultation with an information systems expert. Included studies were primary research of any research design investigating barriers to and facilitators of the evaluation process of TSOs as identified by practitioners. All studies were quality appraised, and the results were synthesised as a thematic summary. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included, which mainly investigated TSOs working within health and social services. The thematic summary identified the main barriers for TSOs to undertake evaluation to be related to the (1) lack of financial resources, (2) lack of technical capability and evaluation literacy and (3) challenges around identifying relevant evaluation systems and outcome indicators. Key facilitating factors involved (1) getting the appropriate support, (2) having an organisational culture that supports evaluation and (3) the motivation to be accountable to stakeholders. These findings were robust to study quality. CONCLUSIONS: This review constitutes the first systematic effort to synthesise existing literature on factors supporting and preventing evaluation by TSOs. The prevalence of factors revolving around the lack of support, resources and clarity on appropriate outcome indicators suggests that many of the identified challenges may be met by applying evidence-based and stakeholder-inclusive strategies to develop shared evaluation requirements. Future efforts should address the application of EBP as part of the commissioning process of TSOs.