The performance of the EQ-HWB-S as a measure of quality-of-life of caregivers in families that have experienced adverse events.

PURPOSE: The recently developed EQ Health and Wellbeing Instrument (EQ-HWB) is a broad, generic measure of quality-of-life designed to be suitable for caregivers. The aim of this study was to investigate performance and validity of the 9-item version (EQ-HWB-S) for caregivers where families had experienced adverse-life-events. METHODS: Using survey data from caregivers of children aged 0-8 years attending a community-health centre in 2021-2022, the general performance, feasibility, convergent and known-group validity, responsiveness-to-change, and test-retest reliability of the EQ-HWB-S was assessed. Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with survey respondents to assess acceptability and content validity. RESULTS: The sample included  234 caregivers at baseline (81% female, mean age 36-years, 38% Australian-born) and 190 at 6-months follow-up. Most EQ-HWB-S item responses were evenly spread, except for 'Mobility'. The instrument showed good convergent validity with psychological distress (Kessler 6 (K6)) and personal-wellbeing (PWI-A) scales. EQ-HWB-S level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores were significantly different in all known-group analyses, in expected directions, and the instrument was responsive to change. For test-retest reliability, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were excellent and individual item Kappa scores were moderate. The instrument was well received by interviewees who found the questions clear and relevant. The items were appropriate for parents experiencing adversity and carers of children with additional needs. CONCLUSION: The EQ-HWB-S appeared valid, responsive to change, feasible, and well accepted by caregivers. By demonstrating the validity of the EQ-HWB-S in this hard-to-reach population of caregivers in families experiencing adverse events, this study adds to existing international evidence supporting its use.

Identifying and responding to family adversity in Australian community and primary health settings: a multi-site cross sectional study.

Background: Unaddressed family adversity has potentially modifiable, negative biopsychosocial impacts across the life course. Little is known about how Australian health and social practitioners identify and respond to family adversity in community and primary health settings. Objective: To describe, in two Australian community health services: (1) the number of adversities experienced by caregivers, (2) practitioner identification of caregivers experiencing adversity, (3) practitioner response to caregivers experiencing adversity, and (4) caregiver uptake of referrals. Methods: Survey of caregivers of children aged 0-8 years attending community health services in Victoria and New South Wales (NSW). Analysis described frequencies of caregiver self-reported: (1) experiences of adversity, (2) practitioner identification of adversity, (3) practitioner response to adversity, and (4) referral uptake. Analyses were sub-grouped by three adversity domains and site. Results: 349 caregivers (Victoria: n = 234; NSW: n = 115) completed the survey of whom 88% reported experiencing one or more family adversities. The median number of adversities was 4 (2-6). Only 43% of participants were directly asked about or discussed an adversity with a practitioner in the previous 6 months (Victoria: 30%; NSW: 68%). Among caregivers experiencing adversity, 30% received direct support (Victoria: 23%; NSW: 43%), and 14% received a referral (Victoria: 10%; NSW: 22%) for at least one adversity. Overall, 74% of caregivers accepted referrals when extended. Conclusion: The needs of Australian families experiencing high rates of adversity are not systematically identified nor responded to in community health services. This leaves significant scope for reform and enhancement of service responses to families experiencing adversity.

Co-designing an Integrated Health and Social Care Hub With and for Families Experiencing Adversity.

Introduction: Integrated care research often fails to adequately describe co-design methods. This article outlines the process, principles and tools to co-design an integrated health and social care Hub for families experiencing adversity. Research methods: The Child and Family Hub was co-designed in four stages: (1) partnership building and stakeholder engagement, (2) formative research, (3) persona development and (4) co-design workshops and consultations. Local families, community members and intersectoral practitioners were engaged at each stage. The co-design workshops employed a human-centred design process and were evaluated using the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PEET). Results: 121 family participants and 80 practitioners were engaged in the Hub's co-design. The PEET highlighted the co-design team's satisfaction achieved by community members working alongside practitioners to generate mutual learning. Resourcing was a key challenge. Discussion: Human-centred design offered a systematic process and tools for integrating formative evidence with lived and professional experience in the Hub's co-design. Applying community engagement principles meant that a diverse range of stakeholders were engaged across all stages of the project which built trust in and local ownership of the Hub model. Conclusion: Co-design research with families experiencing adversity should attend to language, engagement methods, team composition and resourcing decisions.

Integrated Child and Family Hub models for detecting and responding to family adversity: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation in two sites.

INTRODUCTION: Integrated community healthcare Hubs may offer a 'one stop shop' for service users with complex health and social needs, and more efficiently use service resources. Various policy imperatives exist to implement Hub models of care, however, there is a dearth of research specifically evaluating Hubs targeted at families experiencing adversity. To contribute to building this evidence, we propose to co-design, test and evaluate integrated Hub models of care in two Australian community health services in low socioeconomic areas that serve families experiencing adversity: Wyndham Vale in Victoria and Marrickville in New South Wales. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multisite convergent mixed-methods study will run over three phases to (1) develop the initial Hub programme theory through formative research; (2) test and, then, (3) refine the Hub theory using empirical data. Phase 1 involves co-design of each Hub with caregivers, community members and practitioners. Phase 2 uses caregiver and Hub practitioner surveys at baseline, and 6 and 12 months after Hub implementation, and in-depth interviews at 12 months. Two stakeholder groups will be recruited: caregivers (n=100-200 per site) and Hub practitioners (n=20-30 per site). The intervention is a co-located Hub providing health, social, legal and community services with no comparator. The primary outcomes are caregiver-reported: (i) identification of, (ii) interventions received and/or (iii) referrals received for adversity from Hub practitioners. The study also assesses child, caregiver, practitioner and system outcomes including mental health, parenting, quality of life, care experience and service linkages. Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed by examining change in proportions/means from baseline to 6 months, from 6 to 12 months and from baseline to 12 months. Service linkages will be analysed using social network analysis. Costs of Hub implementation and a health economics analysis of unmet need will be conducted. Thematic analysis will be employed to analyse qualitative data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Royal Children's Hospital and Sydney Local Health District ethics committees have approved the study (HREC/62866/RCHM-2020). Participants and stakeholders will receive results through meetings, presentations and publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN55495932.

Screening for Adverse Childhood Experiences in Children: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with increased risk of poor mental health outcomes. Although there is interest in screening for ACEs for early identification and intervention, it is not known whether screening improves outcomes for children. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review whether screening for ACEs in children leads to an increase in (1) identification of ACEs, (2) referrals to services, (3) increased uptake of services, and (4) improved mental health outcomes for children and parents. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Center for Clinical and Translational Research electronic databases were searched between 2009 and 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if researchers screened for current ACEs in children aged 0 to 12 years and they had a control comparison. DATA EXTRACTION: Information was extracted, including study characteristics, sample demographics, screening tool characteristics, referral rates to services, uptake rates, and mental health outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 5816 articles were screened, with 4 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Screening for ACEs increases identification of adversity and may increase referrals to services. There are limited data about whether this leads to an increase in referral uptake by families. There are no reported data addressing mental health outcomes. LIMITATIONS: There are few published control trials of moderate quality. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence that screening for ACEs improves identification of childhood adversity and may improve referrals. If we are to realize the hypothesized benefits of ACEs screening on child and parent mental health, it is essential to understand the barriers for families taking up referrals.

Prioritising interventions for preventing mental health problems for children experiencing adversity: a modified nominal group technique Australian consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the well-established link between childhood adversity and mental health problems, there is a dearth of evidence to inform decision making about the most acceptable and feasible interventions for preventing mental health problems for children experiencing adversity. Expert consensus is an important input into evidence-informed policy and practice but is often employed at the national level which misses important local contextual factors shaping decision making. This study aimed to: (1) reach consensus on local priority interventions for preventing mental health problems for children living with adversity in Wyndham, Victoria; and (2) understand the enabling factors and barriers to implementing these interventions. METHODS: This study employed six online modified nominal group technique (NGT) workshops with 19 stakeholders; intersectoral service providers from health, social and education sectors and caregivers of children aged 0-8 years. RESULTS: Three interventions reached consensus among the mixed stakeholder groups as being a high or very high priority for implementation in Wyndham: nurse home visiting, parenting programs and community-wide programs. Key rationales were the ability for these interventions to act as a gateway for families to increase their knowledge about topics immediately relevant to them (i.e. parenting), increase their knowledge about available supports and build relationships with service providers. CONCLUSIONS: Local priorities for preventing mental health problems for children living with adversity emphasized relational approaches to service provision and were shaped by the availability of existing interventions and supports in the locality. The NGT was found to be an effective method for prioritising evidence-based practice interventions in health settings, engaging local stakeholders, and identifying enablers and barriers to implementation.