Evaluating the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the 'strengthening families, strengthening communities' group-based parenting programme: study protocol and initial insights.

BACKGROUND: Up to 20% of UK children experience socio-emotional difficulties which can have serious implications for themselves, their families and society. Stark socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in children's well-being exist. Supporting parents to develop effective parenting skills is an important preventive strategy in reducing inequalities. Parenting interventions have been developed, which aim to reduce the severity and impact of these difficulties. However, most parenting interventions in the UK focus on early childhood (0-10 years) and often fail to engage families from ethnic minority groups and those living in poverty. Strengthening Families, Strengthening Communities (SFSC) is a parenting programme designed by the Race Equality Foundation, which aims to address this gap. Evidence from preliminary studies is encouraging, but no randomised controlled trials have been undertaken so far. METHODS/DESIGN: The TOGETHER study is a multi-centre, waiting list controlled, randomised trial, which aims to test the effectiveness of SFSC in families with children aged 3-18 across seven urban areas in England with ethnically and socially diverse populations. The primary outcome is parental mental well-being (assessed by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale). Secondary outcomes include child socio-emotional well-being, parenting practices, family relationships, self-efficacy, quality of life, and community engagement. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, post intervention, three- and six-months post intervention. Cost effectiveness will be estimated using a cost-utility analysis and cost-consequences analysis. The study is conducted in two stages. Stage 1 comprised a 6-month internal pilot to determine the feasibility of the trial. A set of progression criteria were developed to determine whether the stage 2 main trial should proceed. An embedded process evaluation will assess the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention. DISCUSSION: In this paper we provide details of the study protocol for this trial. We also describe challenges to implementing the protocol and how these were addressed. Once completed, if beneficial effects on both parental and child outcomes are found, the impact, both immediate and longer term, are potentially significant. As the intervention focuses on supporting families living in poverty and those from minority ethnic communities, the intervention should also ultimately have a beneficial impact on reducing health inequalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered Randomised Controlled Trial ISRCTN15194500 .

Can intersectionality help with understanding and tackling health inequalities? Perspectives of professional stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: The concept of "intersectionality" is increasingly employed within public health arenas, particularly in North America, and is often heralded as offering great potential to advance health inequalities research and action. Given persistently poor progress towards tackling health inequalities, and recent calls to reframe this agenda in the United Kingdom and Europe, the possible contribution of intersectionality deserves attention. Yet, no existing research has examined professional stakeholder understandings and perspectives on applying intersectionality to this field. METHODS: In this paper we seek to address that gap, drawing upon a consultation survey and face-to-face workshop (n = 23) undertaken in the United Kingdom. The survey included both researchers (n = 53) and policy and practice professionals (n = 20) with varied roles and levels of engagement in research and evaluation. Topics included familiarity with the term and concept "intersectionality", relevance to health inequalities work, and issues shaping its uptake. Respondents were also asked to comment on two specific policy suggestions: intersectionally targeting and tailoring interventions, and evaluating the intersectional effects of policies. The workshop aims were to share examples of applying intersectionality within health inequalities research and practice; understand the views of research and practice colleagues on potential contributions and challenges; and identify potential ways to promote intersectional approaches. RESULTS: Findings indicated a generally positive response to the concept and a cautiously optimistic assessment that intersectional approaches could be valuable. However, opinions were mixed and various challenges were raised, especially around whether intersectionality research is necessarily critical and transformative and, accordingly, how it should be operationalized methodologically. Nonetheless, there was general agreement that intersectionality is concerned with diverse inequalities and the systems of power that shape them. CONCLUSIONS: We position intersectionality within the wider context of health inequalities policy and practice, suggesting potential ways forward for the approach in the context of the United Kingdom. The views of policy and practice professionals suggest that intersectionality has far to travel to help counter individualistic narratives and to encourage an approach that is sensitive to subgroup inequalities and the processes that generate them. Examples of promising practice, albeit mostly in North America, suggest that it is possible for intersectionality to gain traction.

Trends, patterns and psychological influences on COVID-19 vaccination intention: Findings from a large prospective community cohort study in England and Wales (Virus Watch).

BACKGROUND: Vaccination intention is key to the success of any vaccination programme, alongside vaccine availability and access. Public intention to take a COVID-19 vaccine is high in England and Wales compared to other countries, but vaccination rate disparities between ethnic, social and age groups has led to concern. METHODS: Online survey of prospective household community cohort study participants across England and Wales (Virus Watch). Vaccination intention was measured by individual participant responses to 'Would you accept a COVID-19 vaccine if offered?', collected in December 2020 and February 2021. Responses to a 13-item questionnaire collected in January 2021 were analysed using factor analysis to investigate psychological influences on vaccination intention. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 56% (20,785/36,998) in December 2020 and 53% (20,590/38,727) in February 2021, with 14,880 adults reporting across both time points. In December 2020, 1,469 (10%) participants responded 'No' or 'Unsure'. Of these people, 1,266 (86%) changed their mind and responded 'Yes' or 'Already had a COVID-19 vaccine' by February 2021. Vaccination intention increased across all ethnic groups and levels of social deprivation. Age was most strongly associated with vaccination intention, with 16-24-year-olds more likely to respond "Unsure" or "No" versus "Yes" than 65-74-year-olds in December 2020 (OR: 4.63, 95 %CI: 3.42, 6.27 & OR 7.17 95 %CI: 4.26, 12.07 respectively) and February 2021 (OR: 27.92 95 %CI: 13.79, 56.51 & OR 17.16 95 %CI: 4.12, 71.55). The association between ethnicity and vaccination intention weakened, but did not disappear, over time. Both vaccine- and illness-related psychological factors were shown to influence vaccination intention. CONCLUSIONS: Four in five adults (86%) who were reluctant or intending to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine in December 2020 had changed their mind in February 2021 and planned to accept, or had already accepted, a vaccine.

Race-ethnic and gender differences in representation within the English National Health Service: a quantitative analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate race-ethnic and gender disparities in National Health Service (NHS) England employment in position, prestige and pay. DESIGN: National study using data from NHS Digital. SETTING: Trusts and clinical commissioning groups in England. PARTICIPANTS: 1 105 390 NHS Hospital and Community Health Service staff. RESULTS: Chinese people (42.9%, 95% CI 41.7% to 44.1%) are the most likely to be employed as doctors, followed by Asians (28.6%, 95% CI 28.3% to 28.8%) and people of mixed race/ethnicity (17.9%, 95% CI 17.3% to 18.4%); while white people (6.8%, 95% CI 6.7% to 6.8%) are less likely to be employed as doctors. However, white doctors are the most likely to be in the highest paid positions: 46.0% (95% CI 45.6% to 46.4%) of white doctors are consultants, whereas only 33.4% (95% CI 31.6% to 35.2%) of Chinese doctors are consultants. Black people are under-represented both among doctors and as consultants: 6.5% (95% CI 6.4% to 6.7%) of black employees are doctors and 30.6% (95% CI 29.2% to 32.0%) of black doctors are consultants. We found similar results for nurses and health visitors, where white people are over-represented in the higher pay bands. However, among support staff for doctors, nurses and midwives, we found that Chinese people were over-represented in the higher pay bands. These race-ethnic differences were similar for women and men. Additionally, we found that men were more likely to be employed in higher pay bands than women, and this gender disparity was apparent across race-ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Race-ethnic and gender disparities exist in the NHS in position, prestige and pay. To begin to overcome such disparities, the NHS must collect data using consistent race-ethnic categories in order to examine differences over time.