Human arrival and landscape dynamics in the northern Bahamas.

The first Caribbean settlers were Amerindians from South America. Great Abaco and Grand Bahama, the final islands colonized in the northernmost Bahamas, were inhabited by the Lucayans when Europeans arrived. The timing of Lucayan arrival in the northern Bahamas has been uncertain because direct archaeological evidence is limited. We document Lucayan arrival on Great Abaco Island through a detailed record of vegetation, fire, and landscape dynamics based on proxy data from Blackwood Sinkhole. From about 3,000 to 1,000 y ago, forests dominated by hardwoods and palms were resilient to the effects of hurricanes and cooling sea surface temperatures. The arrival of Lucayans by about 830 CE (2σ range: 720 to 920 CE) is demarcated by increased burning and followed by landscape disturbance and a time-transgressive shift from hardwoods and palms to the modern pine forest. Considering that Lucayan settlements in the southern Bahamian archipelago are dated to about 750 CE (2σ range: 600 to 900 CE), these results demonstrate that Lucayans spread rapidly through the archipelago in less than 100 y. Although precontact landscapes would have been influenced by storms and climatic trends, the most pronounced changes follow more directly from landscape burning and ecosystem shifts after Lucayan arrival. The pine forests of Abaco declined substantially between 1500 and 1670 CE, a period of increased regional hurricane activity, coupled with fires on an already human-impacted landscape. Any future intensification of hurricane activity in the tropical North Atlantic Ocean threatens the sustainability of modern pine forests in the northern Bahamas.

Recognizing Elder Abuse: An Interprofessional Simulation Experience With Prelicensure Health Care Students.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A common role within all health care professions includes the ability to recognize and report elder abuse. However, teaching the characteristics and assessment of abuse can be difficult. To allow students to engage in a realistic case-based scenario within a health care team, an immersive simulation was developed involving the care of an elderly woman with signs of abuse. The purpose of this quasiexperimental study was to explore the influence of the experience on the participants' perceptions of interprofessional care and their understanding of the assessment of abuse. METHODS: This study utilized a mixed-methods research design. A sample of convenience of nursing and physical therapy students (n = 143) from 3 institutions in southwest Virginia was utilized for this study. Participants' perceptions were assessed using the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS) and through focus group interviews. RESULTS: Students demonstrated a statistically significant improvement based on the Wilcoxon matched pairs test (P < .001) on all 21 questions of the ISVS. A phenomenological study design was employed for qualitative analysis of focus group interviews performed postsimulation to generate information about the students' perceptions of the experience. Two themes emerged from the interviews: (1) communication as a team to provide wholistic patient care and (2) recognition of abuse. DISCUSSION: The students reported an improved understanding of collaboration on a health care team and how to investigate potential abuse occurring in the home. This further supports research suggesting the importance of interactive learning techniques in teaching health care students to recognize symptoms of elder abuse.

Measuring outcomes in trials of interventions for people who self-harm: qualitative study of service users' views.

BACKGROUND: Patients often have very different ideas from clinicians about what they want treatments to achieve. Their views on what outcomes are important are not always reflected in trials. AIMS: To elicit the views of people who self-harm on the most commonly used outcome measures and to identify the outcomes that matter to them. METHOD: We conducted in-depth interviews with 18 people with histories of self-harm, recruited from hospital and community settings. We conducted thematic analysis using a framework approach and used visual mapping to arrive at our final analysis and interpretation. RESULTS: Participants' accounts contained a number of challenges to the validity and meaningfulness of current trial outcome measures. Five broad issues emerged: (a) relationship between frequency and severity of self-harm; (b) behavioural substitution; (b) self-management skills; (d) the role of self-harm as survival tool and affect regulator, and (e) strategic self-presentation. We show how these affect the visibility and measurability of commonly used outcomes. The outcomes that mattered to participants focused on positive achievements in three domains: (a) general functioning and activities of everyday living; (b) social participation, and (c) engagement with services. Participants conceptualised these as both measures and means of sustained improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that current self-harm trial science rests on flawed assumptions about the relationship between mental states and behaviours and about our ability to measure both. Greater understanding of the outcomes that matter to people who self-harm is needed to inform both intervention development and trial design.

An intervention for parents with severe personality difficulties whose children have mental health problems: a feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: The children of parents with severe personality difficulties have greater risk of significant mental health problems. Existing care is poorly co-ordinated, with limited effectiveness. A specialised parenting intervention may improve child and parenting outcomes, reduce family morbidity and lower the service costs. OBJECTIVES: To develop a specialised parenting intervention for parents affected by severe personality difficulties who have children with mental health problems and to conduct a feasibility trial. DESIGN: A pragmatic, mixed-methods design to develop and pilot a specialised parenting intervention, Helping Families Programme-Modified, and to conduct a randomised feasibility trial with process evaluation. Initial cost-effectiveness was assessed using UK NHS/Personal Social Services and societal perspectives, generating quality-adjusted life-years. Researchers collecting quantitative data were masked to participant allocation. SETTING: Two NHS mental health trusts and concomitant children's social care services. PARTICIPANTS: Parents who met the following criteria: (1) the primary caregiver of the index child, (2) aged 18-65 years, (3) have severe personality difficulties, (4) proficient in English and (5) capable of providing informed consent. Index children who met the following criteria: (1) aged 3-11 years, (2) living with index parent and (3) have significant emotional/behavioural difficulties. Exclusion criteria were (1) having coexisting psychosis, (2) participating in another parenting intervention, (3) receiving inpatient care, (4) having insufficient language/cognitive abilities, (5) having child developmental disorder, (6) care proceedings and (7) index child not residing with index parent. INTERVENTION: The Helping Families Programme-Modified - a 16-session intervention using structured, goal-orientated strategies and collaborative therapeutic methods to improve parenting, and child and parent functioning. Usual care - standard care augmented by a single psychoeducational session. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Trial feasibility - rates of recruitment, eligibility, allocation, retention, data completion and experience. Intervention acceptability - rates of acceptance, completion, alliance (Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised) and experience. Outcomes - child (assessed via Concerns About My Child, Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory, Child Behaviour Checklist-Internalising Scale), parenting (assessed via the Arnold-O'Leary Parenting Scale, Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale), parent (assessed via the Symptom Checklist-27), and health economics (assessed via the Client Service Receipt Inventory, EuroQol-5 Dimensions). RESULTS: The findings broadly supported trial feasibility using non-diagnostic screening criteria. Parents were mainly referred from one site (75.0%). Site and participant factors delayed recruitment. An estimate of eligible parents was not obtained. Of the 86 parents referred, 60 (69.7%) completed screening and 48 of these (80.0%) were recruited. Participants experienced significant disadvantage and multiple morbidity. The Helping Families Programme-Modified uptake (87.5%) was higher than usual-care uptake (62.5%). Trial retention (66.7%, 95% confidence interval 51.6% to 79.6%) exceeded the a priori rate. Process findings highlighted the impact of random allocation and the negative effects on retention. The Helping Families Programme-Modified was acceptable, with duration of delivery longer than planned, whereas the usual-care condition was less acceptable. At initial follow-up, effects on child and parenting outcomes were detected across both arms, with a potential outcome advantage for the Helping Families Programme-Modified (effect size range 0.0-1.3). For parental quality-adjusted life-years, the Helping Families Programme-Modified dominated usual care, and child quality-adjusted life-years resulted in higher costs and more quality-adjusted life-years. At second follow-up, the Helping Families Programme-Modified was associated with higher costs and more quality-adjusted life-years than usual care. For child quality-adjusted life-years, when controlled for baseline EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, usual care dominated the Helping Families Programme-Modified. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: The Helping Families Programme-Modified is an acceptable specialised parenting intervention. Trial methods using non-diagnostic criteria were largely supported. For future work, a definitive efficacy trial should consider site selection, recruitment methods, intervention efficiency and revised comparator condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14573230. 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. 24, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Parents affected by personality difficulties experience strong, overwhelming emotions and struggle in their personal and social relationships. These difficulties can interfere with their ability to provide stable, safe and warm parenting, which increases the risk of their children developing mental health problems. This research developed the Helping Families Programme-Modified, a new parenting intervention designed to help parents with severe personality difficulties who have children with mental health problems. Parents received 16 home-based appointments to learn new parenting skills and improve their children's difficulties. The research assessed how the Helping Families Programme-Modified worked in practice and the viability of evaluation methods. A short questionnaire assessing personality difficulties, rather than a lengthy diagnostic interview, was more effective and acceptable for identifying parents who may benefit from the Helping Families Programme-Modified. Parents taking part had high levels of personal, family and social problems. This slowed the rate at which parents agreed to take part in the evaluation and lengthened the intervention period. The research tested parent agreement to being randomly allocated to receive either the Helping Families Programme-Modified or usual care plus a specially designed parenting appointment. Although this random allocation was feasible, parents were disappointed when they did not receive the Helping Families Programme-Modified. They often felt overwhelmed by family difficulties and lacked other suitable services. These parents were less likely to take up the additional parenting appointment available or to provide subsequent research information, which affected the certainty of the research findings. Parents receiving the Helping Families Programme-Modified or usual care reported improvements, with a potentially greater impact on parents and children, and better acceptability, for the new intervention. Parents generally supported the tailored, home-based approach of the Helping Families Programme-Modified, and they valued its content, therapist skills and persistence. It was uncertain whether the new intervention increased or reduced service costs. These results will be used to plan the most suitable methods for a large-scale evaluation of the Helping Families Programme-Modified.

Randomised feasibility trial of the helping families programme-modified: an intensive parenting intervention for parents affected by severe personality difficulties.

BACKGROUND: Specialist parenting intervention could improve coexistent parenting and child mental health difficulties of parents affected by severe personality difficulties. OBJECTIVE: Conduct a feasibility trial of Helping Families Programme-Modified (HFP-M), a specialist parenting intervention. DESIGN: Pragmatic, mixed-methods trial, 1:1 random allocation, assessing feasibility, intervention acceptability and outcome estimates. SETTINGS: Two National Health Service health trusts and local authority children's social care. PARTICIPANTS: Parents: (i) primary caregiver, (ii) 18 to 65 years, (iii) severe personality difficulties, (iv) proficient English and (v) capacity for consent. Child: (i) 3 to 11 years, (ii) living with index parent and (iii) significant emotional/behavioural difficulties. INTERVENTION: HFP-M: 16-session home-based intervention using parenting and therapeutic engagement strategies. Usual care: standard care augmented by single psychoeducational parenting session. OUTCOMES: Primary feasibility outcome: participant retention rate. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: (i) rates of recruitment, eligibility and data completion, and (ii) rates of intervention acceptance, completion and alliance (Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised). Primary clinical outcome: child behaviour (Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: child mental health (Concerns About My Child, Child Behaviour Checklist-Internalising Scale), parenting (Arnold-O'Leary Parenting Scale, Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale) and parent mental health (Symptom-Checklist-27). Quantitative data were collected blind to allocation. RESULTS: Findings broadly supported non-diagnostic selection criterion. Of 48 participants recruited, 32 completed post-intervention measures at mean 42 weeks later. Participant retention exceeded a priori rate (HFP-M=18; Usual care=14; 66.7%, 95% CI 51.6% to 79.6%). HFP-M was acceptable, with delivery longer than planned. Usual care had lower alliance rating. Child and parenting outcome effects detected across trial arms with potential HFP-M advantage (effect size range: 0.0 to 1.3). CONCLUSION: HFP-M is an acceptable and potentially effective specialist parenting intervention. A definitive trial is feasible, subject to consideration of recruitment and retention methods, intervention efficiency and comparator condition. Caution is required in interpretation of results due to reduced sample size. No serious adverse events reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14573230.