Family Talk versus usual services in improving child and family psychosocial functioning in families with parental mental illness: a randomised controlled trial and cost analysis.

Background: Parental mental illness (PMI) is common and places children at high risk of developing psychological disorders. Family Talk (FT) is a well-known, whole-family, 7-session intervention designed to reduce the risk of transgenerational psychopathology. However, very few larger-scale evaluations of FT (across only a limited number of settings) have been conducted to date while there have been no cost analyses. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and costs of delivering FT in improving child and family psychosocial functioning in families with PMI within routine mental health settings. Methods: A total of 83 families with PMI, with children aged 5-18 years, were randomly assigned on a 2:1 ratio to receive either the FT intervention (n=55 families) or usual services (n=28 families) across 10 adult, child and primary care mental health sites in Ireland. Parental disorders included anxiety/depression (57%), Bipolar Disorder (20%), Borderline Personality Disorder (12%), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (8%) and psychosis (2%). Detailed assessments with parents were conducted at baseline and 6-month follow up. Results: FT led to significant improvements in family functioning and child behaviour at 6-month follow up when compared to usual services, with medium effect sizes indicated. Parent participants with lower mental health literacy at baseline also showed significant post-intervention improvements. Those parents with less severe mental illness at baseline, and families with more partner and economic supports, reported additional significant post-intervention improvements in child depression/anxiety and parental mental health symptoms. The cost of FT amounted to €761.50 per family, although this decreased to €415.31 when recurring costs only were included. Conclusion: The findings from this study, which was conducted within the context of a national programme to introduce family-focused practice in Ireland, demonstrate that FT is a low-cost intervention that improved child and family psychosocial functioning across different mental health disorders within routine adult, child and primary care mental health services. The findings contribute to the growing evidence base for FT, and provide a robust basis to inform practice and policy development for families with parental mental illness both in Ireland and elsewhere. Clinical trial registration: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13365858, identifier ISRCTN13365858.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a universal, preventative-focused, parent and infant programme.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed whether a relatively newly developed Parent and Infant (PIN) parenting support programme was cost-effective when compared to services as usual (SAU). METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of the PIN programme versus SAU was assessed from an Irish health and social care perspective over a 24-month timeframe and within the context of a non-randomised, controlled before-and-after trial. In total, 163 parent-infant dyads were included in the study (86 intervention, 77 control). The primary outcome measure for the economic evaluation was the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC). RESULTS: The average cost of the PIN programme was €647 per dyad. The mean (SE) cost (including programme costs) was €7,027 (SE €1,345) compared to €4,811 (SE €593) in the control arm, generating a (non-significant) mean cost difference of €2,216 (bootstrap 95% CI -€665 to €5,096; p = 0.14). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness of the PIN service was €614 per PSOC unit gained (bootstrap 95% CI €54 to €1,481). The probability that the PIN programme was cost-effective, was 87% at a willingness-to-pay of €1,000 per one unit change in the PSOC. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the PIN programme was cost-effective at a relatively low willingness-to-pay threshold when compared to SAU. This study addresses a significant knowledge gap in the field of early intervention by providing important real world evidence on the implementation costs and cost-effectiveness of a universal early years parenting programme. The challenges involved in assessing the cost-effectiveness of preventative interventions for very young children and their parents are also discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17488830 (Date of registration: 27/11/15). This trial was retrospectively registered.

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.

Family Talk versus usual services in improving child and family psychosocial functioning in families with parental mental illness (PRIMERA-Promoting Research and Innovation in Mental hEalth seRvices for fAmilies and children): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Parental mental illness is common and can lead to dependent children incurring a high risk of developing mental disorders, physical illness, and impaired educational and occupational outcomes. Family Talk is one of the better known interventions designed to prevent the intergenerational transmission of mental illness. However, its evidence base is small, with few robust independent randomised controlled trials, and no associated process or cost evaluations. The PRIMERA (Promoting Research and Innovation in Mental hEalth seRvices for fAmilies and children) research programme involves a mixed method evaluation of Family Talk which is being delivered in mental health settings in Ireland to improve child and family psychosocial functioning in families with parental mental illness. METHODS: The study comprises a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT), with nested economic and process evaluations, to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness and implementation mechanisms of Family Talk compared to usual services. The study is being conducted in 15 adult and child mental health settings in Ireland. Families with a parent with mental illness, and children aged 5-18 years (n = 144 families) will be randomised to either the 7-session Family Talk programme (n = 96) or to standard care (n = 48) using a 2:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcomes are child psychosocial functioning and family functioning. Secondary outcomes are as follows: understanding and experience of parental mental illness, parental mental health, child and parental resilience, partner wellbeing and service utilisation. Blind assessments will take place at pre-intervention and at 6- and 12-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: Given the prevalence and burden of intergenerational mental illness, it is imperative that prevention through evidence-based interventions becomes a public health priority. The current study will provide an important contribution to the international evidence base for Family Talk whilst also helping to identify key implementation lessons in the scaling up of Family Talk, and other similar interventions, within routine mental health settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN13365858 . Registered 5th February 2019.

Parent and facilitator experiences of an intensive parent and infant programme delivered in routine community settings.

AIM: The aims of this study were to (1) assess the initial experiences of parenthood amongst mainly disadvantaged mothers; (2) explore their views on the extent to which they felt they had benefitted (or not) from participating in a newly developed, intensive mother and baby support programme in the community; and (3) explore the perspectives of those who delivered the programme (i.e., facilitators), most of whom were Public Health Nurses (PHNs). BACKGROUND: Positive parent-child interactions and appropriate levels of infant stimulation are essential to promoting a child's well-being and laying a foundation in the early years for positive developmental outcomes. It is important, therefore, to examine participants' experiences of community-based, family-focused, early prevention and intervention programmes. METHODS: This study was undertaken as part of a larger evaluation of a newly developed parent and infant (PIN) programme which was delivered in two disadvantaged areas in Ireland. One-to-one interviews were conducted with both mothers (n = 22) and facilitators (n = 8) (including three PHNs) plus six focus groups with an additional sub-group of facilitators (n = 17). FINDINGS: The collective findings suggest that mothers found the programme helpful in promoting a greater understanding of their infants' behaviour and needs, and in alleviating stress and concerns associated with motherhood. Mothers described feeling more knowledgeable about the importance of regular and appropriate infant interaction to encourage learning and development. Facilitators, specifically PHNs, also reported a greater awareness of the value of infant socioemotional development for their clinical practice and observed greater positive communication between mothers and infants. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that a community-based, intensive mother and baby programme can help to promote parental competence and enhance infant learning and development. Additional benefits in terms of early intervention and positive changes to public health nursing practice are also discussed.

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.

Mothers' well-being, parenting attitudes, and home environment: Cumulative risk and parity in early motherhood.

BACKGROUND: This study explores mothers' wellbeing, experiences, and attitudes and the impact of cumulative demographic and antenatal risks and parity on parenting outcomes. A secondary aim was to assess mother and infant service utilisation. METHOD: This study involved an assessment of the baseline characteristics of a sample of mothers (N = 190; Mean age = 31.6 years, SD = 5.4) with young infants (average age = 10.13 weeks, SD = 0.8) living in disadvantaged communities in Ireland. RESULTS: Mothers with more risk factors (e.g., lone and/or teenage parenthood, socioeconomic disadvantage, and low social support) reported significantly higher levels of depression and lower parental self-efficacy. Observations of the home environment indicated that at-risk parents engaged in less cognitive stimulation and lower levels of emotional support for their child. The impact of these risk factors differed for primiparous and multiparous mothers. CONCLUSIONS: At-risk mothers are more susceptible to mental health difficulties and poorer parenting outcomes during the transition to parenthood. This study also provides important comparative insights into experiences of primiparous and multiparous parents. These findings have important implications for practitioners and policy makers, particularly the provision of universal and proportionate supports to prevent and/or interrupt poor parent-child relationships and negative developmental outcomes.

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.

EEPIC - Enhancing Employability through Positive Interventions for improving Career potential: the impact of a high support career guidance intervention on the wellbeing, hopefulness, self-efficacy and employability of the long-term unemployed - a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Labour market policy (LMP) and its implementation have undergone rapid change internationally in the last three decades with a continued trend towards active LMP. In Ireland however, this shift has been more recent with ongoing reforms since 2012 and a concomitant move toward active labour market 'work-first' policy design (i.e. whereby unemployed people are compulsorily required to work in return for their social welfare benefits). Labour market policies vary from those that require this compulsory approach to those which enable the unemployed to move towards sustainable quality work in the labour market through upskilling (human capital approach). Despite this, however, long-term unemployment-a major cause of poverty and social exclusion-remains high, while current employment support approaches aimed at sustainable re-employment are, arguably, unevaluated and under examined. This study examines the effectiveness of a new high support career guidance intervention in terms of its impact on aspects of wellbeing, perceived employability and enhancing career sustainability. METHOD: The study involves a single-centre randomised, controlled, partially blinded trial. A total of 140 long-term unemployed job-seekers from a disadvantaged urban area will be randomly assigned to two groups: (1) an intervention group; and (2) a 'service as usual' group. Each group will be followed up immediately post intervention and six months later. The primary outcome is wellbeing at post intervention and at six-month follow-up. The secondary outcome is perceived employability, which includes a number of different facets including self-esteem, hopefulness, resilience and career self-efficacy. DISCUSSION: The study aims to assess the changes in, for example, psychological wellbeing, career efficacy and hopefulness, that occur as a result of participation in a high support intervention vs routinely available support. The results will help to inform policy and practice by indicating whether a therapeutic approach to job-seeking support is more effective for long-term unemployed job-seekers than routinely available (and less therapeutic) support. The findings will also be important in understanding what works and for whom with regard to potentially undoing the negative psychological impacts of unemployment, building psychological capital and employability within the individual, and developing career trajectories leading to more sustainable employment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN16801028 . Registered on 9 February 2016.

The Role of Philanthropic Funding in Building Research Evidence to Support an Aging Population: A Case Study from Ireland.

This case study examines the role of philanthropic funding in building capacity for aging research in Ireland, and how this investment has addressed the lack of evidence to support planning for an aging population. The funding has supported a range of initiatives including the national longitudinal study on aging (TILDA), the creation of three professorships/chairs, and the establishment of four new research centers. Important potential outcomes are emerging across other domains including research-informed policy development and the generation of health benefits. The efforts of academic researchers to ensure that their findings are readily accessible to end users and to forge robust working relationships with all stakeholders have helped to enhance the use of research findings. Overall, philanthropy has played a pivotal role in building capacity, infrastructure, and expertise in academic settings in Ireland. Moreover, this work provides an excellent example of how such efforts can begin to inform effective planning and service provision.

Time-limited home-care reablement services for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults.

BACKGROUND: Reablement, also known as restorative care, is one possible approach to home-care services for older adults at risk of functional decline. Unlike traditional home-care services, reablement is frequently time-limited (usually six to 12 weeks) and aims to maximise independence by offering an intensive multidisciplinary, person-centred and goal-directed intervention. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of time-limited home-care reablement services (up to 12 weeks) for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults (aged 65 years or more) when compared to usual home-care or wait-list control group. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases with no language restrictions during April to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (OvidSP); Embase (OvidSP); PsycINFO (OvidSP); ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); SIGLE (OpenGrey); AgeLine and Social Care Online. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews as well as contacting authors in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised or quasi-randomised trials of time-limited reablement services for older adults (aged 65 years or more) delivered in their home; and incorporated a usual home-care or wait-list control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered quality of the evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies, comparing reablement with usual home-care services with 811 participants, met our eligibility criteria for inclusion; we also identified three potentially eligible studies, but findings were not yet available. One included study was conducted in Western Australia with 750 participants (mean age 82.29 years). The second study was conducted in Norway (61 participants; mean age 79 years).We are very uncertain as to the effects of reablement compared with usual care as the evidence was of very low quality for all of the outcomes reported. The main findings were as follows.Functional status: very low quality evidence suggested that reablement may be slightly more effective than usual care in improving function at nine to 12 months (lower scores reflect greater independence; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.06; 2 studies with 249 participants).Adverse events: reablement may make little or no difference to mortality at 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29; 2 studies with 811 participants) or rates of unplanned hospital admission at 24 months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1 study with 750 participants).The very low quality evidence also means we are uncertain whether reablement may influence quality of life (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.02; 2 trials with 249 participants) or living arrangements (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.34; 1 study with 750 participants) at time points up to 12 months. People receiving reablement may be slightly less likely to have been approved for a higher level of personal care than people receiving usual care over the 24 months' follow-up (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 1 trial, 750 participants). Similarly, although there may be a small reduction in total aggregated home and healthcare costs over the 24-month follow-up (reablement: AUD 19,888; usual care: AUD 22,757; 1 trial with 750 participants), we are uncertain about the size and importance of these effects as the results were based on very low quality evidence.Neither study reported user satisfaction with the service. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of reablement as the evidence was of very low quality according to our GRADE ratings. Therefore, the effectiveness of reablement services cannot be supported or refuted until more robust evidence becomes available. There is an urgent need for high quality trials across different health and social care systems due to the increasingly high profile of reablement services in policy and practice in several countries.

Understanding the implementation and effectiveness of a group-based early parenting intervention: a process evaluation protocol.

BACKGROUND: Group-based early parenting interventions delivered through community-based services may be a potentially effective means of promoting infant and family health and wellbeing. Process evaluations of these complex interventions provide vital information on how they work, as well as the conditions which shape and influence outcomes. This information is critical to decision makers and service providers who wish to embed prevention and early interventions in usual care settings. In this paper, a process evaluation protocol for an early years parenting intervention, the Parent and Infant (PIN) program, is described. This program combines a range of developmentally-appropriate supports, delivered in a single intervention process, for parents and infants (0-2 years) and aimed at enhancing parental competence, strengthening parent-infant relationships and improving infant wellbeing and adjustment. METHODS: The process evaluation is embedded within a controlled trial and accompanying cost-effectiveness evaluation. Building from extant frameworks and evaluation methods, this paper presents a systematic approach to the process evaluation of the PIN program and its underlying change principles, the implementation of the program, the context of implementation and the change mechanisms which influence and shape parent and infant outcomes. We will use a multi-method strategy, including semi-structured interviews and group discussions with key stakeholders, documentary analysis and survey methodology. DISCUSSION: The integration of innovations into existing early years systems and services is a challenging multifaceted undertaking. This process evaluation will make an important contribution to knowledge about the implementation of such programs, while also providing an example of how theory-based research can be embedded within the evaluation of community-based interventions. We discuss the strengths of the research, such as the adoption of a collaborative approach to data collection, while we also identify potential challenges, including capturing and assessing complex aspects of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17488830 (Date of registration: 27/11/15). This trial was retrospectively registered.

INSPIRE (INvestigating Social and PractIcal suppoRts at the End of life): Pilot randomised trial of a community social and practical support intervention for adults with life-limiting illness.

BACKGROUND: For most people, home is the preferred place of care and death. Despite the development of specialist palliative care and primary care models of community based service delivery, people who are dying, and their families/carers, can experience isolation, feel excluded from social circles and distanced from their communities. Loneliness and social isolation can have a detrimental impact on both health and quality of life. Internationally, models of social and practical support at the end of life are gaining momentum as a result of the Compassionate Communities movement. These models have not yet been subjected to rigorous evaluation. The aims of the study described in this protocol are: (1) to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of The Good Neighbour Partnership (GNP), a new volunteer-led model of social and practical care/support for community dwelling adults in Ireland who are living with advanced life-limiting illness; and (2) to pilot the method for a Phase III Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). DESIGN: The INSPIRE study will be conducted within the Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for the Evaluation of Complex Interventions (Phases 0-2) and includes an exploratory two-arm delayed intervention randomised controlled trial. Eighty patients and/or their carers will be randomly allocated to one of two groups: (I) Intervention: GNP in addition to standard care or (II) Control: Standard Care. Recipients of the GNP will be asked for their views on participating in both the study and the intervention. Quantitative and qualitative data will be gathered from both groups over eight weeks through face-to-face interviews which will be conducted before, during and after the intervention. The primary outcome is the effect of the intervention on social and practical need. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, loneliness, social support, social capital, unscheduled health service utilisation, caregiver burden, adverse impacts, and satisfaction with intervention. Volunteers engaged in the GNP will also be assessed in terms of their death anxiety, death self efficacy, self-reported knowledge and confidence with eleven skills considered necessary to be effective GNP volunteers. DISCUSSION: The INSPIRE study addresses an important knowledge gap, providing evidence on the efficacy, utility and acceptability of a unique model of social and practical support for people living at home, with advanced life-limiting illness. The findings will be important in informing the development (and evaluation) of similar service models and policy elsewhere both nationally and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18400594 18(th) February 2015.

A theory-based evaluation of a community-based funding scheme in a disadvantaged suburban city area.

Community-driven development (CDD) initiatives frequently involve funding schemes which are aimed at channelling financial investment into local need and fostering community participation and engagement. This exploratory study examined, through a program theory approach, the design and implementation of a small-scale, community-based fund in Ireland. Observations, documentary analysis, interviews and group discussions with 19 participants were utilized to develop a detailed understanding of the program mechanisms, activities and processes, as well as the experiences of key stakeholders engaged with the funding scheme and its implementation. The findings showed that there were positive perceptions of the scheme and its function within the community. Overall, the availability of funding was perceived by key stakeholders as being beneficial. However, there were concerns over the accessibility of the scheme for more marginalized members of the community, as well as dissatisfaction with the openness and transparency surrounding funding eligibility. Lessons for the implementation of small-scale CDD funds are elaborated and the utility of program theory approaches for evaluators and planners working with programs that fund community-based initiatives is outlined.

Reducing child conduct disordered behaviour and improving parent mental health in disadvantaged families: a 12-month follow-up and cost analysis of a parenting intervention.

The effectiveness of the Incredible Years Basic parent programme (IYBP) in reducing child conduct problems and improving parent competencies and mental health was examined in a 12-month follow-up. Pre- to post-intervention service use and related costs were also analysed. A total of 103 families and their children (aged 32-88 months), who previously participated in a randomised controlled trial of the IYBP, took part in a 12-month follow-up assessment. Child and parent behaviour and well-being were measured using psychometric and observational measures. An intention-to-treat analysis was carried out using a one-way repeated measures ANOVA. Pairwise comparisons were subsequently conducted to determine whether treatment outcomes were sustained 1 year post-baseline assessment. Results indicate that post-intervention improvements in child conduct problems, parenting behaviour and parental mental health were maintained. Service use and associated costs continued to decline. The results indicate that parent-focused interventions, implemented in the early years, can result in improvements in child and parent behaviour and well-being 12 months later. A reduced reliance on formal services is also indicated.

Cochrane review: behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting programmes for early-onset conduct problems in children aged 3 to 12 years (Review).

BACKGROUND: Early-onset child conduct problems are common and costly. A large number of studies and some previous reviews have focused on behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions, but methodological limitations are commonplace and evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these programmes has been unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting programmes for improving child conduct problems, parental mental health and parenting skills. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases between 23 and 31 January 2011: CENTRAL (2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to current), EMBASE (1980 to current), CINAHL (1982 to current), PsycINFO (1872 to current), Social Science Citation Index (1956 to current), ASSIA (1987 to current), ERIC (1966 to current), Sociological Abstracts (1963 to current), Academic Search Premier (1970 to current), Econlit (1969 to current), PEDE (1980 to current), Dissertations and Theses Abstracts (1980 to present), NHS EED (searched 31 January 2011), HEED (searched 31 January 2011), DARE (searched 31 January 2011), HTA (searched 31 January 2011), mRCT (searched 29 January 2011). We searched the following parent training websites on 31 January 2011: Triple P Library, Incredible Years Library and Parent Management Training. We also searched the reference lists of studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies if: (1) they involved randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials of behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions for parents of children aged 3 to 12 years with conduct problems, and (2) incorporated an intervention group versus a waiting list, no treatment or standard treatment control group. We only included studies that used at least one standardised instrument to measure child conduct problems. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias in the trials and the methodological quality of health economic studies. Two authors also independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 13 trials (10 RCTs and three quasi-randomised trials), as well as two economic evaluations based on two of the trials. Overall, there were 1078 participants (646 in the intervention group; 432 in the control group). The results indicate that parent training produced a statistically significant reduction in child conduct problems, whether assessed by parents (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.34) or independently assessed (SMD -0.44; 95% CI -0.77 to -0.11). The intervention led to statistically significant improvements in parental mental health (SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.52 to -0.20) and positive parenting skills, based on both parent reports (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.16) and independent reports (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.29). Parent training also produced a statistically significant reduction in negative or harsh parenting practices according to both parent reports (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -0.96 to -0.59) and independent assessments (SMD -0.42; 95% CI -0.67 to -0.16). Moreover, the intervention demonstrated evidence of cost-effectiveness. When compared to a waiting list control group, there was a cost of approximately $2500 (GBP 1712; EUR 2217) per family to bring the average child with clinical levels of conduct problems into the non-clinical range. These costs of programme delivery are modest when compared with the long-term health, social, educational and legal costs associated with childhood conduct problems. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions are effective and cost-effective for improving child conduct problems, parental mental health and parenting skills in the short term. The cost of programme delivery was modest when compared with the long-term health, social, educational and legal costs associated with childhood conduct problems. Further research is needed on the long-term assessment of outcomes.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the Incredible Years parenting programme in reducing childhood health inequalities.

Early onset of behavioural problems has lasting negative effects on a broad range of lifetime outcomes, placing large costs on individuals, families and society. A number of researchers and policy makers have argued that early interventions aimed at supporting the family is the most effective way of tackling child behaviour problems. This study forms the economic component of a randomised evaluation of the Incredible Years programme, a programme aimed at improving the skills and parenting strategies of parents of children with conduct problems. Our results show that the programme provides a cost-effective way of reducing behavioural problems. Furthermore, our cost analysis, when combined with a consideration of the potential long-run benefits, suggests that investment in such programmes may generate favourable long-run economic returns.

Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting programmes for early-onset conduct problems in children aged 3 to 12 years.

BACKGROUND: Early-onset child conduct problems are common and costly. A large number of studies and some previous reviews have focused on behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions, but methodological limitations are commonplace and evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these programmes has been unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting programmes for improving child conduct problems, parental mental health and parenting skills. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases between 23 and 31 January 2011: CENTRAL (2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to current), EMBASE (1980 to current), CINAHL (1982 to current), PsycINFO (1872 to current), Social Science Citation Index (1956 to current), ASSIA (1987 to current), ERIC (1966 to current), Sociological Abstracts (1963 to current), Academic Search Premier (1970 to current), Econlit (1969 to current), PEDE (1980 to current), Dissertations and Theses Abstracts (1980 to present), NHS EED (searched 31 January 2011), HEED (searched 31 January 2011), DARE (searched 31 January 2011), HTA (searched 31 January 2011), mRCT (searched 29 January 2011). We searched the following parent training websites on 31 January 2011: Triple P Library, Incredible Years Library and Parent Management Training. We also searched the reference lists of studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies if: (1) they involved randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials of behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions for parents of children aged 3 to 12 years with conduct problems, and (2) incorporated an intervention group versus a waiting list, no treatment or standard treatment control group. We only included studies that used at least one standardised instrument to measure child conduct problems. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias in the trials and the methodological quality of health economic studies. Two authors also independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 13 trials (10 RCTs and three quasi-randomised trials), as well as two economic evaluations based on two of the trials. Overall, there were 1078 participants (646 in the intervention group; 432 in the control group). The results indicate that parent training produced a statistically significant reduction in child conduct problems, whether assessed by parents (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.34) or independently assessed (SMD -0.44; 95% CI -0.77 to -0.11). The intervention led to statistically significant improvements in parental mental health (SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.52 to -0.20) and positive parenting skills, based on both parent reports (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.16) and independent reports (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.29). Parent training also produced a statistically significant reduction in negative or harsh parenting practices according to both parent reports (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -0.96 to -0.59) and independent assessments (SMD -0.42; 95% CI -0.67 to -0.16). Moreover, the intervention demonstrated evidence of cost-effectiveness. When compared to a waiting list control group, there was a cost of approximately $2500 (GBP 1712; EUR 2217) per family to bring the average child with clinical levels of conduct problems into the non-clinical range. These costs of programme delivery are modest when compared with the long-term health, social, educational and legal costs associated with childhood conduct problems. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions are effective and cost-effective for improving child conduct problems, parental mental health and parenting skills in the short term. The cost of programme delivery was modest when compared with the long-term health, social, educational and legal costs associated with childhood conduct problems. Further research is needed on the long-term assessment of outcomes.