What Family Circumstances, During COVID-19, Impact on Parental Mental Health in an Inner City Community in London?

The introduction of lockdown due to a public health emergency in March 2020 marked the beginning of substantial changes to daily life for all families with young children. Here we report the experience of families from London Borough of Tower Hamlets with high rates of poverty and ethnic and linguistic diversity. This inner city community, like communities worldwide, has experienced a reduction or closure in access to education, support services, and in some cases, a change in or loss of income, job, and food security. Using quantitative survey items (N = 992), we examined what differences in family circumstances, for mothers and fathers of young children aged 0-5 living in Tower Hamlets, during March 2020 to November 2020, were associated with their mental health status. We measure parental mental health using symptoms of depression (self-report: Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale: PHQ-8), symptoms of anxiety levels (self-report: General Anxiety Disorder: GAD-7), and perceptions of direct loneliness. We find parental mental health difficulties are associated with low material assets (financial security, food security, and children having access to outside space), familial assets (parents time for themselves and parent status: lone vs. cohabiting), and community assets (receiving support from friends and family outside the household). South Asian parents and fathers across ethnicities were significantly more likely to experience mental health difficulties, once all other predictors were accounted for. These contributing factors should be considered for future pandemics, where restrictions on people's lives are put in place, and speak to the importance of reducing financial insecurity and food insecurity as a means of improving the mental health of parents.

A scoping review of 'think-family' approaches in healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: 'Think-family' child health approaches treat child and parent/carer health as inter-related. They are promoted within health policy internationally (also called 'family paediatrics' or 'whole-family', 'family-centred' approaches or 'child-centred' approaches within adult services). METHODS: We reviewed publications of think-family interventions. We developed a typology of these interventions using thematic analysis of data extracted from the included studies. RESULTS: We included 62 studies (60% USA and 18% UK); 45/62 (73%) treated the parent as patient, helping the child by addressing parental mental health, substance and alcohol misuse and/or domestic violence. Our typology details three common mechanisms of change in relevant interventions: screening, health promotion and developing relationships (inter-professional and parent-professional). CONCLUSIONS: Policy-makers, practitioners and researchers can use our typology to develop and evaluate think-family approaches within healthcare. Strong relationships between parents and professionals are key in think-family approaches and should be considered in service design. Although helping the child through the parent may be a good place to start for service development, care is needed to ensure parental need does not eclipse child need. Strategies that reach out to the parent behind the child (child as patient) and which work simultaneously with parent and child warrant attention.

Exercise interventions and patient beliefs for people with hip, knee or hip and knee osteoarthritis: a mixed methods review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic peripheral joint pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) is extremely prevalent and a major cause of physical dysfunction and psychosocial distress. Exercise is recommended to reduce joint pain and improve physical function, but the effect of exercise on psychosocial function (health beliefs, depression, anxiety and quality of life) in this population is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To improve our understanding of the complex inter-relationship between pain, psychosocial effects, physical function and exercise. SEARCH METHODS: Review authors searched 23 clinical, public health, psychology and social care databases and 25 other relevant resources including trials registers up to March 2016. We checked reference lists of included studies for relevant studies. We contacted key experts about unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: To be included in the quantitative synthesis, studies had to be randomised controlled trials of land- or water-based exercise programmes compared with a control group consisting of no treatment or non-exercise intervention (such as medication, patient education) that measured either pain or function and at least one psychosocial outcome (self-efficacy, depression, anxiety, quality of life). Participants had to be aged 45 years or older, with a clinical diagnosis of OA (as defined by the study) or self-reported chronic hip or knee (or both) pain (defined as more than six months' duration).To be included in the qualitative synthesis, studies had to have reported people's opinions and experiences of exercise-based programmes (e.g. their views, understanding, experiences and beliefs about the utility of exercise in the management of chronic pain/OA). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane for the quantitative analysis. For the qualitative analysis, we extracted verbatim quotes from study participants and synthesised studies of patients' views using framework synthesis. We then conducted an integrative review, synthesising the quantitative and qualitative data together. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one trials (2372 participants) met the inclusion criteria for quantitative synthesis. There were large variations in the exercise programme's content, mode of delivery, frequency and duration, participant's symptoms, duration of symptoms, outcomes measured, methodological quality and reporting. Comparator groups were varied and included normal care; education; and attention controls such as home visits, sham gel and wait list controls. Risk of bias was high in one and unclear risk in five studies regarding the randomisation process, high for 11 studies regarding allocation concealment, high for all 21 studies regarding blinding, and high for three studies and unclear for five studies regarding attrition. Studies did not provide information on adverse effects.There was moderate quality evidence that exercise reduced pain by an absolute percent reduction of 6% (95% confidence interval (CI) -9% to -4%, (9 studies, 1058 participants), equivalent to reducing (improving) pain by 1.25 points from 6.5 to 5.3 on a 0 to 20 scale and moderate quality evidence that exercise improved physical function by an absolute percent of 5.6% (95% CI -7.6% to 2.0%; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.17, equivalent to reducing (improving) WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) function on a 0 to 100 scale from 49.9 to 44.3) (13 studies, 1599 participants)). Self-efficacy was increased by an absolute percent of 1.66% (95% CI 1.08% to 2.20%), although evidence was low quality (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.58, equivalent to improving the ExBeliefs score on a 17 to 85 scale from 64.3 to 65.4), with small benefits for depression from moderate quality evidence indicating an absolute percent reduction of 2.4% (95% CI -0.47% to 0.5%) (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.02, equivalent to improving depression measured using HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) on a 0 to 21 scale from 3.5 to 3.0) but no clinically or statistically significant effect on anxiety (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.05, 2% absolute improvement, 95% CI -5% to 1% equivalent to improving HADS anxiety on a 0 to 21 scale from 5.8 to 5.4; moderate quality evidence). Five studies measured the effect of exercise on health-related quality of life using the 36-item Short Form (SF-36) with statistically significant benefits for social function, increasing it by an absolute percent of 7.9% (95% CI 4.1% to 11.6%), equivalent to increasing SF-36 social function on a 0 to 100 scale from 73.6 to 81.5, although the evidence was low quality. Evidence was downgraded due to heterogeneity of measures, limitations with blinding and lack of detail regarding interventions. For 20/21 studies, there was a high risk of bias with blinding as participants self-reported and were not blinded to their participation in an exercise intervention.Twelve studies (with 6 to 29 participants) met inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. Their methodological rigour and quality was generally good. From the patients' perspectives, ways to improve the delivery of exercise interventions included: provide better information and advice about the safety and value of exercise; provide exercise tailored to individual's preferences, abilities and needs; challenge inappropriate health beliefs and provide better support.An integrative review, which compared the findings from quantitative trials with low risk of bias and the implications derived from the high-quality studies in the qualitative synthesis, confirmed the importance of these implications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Chronic hip and knee pain affects all domains of people's lives. People's beliefs about chronic pain shape their attitudes and behaviours about how to manage their pain. People are confused about the cause of their pain, and bewildered by its variability and randomness. Without adequate information and advice from healthcare professionals, people do not know what they should and should not do, and, as a consequence, avoid activity for fear of causing harm. Participation in exercise programmes may slightly improve physical function, depression and pain. It may slightly improve self-efficacy and social function, although there is probably little or no difference in anxiety. Providing reassurance and clear advice about the value of exercise in controlling symptoms, and opportunities to participate in exercise programmes that people regard as enjoyable and relevant, may encourage greater exercise participation, which brings a range of health benefits to a large population of people.

Understanding fathering in Britain today.

This research set out to investigate the parenting beliefs and practices of modern day fathers living in Britain today. The aim was to gain a better understanding of what 'being a father' means to parents and to what extent can there be said to be a 'common model' of fatherhood across Britain. Findings show that whilst fathers and mothers acknowledge the expectation of fathers to become more involved in childcare duties, many parents tend to hold more traditional views when it comes to the division of the childcare vs breadwinner responsibilities. Attitudes to fathering and actual fathering behaviours have been shown by our study to be influenced by a complex web of factors, with socio and economic life circumstances exerting the greatest influence on greater paternal involvement. The study found that there are far more similarities in the behaviours of fathers and their attitudes to fathering than there are differences. In the context of modern day Britain, fathers are facing similar challenges in their role as parents, giving rise to a common model of fathering within which fathers are facing similar challenges in achieving their ideal fathering role.