Are school-based interventions to prevent dating and relationship violence and gender-based violence equally effective for all students? Systematic review and equity analysis of moderation analyses in randomised trials.

School-based interventions for the prevention of dating and relationship violence (DRV) and gender-based violence (GBV) take advantage of universal opportunities for intervention. Information on differential effectiveness of interventions is important to assess if they ameliorate or worsen social gradients in specific outcomes. This is especially important in DRV and GBV prevention given the gendered context of these behaviours and their common aetiologies in patriarchal gender norms, and social acceptance in school contexts of sexual harassment, such as catcalling or unwanted groping. We undertook a systematic review of moderation analyses in randomised trials of school-based interventions for DRV and GBV prevention. We searched 21 databases and used supplementary search methods without regard to publication type, language or year of publication, and synthesised moderation tests relating to equity-relevant characteristics (principally sex and prior history of the outcome) for DRV and GBV perpetration and victimisation. Across 23 included outcome evaluations, programme effects on DRV victimisation were not moderated by gender or prior experience of DRV victimisation, but DRV perpetration outcomes were greater for boys, particularly for emotional and physical DRV perpetration. Findings for GBV outcomes were counterintuitive. Our findings suggest that practitioners should carefully monitor local intervention effectiveness and equity to ensure that interventions are working as intended. However, one of the most surprising findings from our analysis-with clear relevance for uncertainties in practice-was that differential impacts by sexuality or sexual minority status were not frequently evaluated.

Money Matters: Time for Prevention and Early Intervention to Address Family Economic Circumstances.

Child poverty is associated with poorer physical and mental health, negative educational outcomes and adverse long-term social and psychological consequences, all of which impact on service demand and expenditure. Until now, however, prevention and early intervention practice has tended to focus on enhancing inter-parental relationships and parenting skills (e.g., via relationship skills education, home visiting, parenting programs, family therapy) or child language, social-emotional and life skills (e.g., early childhood education, school-based programs, youth mentoring). Programs often target low-income neighborhoods or families but rarely address poverty directly. While there is substantial evidence for the effectiveness of such interventions in improving child outcomes, null results are not uncommon and even positive effects are often small, short-term, and difficult to replicate. One avenue to enhance intervention effectiveness is to improve families' economic circumstances. There are several arguments for this refocusing. It is arguably unethical to focus on individual risk without acknowledging or seeking to address (where relevant) families' social and economic contexts, while the stigma and material constraints associated with poverty can make it harder for families to engage with psychosocial support. There is also evidence that increasing household income improves child outcomes. Although national policies to alleviate poverty are important, it is increasingly recognized that practice-based initiatives have a role to play (e.g., income maximization, devolved budgets, money management support). However, knowledge about their implementation and effectiveness is relatively thin. For instance, there is some evidence that co-located welfare rights advice in healthcare settings can improve recipients' financial circumstances and health, but it is mixed and of limited quality. Moreover, there is little rigorous research on whether and how such services affect mediators (parent-child interactions, parenting capacity) and/or child physical and psychosocial outcomes directly. We call for prevention and early intervention programs to attend more to families' economic circumstances, and for experimental studies to test their implementation, reach and effectiveness.

Systematic Review of the Economics of School-Based Interventions for Dating Violence and Gender-Based Violence.

Dating and relationship violence (DRV) and gender-based violence (GBV) among children and young people incur a high cost to individuals and society. School-based interventions present an opportunity to prevent DRV and GBV early in individuals' lives. However, with school resources under pressure, policymakers require guidance on the economics of implementing interventions. As part of a large systematic review funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), we searched for economic evaluations and costing studies of school-based interventions for DRV and GBV. No formal economic evaluations were identified. Seven studies reporting costs, cost savings, or resource use for eight interventions were identified. The largest costs of implementing interventions were related to staff training and salaries but savings could be made by implementing interventions on a large scale. The potential cost savings of avoided DRV and GBV far outweighed the costs of implementation.

Does Social and Economic Disadvantage Predict Lower Engagement with Parenting Interventions? An Integrative Analysis Using Individual Participant Data.

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

Barriers and facilitators in the delivery of a proportionate universal parenting program model (E-SEE Steps) in community family services.

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

A randomized controlled trial of a proportionate universal parenting program delivery model (E-SEE Steps) to enhance child social-emotional wellbeing.

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

Healthy Parent Carers programme: mixed methods process evaluation and refinement of a health promotion intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Parent carers of children with special educational needs or disability are at risk of poorer mental and physical health. In response to these needs, we codeveloped the 'Healthy Parent Carers' (HPC) programme. This study examined the views and experiences of participants in the HPC feasibility trial to inform programme refinement. INTERVENTION, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: HPC is a peer-led group-based intervention (supported by online materials) for primary carers of disabled children, encouraging behaviours linked with health and well-being. It was delivered by two lead and six assistant peer facilitators in six community sites (one lead and one assistant per group) in South West England over six or 12 sessions. Control participants had online materials only. The trial involved 47 intervention and 45 control parent carers (97% female and 97% white) and eight facilitators (one male). DESIGN: A preplanned mixed methods process evaluation using questionnaires and checklists (during and after the intervention), qualitative interviews with participants after intervention (n=18) and a focus group with facilitators after trial. RESULTS: HPC was highly acceptable to participants and facilitators and experiences were very positive. Participants reported that the programme increased awareness of what parent carers could and could not change and their self-efficacy to engage in health-promoting behaviours. The intended mechanisms of action (social identification and peer support) matched participants' expectations and experiences. Control participants found the online-only programme flexible but isolating, as there were no opportunities to share ideas and problem solve with peers, the key function of the programme. Areas for improvement were identified for programme content, facilitator training and delivery. CONCLUSION: HPC was acceptable, well received and offers considerable potential to improve the health of parent carers. Under the pandemic, the challenge going forward is how best to maintain reach and fidelity to function while delivering a more virtual programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN151144652.

Equity effects of parenting interventions for child conduct problems: a pan-European individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Childhood conduct problems are a costly public health problem and are five times more common in socially disadvantaged groups than they are in advantaged groups. Untreated, conduct problems have a poor prognosis, with increasing gaps between socioeconomic groups, and high rates of subsequent criminality. Incredible Years is a high quality parenting programme for reducing conduct problems and is widely disseminated in Europe. Many trials have shown Incredible Years to be effective but the potential effects of parenting interventions on social inequality are unknown. Some behavioural interventions (eg, smoking cessation programmes), although beneficial overall, can widen inequality gaps. Because single trials and aggregate-level meta-analyses are ill equipped for examining differential intervention (moderator) effects, we pooled individual-level trial data to assess the effects of Incredible Years on social equity. METHODS: We did a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis by searching CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, Medline, and PsycINFO, for studies published from inception to March 15, 2019. We also searched the Incredible Years website library and consulted with experts, including the European Incredible Years mentors' network. We included data from all completed randomised trials of the Incredible Years parenting intervention in Europe that included children aged 1-12 years, including unpublished trials, without restriction on publication year or outcome measures. We included prevention (selective or universal) and treatment or indicated prevention trials (for children diagnosed or above the clinical cutoff for conduct problems). We excluded trials or conditions within trials that were not randomised, included additional non-parenting material (eg, child-focused interventions), or were abbreviated, non-standard versions of the usual Incredible Years intervention of 12-14 weekly sessions. We requested individual participant data from the study authors. The primary outcome was child conduct problems, assessed using the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory Intensity (ECBI-I) scale. Moderators were analysed using multilevel modelling with multiple imputation. FINDINGS: Of 15 European trials of Incredible Years parenting programmes (n=1696 children), individual participant data were unavailable for one trial and one trial did not assess the primary outcome. Children were aged 2-10 years (median 5·1), 492 (30%) of 1651 children were from an ethnic minority and 931 (58%) of 1614 were from low-income families. Families who received the Incredible Years intervention reported an overall reduction in child conduct problems (13·5 points on the ECBI-I scale, 95% CI 10·9-16·1). There were no differential effects by family disadvantage (indicated by poverty, lone parenthood, teenage parenthood, household joblessness, or low education), or ethnic minority status. INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence for differential effects by social disadvantage, suggesting that Incredible Years is unlikely to widen socioeconomic inequalities in conduct problems. Furthermore, the programme might be an important tool for reducing social disparities and improving poor long-term outcomes in disadvantaged families because follow-up studies indicate that benefits persist. Clinicians and commissioners can be reassured that the programme is similarly effective for families from different backgrounds. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Enhancing Social-Emotional Health and Wellbeing in the Early Years (E-SEE): a study protocol of a community-based randomised controlled trial with process and economic evaluations of the incredible years infant and toddler parenting programmes, delivered in a proportionate universal model.

INTRODUCTION: Behavioural and mental disorders have become a public health crisis and by 2020 may surpass physical illness as a major cause of disability. Early prevention is key. Two Incredible Years (IY) parent programmes that aim to enhance child well-being and development, IY Infant and IY Toddler, will be delivered and evaluated in a proportionate universal intervention model called Enhancing Social-Emotional Health and Wellbeing in the Early Years (E-SEE) Steps. The main research question is: Does E-SEE Steps enhance child social emotional well-being at 20 months when compared with services as usual? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: E-SEE Steps will be delivered in community settings by Early Years Children's Services and/or Public Health staff across local authorities. Parents of children aged 8 weeks or less, identified by health visitors, children's centre staff or self-referral, are eligible for participation in the trial. The randomisation allocation ratio is 5:1 (intervention to control). All intervention parents will receive an Incredible Years Infant book (universal level), and may be offered the Infant and/or Toddler group-based programme/s-based on parent depression scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire or child social emotional well-being scores on the Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social Emotional, Second Edition (ASQ:SE-2). Control group parents will receive services as usual. A process and economic evaluation are included. The primary outcome for the study is social emotional well-being, assessed at 20 months, using the ASQ:SE-2. Intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses will be conducted. Clustering and hierarchical effects will be accounted for using linear mixed models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approvals have been obtained from the University of York Education Ethics Committee (ref: FC15/03, 10 August 2015) and UK NHS REC 5 (ref: 15/WA/0178, 22 May 2015. The current protocol is Version 9, 26 February 2018. The sponsor of the trial is the University of York. Dissemination of findings will be via peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and public events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11079129; Pre-results.

Debt Counselling for Depression in Primary Care: an adaptive randomised controlled pilot trial (DeCoDer study).

BACKGROUND: Depression and debt are common in the UK. Debt Counselling for Depression in Primary Care: an adaptive randomised controlled pilot trial (DeCoDer) aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the addition of a primary care debt counselling advice service to usual care for patients with depression and debt. However, the study was terminated early during the internal pilot trial phase because of recruitment delays. This report describes the rationale, methods and findings of the pilot study, and implications for future research. OBJECTIVES: The overarching aim of the internal pilot was to identify and resolve problems, thereby assessing the feasibility of the main trial. The specific objectives were to confirm methods for practice recruitment and the ability to recruit patients via the proposed approaches; to determine the acceptability of the study interventions and outcome measures; to assess contamination; to confirm the randomisation method for main trial and the level of participant attrition; and to check the robustness of data collection systems. DESIGN: An adaptive, parallel, two-group multicentre randomised controlled pilot trial with a nested mixed-methods process and economic evaluation. Both individual- and cluster (general practice)-level were was used in the pilot phase to assign participants to intervention or control groups. SETTING: General practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals were included who were aged ≥ 18 years, scored ≥ 14 on the Beck Depression Inventory II and self-identified as having debt worries. The main exclusion criteria were being actively suicidal or psychotic and/or severely depressed and unresponsive to treatment; having a severe addiction to alcohol/illicit drugs; being unable/unwilling to give written informed consent; currently participating in other research including follow-up phases; having received Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) debt advice in the past year; and not wanting debt advice via a general practice. INTERVENTIONS: The participants in the intervention group were given debt advice provided by the CAB and shared biopsychosocial assessment, in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) and two debt advice leaflets. The participants in the control group were given advice leaflets provided by the general practitioner and TAU only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Outcomes of the pilot trial - the proportion of eligible patients who consented, the number of participants recruited compared with target, assessment of contamination, and assessment of patient satisfaction with intervention and outcome measures. (2) Participant outcomes - primary - Beck Depression Inventory II; secondary - psychological well-being, health and social care utilisation, service satisfaction, substance misuse, record of priority/non-priority debts, life events and difficulties, and explanatory measures. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (pre-randomisation) and at 4 months post randomisation. Other data sources - qualitative interviews were conducted with participants, clinicians and CAB advisors. RESULTS: Of the 238 expressions of interest screened, 61 participants (26%) were recruited and randomised (32 in the intervention group and 29 in the control group). All participants provided baseline outcomes and 52 provided the primary outcome at 4 months' follow-up (14.7% dropout). Seventeen participants allocated to the intervention saw a CAB advisor. Descriptive statistics are reported for participants with complete outcomes at baseline and 4 months' follow-up. Our qualitative findings suggest that the relationship between debt and depression is complex, and the impact of each on the other is compounded by other psychological, social and contextual influences. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of low recruitment, this trial was terminated at the internal pilot phase and was too small for inferential statistical analysis. We recommend ways to reduce this risk when conducting complex trials among vulnerable populations recruited in community settings. These cover trial design, the design and delivery of interventions, recruitment strategies and support for sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN79705874. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 35. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Mark Gabbay and Adele Ring are part-funded by NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) North West Coast and Richard Byng and Rod S Taylor, Vashti Berry and Elizabeth Shaw part-funded by NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula.

Effectiveness and micro-costing of the KiVa school-based bullying prevention programme in Wales: study protocol for a pragmatic definitive parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bullying refers to verbal, physical or psychological aggression repeated over time that is intended to cause harm or distress to the victims who are unable to defend themselves. It is a key public health priority owing to its widespread prevalence in schools and harmful short- and long-term effects on victims' well-being. There is a need to strengthen the evidence base by testing innovative approaches to preventing bullying. KiVa is a school-based bullying prevention programme with universal and indicated elements and an emphasis on changing bystander behaviour. It achieved promising results in a large trial in Finland, and now requires testing in other countries. This paper describes the protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of KiVa in Wales. METHODS/DESIGN: The study uses a two-arm waitlist control pragmatic definitive parallel group cluster RCT design with an embedded process evaluation and calculation of unit cost. Participating schools will be randomised a using a 1:1 ratio to KiVa plus usual provision (intervention group) or usual provision only (control group). The trial has one primary outcome, child self-reported victimisation from bullying, dichotomised as 'victimised' (bullied at least twice a month in the last couple of months) versus 'not victimised'. Secondary outcomes are: bullying perpetration; aspects of child social and emotional well-being (including emotional problems, conduct, peer relations, prosocial behaviour); and school attendance. Follow-up is at 12 months post-baseline. Implementation fidelity is measured through teacher-completed lesson records and independent school-wide observation. A micro-costing analysis will determine the costs of implementing KiVa, including recurrent and non-recurrent unit costs. Factors related to the scalability of the programme will be examined in interviews with head teachers and focus groups with key stakeholders in the implementation of school-based bullying interventions. DISCUSSION: The results from this trial will provide evidence on whether the KiVa programme is transportable from Finland to Wales in terms of effectiveness and implementation. It will provide information about the costs of delivery and generate insights into factors related to the scalability of the programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN23999021 Date 10-6-13.