Study protocol for a real-world evaluation of an integrated child and family health hub for migrant and refugee women.

INTRODUCTION: Continuity of child and family healthcare is vital for optimal child health and development for developmentally vulnerable children. Migrant and refugee communities are often at-risk of poor health outcomes, facing barriers to health service attendance including cultural, language, limited health literacy, discrimination and unmet psychosocial needs. 'Integrated health-social care hubs' are physical hubs where health and social services are co-located, with shared referral pathways and care navigation. AIM: Our study will evaluate the impact, implementation and cost-benefit of the First 2000 Days Care Connect (FDCC) integrated hub model for pregnant migrant and refugee women and their infants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study has three components. Component 1 is a non-randomised controlled trial to compare the FDCC model of care with usual care. This trial will allocate eligible women to intervention and control groups based on their proximity to the Hub sites. Outcome measures include: the proportion of children attending child and family health (CFH) nurse services and completing their CFH checks to 12 months of age; improved surveillance of growth and development in children up to 12 months, post partum; improved breastfeeding rates; reduced emergency department presentations; and improved maternal well-being. These will be measured using linked medical record data and surveys. Component 2 will involve a mixed-method implementation evaluation to clarify how and why FDCC was implemented within the sites to inform future roll-out. Component 3 is a within-trial economic evaluation from a healthcare perspective to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Hubs relative to usual care and the implementation costs if Hubs were scaled and replicated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee in July 2021 (Project ID: 020/ETH03295). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621001088831.

Long-Term Follow-up to a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Peroneal Nerve Functional Electrical Stimulation to an Ankle Foot Orthosis for Patients With Chronic Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports peroneal nerve functional electrical stimulation (FES) as an effective alternative to ankle foot orthoses (AFO) for treatment of foot drop poststroke, but few long-term, randomized controlled comparisons exist. OBJECTIVE: Compare changes in gait quality and function between FES and AFOs in individuals with foot drop poststroke over a 12-month period. METHODS: Follow-up analysis of an unblinded randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01087957) conducted at 30 rehabilitation centers comparing FES to AFOs over 6 months. Subjects continued to wear their randomized device for another 6 months to final 12-month assessments. Subjects used study devices for all home and community ambulation. Multiply imputed intention-to-treat analyses were utilized; primary endpoints were tested for noninferiority and secondary endpoints for superiority. Primary endpoints: 10 Meter Walk Test (10MWT) and device-related serious adverse event rate. Secondary endpoints: 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), GaitRite Functional Ambulation Profile, and Modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile (mEFAP). RESULTS: A total of 495 subjects were randomized, and 384 completed the 12-month follow-up. FES proved noninferior to AFOs for all primary endpoints. Both FES and AFO groups showed statistically and clinically significant improvement for 10MWT compared with initial measurement. No statistically significant between-group differences were found for primary or secondary endpoints. The FES group demonstrated statistically significant improvements for 6MWT and mEFAP Stair-time subscore. CONCLUSIONS: At 12 months, both FES and AFOs continue to demonstrate equivalent gains in gait speed. Results suggest that long-term FES use may lead to additional improvements in walking endurance and functional ambulation; further research is needed to confirm these findings.

An Overview of Preformed Metal Crowns. Part 1: Conventional Technique.

This article details the clinical techniques for conventional preformed metal crown placement. It aims to increase the readers' awareness of the clinical advantages of preformed metal crowns and the indications for their use. The second part will discuss the Hall Technique. CPD/Clinical Relevance: This two-part article aims to guide the reader through the conventional and alternative techniques available for placement of a preformed metal crown whilst providing an update of the evidence for each.

The effects of peroneal nerve functional electrical stimulation versus ankle-foot orthosis in patients with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports peroneal nerve functional electrical stimulation (FES) as an effective alternative to ankle-foot orthoses (AFO) for treatment of foot drop poststroke, but few randomized controlled comparisons exist. OBJECTIVE: To compare changes in gait and quality of life (QoL) between FES and an AFO in individuals with foot drop poststroke. METHODS: In a multicenter randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01087957) with unblinded outcome assessments, 495 Medicare-eligible individuals at least 6 months poststroke wore FES or an AFO for 6 months. Primary endpoints: 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT), a composite of the Mobility, Activities of Daily Living/Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, and Social Participation subscores on the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), and device-related serious adverse event rate. Secondary endpoints: 6-Minute Walk Test, GaitRite Functional Ambulation Profile (FAP), Modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile (mEFAP), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go, individual SIS domains, and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life measures. Multiply imputed intention-to-treat analyses were used with primary endpoints tested for noninferiority and secondary endpoints tested for superiority. RESULTS: A total of 399 subjects completed the study. FES proved noninferior to the AFO for all primary endpoints. Both the FES and AFO groups improved significantly on the 10MWT. Within the FES group, significant improvements were found for SIS composite score, total mFEAP score, individual Floor and Obstacle course time scores of the mEFAP, FAP, and BBS, but again, no between-group differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Use of FES is equivalent to the AFO. Further studies should examine whether FES enables better performance in tasks involving functional mobility, activities of daily living, and balance.