Mixed-methods process evaluation of SafeTea: a multimedia campaign to prevent hot drink scalds in young children and promote burn first aid.

OBJECTIVES: SafeTea is a multifaceted intervention delivered by community practitioners to prevent hot drink scalds to young children and improve parents' knowledge of appropriate burn first aid. We adapted SafeTea for a national multimedia campaign, and present a mixed-methods process evaluation of the campaign. METHODS: We used social media, a website hosting downloadable materials and media publicity to disseminate key messages to parents/caregivers of young children and professionals working with these families across the UK. The SafeTea campaign was launched on National Burns Awareness Day (NBAD), October 2019, and ran for 3 months. Process evaluation measurements included social media metrics, Google Analytics, and quantitative and qualitative results from a survey of professionals who requested hard copies of the materials via the website. RESULTS: Findings were summarised under four themes: 'reach', 'engagement', 'acceptability' and 'impact/behavioural change'. The launch on NBAD generated widespread publicity. The campaign reached a greater number of the target audience than anticipated, with over 400 000 views of the SafeTea educational videos. Parents and professionals engaged with SafeTea and expressed positive opinions of the campaign and materials. SafeTea encouraged parents to consider how to change their behaviours to minimise the risks associated with hot drinks. Reach and engagement steadily declined after the first month due to reduced publicity and social media promotion. CONCLUSION: The SafeTea campaign was successful in terms of reach and engagement. The launch on NBAD was essential for generating media interest. Future campaigns could be shorter, with more funding for additional social media content and promotion.

Validation of the PredAHT-2 prediction tool for abusive head trauma.

OBJECTIVE: The validated Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) clinical prediction tool calculates the probability of abusive head trauma (AHT) in children <3 years of age who have sustained intracranial injuries (ICIs) identified on neuroimaging, based on combinations of six clinical features: head/neck bruising, seizures, apnoea, rib fracture, long bone fracture and retinal haemorrhages. PredAHT version 2 enables a probability calculation when information regarding any of the six features is absent. We aimed to externally validate PredAHT-2 in an Australian/New Zealand population. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective multicentre study of paediatric head injuries conducted between April 2011 and November 2014. We extracted data on patients with possible AHT at five tertiary paediatric centres and included all children <3 years of age admitted to hospital who had sustained ICI identified on neuroimaging. We assigned cases as positive for AHT, negative for AHT or having indeterminate outcome following multidisciplinary review. The estimated probability of AHT for each case was calculated using PredAHT-2, blinded to outcome. Tool performance measures were calculated, with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of 87 ICI cases, 27 (31%) were positive for AHT; 45 (52%) were negative for AHT and 15 (17%) had indeterminate outcome. Using a probability cut-off of 50%, excluding indeterminate cases, PredAHT-2 had a sensitivity of 74% (95% CI 54% t o89%) and a specificity of 87% (95% CI 73% to 95%) for AHT. Positive predictive value was 77% (95% CI 56% to 91%), negative predictive value was 85% (95% CI 71% to 94%) and the area under the curve was 0.80 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92). CONCLUSION: PredAHT-2 demonstrated reasonably high point sensitivity and specificity when externally validated in an Australian/New Zealand population. Performance was similar to that in the original validation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12614000463673.

What proportion of clinical prediction models make it to clinical practice? Protocol for a two-track follow-up study of prediction model development publications.

INTRODUCTION: It is known that only a limited proportion of developed clinical prediction models (CPMs) are implemented and/or used in clinical practice. This may result in a large amount of research waste, even when considering that some CPMs may demonstrate poor performance. Cross-sectional estimates of the numbers of CPMs that have been developed, validated, evaluated for impact or utilized in practice, have been made in specific medical fields, but studies across multiple fields and studies following up the fate of CPMs are lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We have conducted a systematic search for prediction model studies published between January 1995 and December 2020 using the Pubmed and Embase databases, applying a validated search strategy. Taking random samples for every calendar year, abstracts and articles were screened until a target of 100 CPM development studies were identified. Next, we will perform a forward citation search of the resulting CPM development article cohort to identify articles on external validation, impact assessment or implementation of those CPMs. We will also invite the authors of the development studies to complete an online survey to track implementation and clinical utilization of the CPMs.We will conduct a descriptive synthesis of the included studies, using data from the forward citation search and online survey to quantify the proportion of developed models that are validated, assessed for their impact, implemented and/or used in patient care. We will conduct time-to-event analysis using Kaplan-Meier plots. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No patient data are involved in the research. Most information will be extracted from published articles. We request written informed consent from the survey respondents. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. OSF REGISTRATION: (https://osf.io/nj8s9).

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of clinically extremely vulnerable children and children living with clinically extremely vulnerable people in Wales: a data linkage study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) children or children living with a CEV person in Wales were at greater risk of presenting with anxiety or depression in primary or secondary care during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with children in the general population and to compare patterns of anxiety and depression during the pandemic (23 March 2020-31 January 2021, referred to as 2020/2021) and before the pandemic (23 March 2019-31 January 2020, referred to as 2019/2020), between CEV children and the general population. DESIGN: Population-based cross-sectional cohort study using anonymised, linked, routinely collected health and administrative data held in the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. CEV individuals were identified using the COVID-19 shielded patient list. SETTING: Primary and secondary healthcare settings covering 80% of the population of Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 2-17 in Wales: CEV (3769); living with a CEV person (20 033); or neither (415 009). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: First record of anxiety or depression in primary or secondary healthcare in 2019/2020 and 2020/2021, identified using Read and International Classification of Diseases V.10 codes. RESULTS: A Cox regression model adjusted for demographics and history of anxiety or depression revealed that only CEV children were at greater risk of presenting with anxiety or depression during the pandemic compared with the general population (HR=2.27, 95% CI=1.94 to 2.66, p<0.001). Compared with the general population, the risk among CEV children was higher in 2020/2021 (risk ratio 3.04) compared with 2019/2020 (risk ratio 1.90). In 2020/2021, the period prevalence of anxiety or depression increased slightly among CEV children, but declined among the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the period prevalence of recorded anxiety or depression in healthcare between CEV children and the general population were largely driven by a reduction in presentations to healthcare services by children in the general population during the pandemic.

Current issues and challenges in the definition and operationalization of child maltreatment: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Studies show considerable variability in the definitions and operationalization of child maltreatment (CM), which limits research, policy formation, surveillance, and cross-country and cross-sector comparisons. OBJECTIVE: To review the recent literature (2011-2021) to understand current issues and challenges in defining CM, to assist in the planning, testing and implementing of CM conceptualizations. METHODS: We searched eight international databases. Articles were included if the substantive content was related to issues, challenges, and debates in defining CM, and the article was an original study, review, commentary, report, or guideline. The review followed methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews and was reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Four experts in CM conducted a thematic analysis to summarize findings. Methodological rigor of the included studies was not formally assessed. RESULTS: We identified 7372 potentially relevant articles; 55 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility, 25 satisfied the inclusion criteria. We identified three themes: 1) strategies to define CM, including the integration of child and victim perspectives; 2) difficulties in defining specific CM types; and 3) real-world implications for research, prevention and policy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite longstanding concerns, challenges regarding the definitions of CM persist. A small minority of studies have tested and implemented CM definitions and operationalizations in practice. The findings will inform international multi-sectoral processes to develop uniform definitions of CM, for example by highlighting the need to acknowledge challenges in defining some CM types and emphasizing the importance of considering the perspectives of children and CM survivors.

Consensus building on definitions and types of child maltreatment to improve recording and surveillance in Europe: protocol for a multi-sectoral, European, electronic Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Child maltreatment (CM) is a complex global public health issue with potentially devastating effects on individuals' physical and mental health and well-being throughout the life course. A lack of uniform definitions hinders attempts to identify, measure, respond to, and prevent CM. The aim of this electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) study is to build consensus on definitions and types of CM for use in surveillance and multi-sectoral research in the 34 countries in the Euro-CAN (Multi-Sectoral Responses to Child Abuse and Neglect in Europe) project (COST Action CA19106). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The e-Delphi study will consist of a maximum of three rounds conducted using an online data collection platform. A multi-disciplinary expert panel consisting of researchers, child protection professionals (health and social care), police, legal professionals and adult survivors of CM will be purposefully recruited. We will approach approximately 100 experts, with between 50 and 60 of these anticipated to take part. Participants will rate their agreement with a range of statements relating to operational definitions and types of CM, and free-text comments on each of the statements to give further detail about their responses and areas of uncertainty. Consensus has been defined a priori as ≥70% of the panel agreeing or disagreeing with the statement after the final round. The responses to the open-ended questions will be analysed using a 'codebook' approach to thematic analysis, and used to refine the statements between rounds where no consensus is reached. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted from the Cardiff University School of Medicine ethics committee (reference number SMREC22/96). Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at workshops (including for the participants) and international academic conferences. The Euro-CAN network will also be used to disseminate the results, with results briefings and presentations to key public health and other relevant organisations in the field.

Head computed tomography in suspected physical abuse: time to rethink?

BACKGROUND: National guidance recommends CT-head for all children <1 year old with suspected physical abuse, and to be considered for those <2 years old to exclude abusive head trauma. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether this guidance is followed, and the associations between clinical presentation and CT findings, to determine whether guidance could be refined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective case note review of all children <2 years old who underwent medical assessment for suspected abuse (2009-2017). Outcome measures were frequency of CT-head, and diagnostic yield of intracranial injury, skull fracture or both. RESULTS: CT-head was undertaken in 60.3% (152/252) of children <12 months old and 7.8% (13/167) of those aged 12-24 months. The diagnostic yield in children who had a CT-head was 27.1% in children <6 months old, 14.3% in those 6-12 months old (p=0.07) and 42.6% (6/13) in those 12-24 months old. For those with head swelling or neurological impairment, it was 84.2% (32/38). In children <12 months old without these clinical features, the estimated prevalence of occult head injury was 6.1% (7/115). The strongest predictors of an abnormal CT-head were swelling to the head (OR 46.7), neurological impairment (OR 20.6) and a low haemoglobin (OR 11.8). CONCLUSION: All children <2 years of age with suspected physical abuse and neurological impairment or head swelling should undergo CT-head. Where the technical skills and the requisite expertise to interpret MRI exist, an MRI scan may be the optimal first-line neuroimaging investigation in infants who are neurologically stable with injuries unrelated to the head to minimise cranial radiation exposure.

Clinical prediction rules for abusive head trauma: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Misdiagnosis of abusive head trauma (AHT) has serious consequences for children and families. This systematic review identifies and compares clinical prediction rules (CPredRs) assisting clinicians in assessing suspected AHT. DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane databases (January 1996 to August 2016). Externally validated CPredRs focusing on the detection of AHT in the clinical setting were included. RESULTS: Of 110 potential articles identified, three studies met the inclusion criteria: the Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network (PediBIRN) 4-Variable AHT CPredR, the Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) tool and the Pittsburgh Infant Brain Injury Score (PIBIS). The CPredRs were designed for different populations and purposes: PediBIRN: intensive care unit admissions (<3 years) with head injury, to inform early decisions to launch or forego an evaluation for abuse (sensitivity 0.96); PredAHT: hospital admissions (<3 years) with intracranial injury, to assist clinicians in discussions with child abuse specialists (sensitivity 0.72); and PIBIS: well-appearing children (<1 year) in the emergency department with no history of trauma, temperature <38.3°C, and ≥1 symptom associated with high risk of AHT, to determine the need for a head CT scan (sensitivity 0.93). There was little overlap between the predictive variables. CONCLUSION: Three CPredRs for AHT were relevant at different stages in the diagnostic process. None of the CPredRs aimed to diagnose AHT but to act as aids/prompts to clinicians to seek further clinical, social or forensic information. None were widely validated in multiple settings. To assess safety and effectiveness in clinical practice, impact analyses are required and recommended.

External Validation of the PediBIRN Clinical Prediction Rule for Abusive Head Trauma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A 4-variable abusive head trauma (AHT) clinical prediction rule (CPR) for use in the PICU was derived and validated for children <3 years of age by the Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network (PediBIRN). We aimed to externally validate PediBIRN as designed (PICU only) as well as using broader inclusion criteria (admitted children with head injuries). METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter study of pediatric head injuries at 5 Australian and New Zealand tertiary pediatric centers. Possible AHT was identified by clinician suspicion, epidemiology codes, or a high-risk group (<3 years of age, admitted, abnormal neuroimaging results). At 1 center, we additionally reviewed head injuries in the forensic database. We designated patients as positive for AHT, negative for AHT, or having indeterminate outcome after multidisciplinary review and applied the PediBIRN CPR, blinded to outcome, to PICU admissions only, and any head injury admissions. CPR accuracy was calculated by using 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-one patients were admitted with abnormal neuroimaging results. Twenty-eight (20%) were positive for AHT, 94 (67%) were negative for AHT, and 19 (13%) had indeterminate outcome. Excluding indeterminate cases, in the PICU (n = 28), the CPR was 100% (75%-100%) sensitive and 11% (0%-48%) specific; in all admitted patients (n = 141), sensitivity was 96% (82%-100%) and specificity of 43% (32%-53%). CONCLUSIONS: This validation revealed high sensitivity and low specificity for PICU patients. Specificity was improved but moderate in a broader group of admitted head injury patients.

Validation of a Prediction Tool for Abusive Head Trauma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Abusive head trauma (AHT) may be missed in the clinical setting. Clinical prediction tools are used to reduce variability in practice and inform decision-making. From a systematic review and individual patient data analysis we derived the Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) tool, using multilevel logistic regression to predict likelihood of AHT. This study aims to externally validate the PredAHT tool. METHODS: Consecutive children aged <36 months admitted with an intracranial injury, confirmed as abusive or nonabusive, to 2 sites used in the original model were ascertained. Details of 6 influential features were recorded (retinal hemorrhage, rib and long -bone fractures, apnea, seizures, and head or neck bruising). We estimated the likelihood of an unrecorded feature being present with multiple imputation; analysis included sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Data included 133 non-AHT cases and 65 AHT cases, 97% of children were <24 months old. Consistent with original predictions, when ≥3 features were present in a child <36 months old with intracranial injury, the estimated probability of AHT was >81.5% (95% CI, 63.3-91.8). The sensitivity of the tool was 72.3% (95% CI, 60.4-81.7), the specificity was 85.7% (95% CI, 78.8-90.7), area under the curve 0.88 (95% CI, 0.823-0.926). CONCLUSIONS: When tested on novel data, the PredAHT tool performed well. This tool has the potential to contribute to decision-making in these challenging cases. An implementation study is needed to explore its performance and utility within the child protection process.