Associations between ongoing COVID-19 lockdown and the financial and mental health experiences of Australian families.

In 2020, Australia's successful COVID-19 public health restrictions comprised a national "initial lockdown" (March-May) and "ongoing lockdown" (July-November) for metropolitan Victorian residents only. We evaluated associations between ongoing lockdown and family finances and mental health. In the June and September 2020 Royal Children's Hospital National Child Health Polls, caregivers of children in Victoria and New South Wales (NSW) reported the following: job/income loss; material deprivation (inability to pay for essential items); income poverty; mental health (Kessler-6); perceived impact on caregiver/child mental health; and caregiver/child coping. Data from caregivers (N = 1207/902) in June/September were analysed using difference-in-difference modelling (NSW provided the comparator). During Victoria's ongoing lockdown, job/income loss increased by 11% (95%CI: 3%-18%); Kessler-6 poor mental health by 6% (95%CI: -0.3%-12%) and perceived negative mental health impacts by 14% for caregivers (95%CI: 6%-23%) and 12% for children (95%CI: 4%-20%). Female (vs. male) caregivers, metropolitan (vs. regional/rural) families, and families with elementary school-aged children (vs. pre-/high-school) were the most affected. The ongoing lockdown was associated with negative experiences of mental health, employment and income, but not deprivation or poverty, likely because of government income supplements introduced early in the pandemic. Future lockdowns require planned responses to outbreaks and evidence-informed financial and mental health supports.

Longitudinal differences in levels and bouts of sedentary time by different day types among Australian toddlers and pre-schoolers.

The aim of the present study was to characterize sedentary time (ST) and sedentary bouts among young children, across a typical week and by day type (childcare days, non-childcare days and weekends), over a 12-month period.ST % (ST/accelerometer wear time*100) and number of sedentary bouts/hours were assessed using accelerometers at two time-points 12-months apart in 153 toddlers and 74 pre-schoolers. Differences between baseline and follow-up according to the whole week and the different day types were calculated using linear mixed models with adjustment for age, sex, socio-economic status and zBMI.During the weekend, toddlers had more 20-30 min/h sedentary bouts at follow-up than at baseline (MD: 0.03). In pre-schoolers, ST % (MD:-8.4), the number of 1-4 min/h (MD:-1.45), 5-9 min/h (MD: -0.46) and 10-19 min/h sedentary bouts (MD:-0.11) were lower at baseline, compared to follow-up, on non-childcare days; as were the number of 5-9 min/h sedentary bouts on weekends (MD:0.40). P < 0.05 for all.This study found that longer sedentary bouts (20-30 min/h) tended to decrease among toddlers and pre-schoolers, whereas ST and shorter sedentary bouts increased over 12-months, particularly among pre-schoolers on non-childcare weekdays. Non-childcare days, and home environment may be targeted for intervention to reduce ST and sedentary bouts among pre-schoolers.

Remote cognitive behaviour therapy for social anxiety disorder: A meta-analysis.

Remote cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for social anxiety disorder (SAD) has the potential to improve access to treatment by reducing economic, geographic, and psychological barriers. The aim of this study was to use a meta-analytic approach to examine the efficacy of the different remote CBT methods for treating SAD. A systematic electronic database search was used to identify 31 studies (n = 2905; mean age range: 24.73-41.65 years; mean female representation = 60.2 %). Pooled within-group analyses indicated large effect sizes from pre-treatment to post-treatment (Hedges' g = 1.06; 95 % CI: 0.96-1.16) and pre-treatment to follow up (g = 1.18; 95 % CI: 1.03-1.33) for remote CBT. Internet-delivered CBT (g = 1.08; 95 % CI: 0.98-1.19) and application-delivered CBT (g = 1.19; 95 % CI: 0.75-1.64) produced large within-group effect sizes. Bibliotherapy-delivered CBT (g = 0.79; 95 % CI: 0.45-1.13) produced medium within-group effect sizes. Pooled between-group findings indicate that remote CBT treatments were more effective than passive control (g = 0.87; 95 % CI: 0.70-1.03) and non-CBT remote treatments (g = 0.41; 95 % CI: 0.17-0.66), and were at least as effective, or slightly more effective, than face-to-face CBT treatments (g = 0.34; 95 % CI: 0.14-0.54). These findings have important implications for the dissemination of remote and stepped-care treatments for SAD.

Feasibility of linking universal child and family healthcare and financial counselling: findings from the Australian Healthier Wealthier Families (HWF) mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: 'Healthier Wealthier Families' (HWF) seeks to reduce financial hardship in the early years by embedding a referral pathway between Australia's universal child and family health (CFH) services and financial counselling. This pilot study investigated the feasibility and short-term impacts of HWF, adapted from a successful Scottish initiative. METHODS: Setting: CFH services in five sites across two states, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: Caregivers of children aged 0-5 years experiencing financial hardship (study-designed screen). DESIGN: Mixed methods. With limited progress using a randomised trial (RCT) design in sites 1-3 (March 2020-November 2021), qualitative interviews with service providers identified implementation barriers including stigma, lack of knowledge of financial counselling, low financial literacy, research burden and pandemic disruption. This informed a simplified RCT protocol (site 4) and direct referral model (no randomisation, pre-post evaluation, site 5) (June 2021-May 2022). INTERVENTION: financial counselling; comparator: usual care (sites 1-4). Feasibility measures: proportions of caregivers screened, enrolled, followed up and who accessed financial counselling. Impact measures: finances (quantitative) and other (qualitative) to 6 months post-enrolment. RESULTS: 355/434 caregivers completed the screen (60%-100% across sites). In RCT sites (1-4), 79/365 (19%-41%) reported hardship but less than one-quarter enrolled. In site 5, n=66/69 (96%) caregivers reported hardship and 44/66 (67%) engaged with financial counselling; common issues were utility debts (73%), and obtaining entitlements (43%) or material aid/emergency relief (27%). Per family, financial counselling increased income from government entitlements by an average $A6504 annually plus $A784 from concessions, grants, brokerage and debt waivers. Caregivers described benefits (qualitative) including reduced stress, practical help, increased knowledge and empowerment. CONCLUSIONS: Financial hardship screening via CFH was acceptable to caregivers, direct referral was feasible, but individual randomisation was infeasible. Larger-scale implementation will require careful, staged adaptations where CFH populations and the intervention are well matched and low burden evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620000154909.

Connecting Healthcare with Income Maximisation Services: A Systematic Review on the Health, Wellbeing and Financial Impacts for Families with Young Children.

Financial counselling and income-maximisation services have the potential to reduce financial hardship and its associated burdens on health and wellbeing in High Income Countries. However, referrals to financial counselling services are not systematically integrated into existing health service platforms, thus limiting our ability to identify and link families who might be experiencing financial hardship. Review evidence on this is scarce. The purpose of this study is to review "healthcare-income maximisation" models of care in high-income countries for families of children aged between 0 and 5 years experiencing financial difficulties, and their impacts on family finances and the health and wellbeing of parent(s)/caregiver(s) or children. A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, ProQuest, Family & Society Studies Worldwide, Cochrane Library, and Informit Online databases was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A total of six studies (five unique samples) met inclusion criteria, which reported a total of 11,603 families exposed to a healthcare-income maximisation model. An average annual gain per person of £1661 and £1919 was reported in two studies reporting one Scottish before-after study, whereby health visitors/midwives referred 4805 clients to money advice services. In another UK before-after study, financial counsellors were attached to urban primary healthcare centres and reported an average annual gain per person of £1058. The randomized controlled trial included in the review reported no evidence of impacts on financial or non-financial outcomes, or maternal health outcomes, but did observe small to moderate effects on child health and well-being. Small to moderate benefits were seen in areas relating to child health, preschool education, parenting, child abuse, and early behavioral adjustment. There was a high level of bias in most studies, and insufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of healthcare-income maximisation models of care. Rigorous (RCT-level) studies with clear evaluations are needed to assess efficacy and effectiveness.

Protocol for the implementation evaluation of an integrated paediatric and primary care model: Strengthening Care for Children (SC4C).

INTRODUCTION: Implementation evaluations provide insight into how interventions are delivered across varying contexts and why interventions work in some contexts and not in others. This manuscript outlines a detailed protocol of an implementation evaluation embedded in a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial of a model of care, Strengthening Care for Children (SC4C), that integrates paediatric care in general practice. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe the pragmatic methods that will be used to capture implementation evaluation process and outcome data within this trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our implementation evaluation will use a mixed methods design, with data collected in the intervention arm of the SC4C trial guided by a logic model developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Proctor and colleague's taxonomy of implementation outcomes. Data collection will be via questionnaires and semistructured interviews with general practitioners, paediatricians, general practice administrative staff and children and families. Each of the 21 general practices recruited into the study will be described in terms of staffing, patient throughput and location, in addition to the nuanced inner and outer contexts, use of the intervention and its acceptability. We will quantify implementation effectiveness in each general practice clinic using the CFIR validated scoring system. Importantly, we have embedded data collection post intervention to enable assessment of the sustainable adoption of the intervention. An inductive approach to the analysis of qualitative data will identify additional emerging themes that may not be covered by the formal frameworks underpinning our analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Royal Children's Hospital Ethics Committee in August 2020 (HREC: 65955). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12620001299998 on 1 December 2020.

Study protocol for the Healthier Wealthier Families (HWF) pilot randomised controlled trial: testing the feasibility of delivering financial counselling to families with young children who are identified as experiencing financial hardship by community-based nurses.

INTRODUCTION: Poverty and deprivation can harm children's future health, learning, economic productivity and societal participation. The Australian Healthier Wealthier Families project seeks to reduce the childhood inequities caused by poverty and deprivation by creating a systematic referral pathway between two free, community-based services: universal, well-child nursing services, which provide health and development support to families with children from birth to school entry, and financial counselling. By adapting the successful Scottish 'Healthier Wealthier Children' model, the objectives of this Australian pilot are to test the (1) feasibility of systematising the referral pathway, and (2) short-term impacts on household finances, caregiver health, parenting efficacy and financial service use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pilot randomised controlled trial will run in three sites across two Australian states (Victoria and New South Wales), recruiting a total of 180 participants. Nurses identify eligible caregivers with a 6-item, study-designed screening survey for financial hardship. Caregivers who report one or more risk factors and consent are randomised. The intervention is financial counselling. The comparator is usual care plus information from a government money advice website. Feasibility will be evaluated using the number/proportion of caregivers who complete screening, consent and research measures, and access financial counselling. Though powered to assess feasibility, impacts will be measured 6 months post-enrolment with qualitative interviews and questionnaires about caregiver-reported income, loans and costs (adapted from national surveys, for example, the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey); health (General Health Questionnaire 1, EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale short-form); efficacy (from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children); and financial service use (study-designed) compared between arms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics committees of the Royal Children's Hospital (HREC/57372/RCHM-2019) and South West Sydney Local Health District (2019/ETH13455) have approved the study. Participants and stakeholders will receive results through regular communication channels comprising meetings, presentations and publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620000154909; prospectively registered. Pre-results.

Connecting healthcare with income maximisation services, and their financial, health and well-being impacts for families with young children: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Poverty has far-reaching and detrimental effects on children's physical and mental health, across all geographies. Financial advice and income-maximisation services can provide a promising opportunity for shifting the physical and mental health burdens that commonly occur with financial hardship, yet awareness of these services is limited, and referrals are not systematically integrated into existing healthcare service platforms. We aim to map and synthesise evidence on the impact of healthcare-income maximisation models of care for families of children aged 0-5 years in high-income countries on family finances, parent/caregiver(s) or children's health and well-being. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To be included in the review, studies must be families (expectant mothers or parents/caregivers) of children who are aged between 0 and 5 years, accessing a healthcare service, include a referral from healthcare to an income-maximisation service (ie, financial counselling), and examine impacts on child and family health and well-being. A comprehensive electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies written in English, published from inception to January 2021, and indexed in MEDLINE, EMBase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Proquest, Family & Society Studies Worldwide, Cochrane Library, and Informit Online. Search strategies will include terms for: families, financial hardship and healthcare, in various combinations. Bibliographies of primary studies and review articles meeting the inclusion criteria will be searched manually to identify further eligible studies, and grey literature will also be searched. Data on objective and self-reported outcomes and study quality will be independently extracted by two review authors; any disagreements will be resolved through a third reviewer. The protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. The results will be disseminated widely via peer-reviewed publication and presentations at conferences related to this field. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020195985.