Search

Introduction: Growing consensus describes it as "inappropriate" to deliver care to young people in either child or adult environments of care or in settings not equipped to meet their psychosocial needs. The aim of this review was to identify what patient and professional experience tells us about the culture of care specific to young people receiving cancer care in the UK. Methods: A narrative review of published, UK‐based research was conducted. Five online databases were searched using terms related to "culture of care," "cancer" and "adolescent." Papers were assessed for relevance, according to pre‐determined criteria: 19/1,366 identified papers met our inclusion criteria. Results: Studies included in this review were predominantly reflective of care received in specialist units. The findings were in support of "young people‐friendly," "tailored environments," showing how they facilitate young people to have positive experiences of care. Communication, information delivery and patient choice were themes that were central to the culture of care. Conclusion: Highlighted was the need to provide care beyond addressing clinical needs through a young person‐centred approach, to facilitate optimal experiences of care. However, to fully understand the culture of care, research needs to focus on the delivery of care outside of specialist units. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is an urgent need for clinically effective and cost-effective methods to manage antisocial and criminal behaviour in adolescents. Youth conduct disorder is increasingly prevalent in the UK and is associated with a range of negative outcomes. Quantitative systematic reviews carried out for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence have identified multisystemic therapy, an intensive, multimodal, home-based, family intervention for youth with serious antisocial behaviour, as one of the most promising interventions for reducing antisocial or offending behaviour and improving individual and family functioning. Previous international trials of multisystemic therapy have yielded mixed outcomes, and it is questionable to what extent positive US findings can be generalised to a wider UK mental health and juvenile justice context. This paper describes the protocol for the Systemic Therapy for At Risk Teens (START) trial, a multicentre UK-wide randomised controlled trial of multisystemic therapy in antisocial adolescents at high risk of out-of-home placement.Methods/design: The trial is being conducted at 10 sites across the UK. Seven hundred participants and their families will be recruited and randomised on a 1:1 basis to multisystemic therapy or management as usual. Treatments are offered over a period of 3 to 5 months, with follow-up to 18 months post-randomisation. The primary outcome is out-of-home placement at 18 months. Secondary outcomes include offending rates, total service and criminal justice sector costs, and participant well-being and educational outcomes. Data will be gathered from police computer records, the National Pupil Database, and interview and self-report measures administered to adolescents, parents and teachers. Outcomes will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, using a logistic regression with random effects for the primary outcome and Cox regressions and linear mixed-effects models for secondary outcomes depending on whether the outcome is time-to-event or continuous.Discussion: The START trial is a pragmatic national trial of sufficient size to evaluate multisystemic therapy, to inform policymakers, service commissioners, professionals, service users and their families about its potential in the UK. It will also provide data on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of usual services provided to youth with serious antisocial behaviour problems.Trial Registration: ISRCTN77132214. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increasing policy interest in ensuring that the school environment supports healthy behaviours. We examined the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between schools' policies, programmes and facilities for physical activity (PA) and adolescents' objectively-measured activity intensity during the school day and lunchtime. Methods: Accelerometer-derived PA (proportion of time spent in sedentary (SED), light PA (LPA) and moderate-tovigorous PA (MVPA)) during school hours and lunchtime from 325 participants in the SPEEDY study were obtained from baseline measurements (primary school, age 9/10 years) and +4y follow-up (secondary school). School environment characteristics were assessed by teacher questionnaire. Multivariable multi-level linear regression analyses accounting for school and adjusted for sex, age, BMI and family socio-economic status assessed cross-sectional associations with lunchtime and school-day SED, LPA and MVPA; effect modification by sex was investigated. The association of changes in school environment with changes in outcomes was examined using multivariable cross-classified linear regression models. Results: There were significant differences between primary and secondary schools for 6/10 school environment characteristics investigated (including secondary schools reporting shorter breaks, more lunchtime PA opportunities, and higher number of sports facilities). Cross-sectional analyses showed that boys attending secondary schools with longer breaks spent significantly less time in SED and more time in MVPA during the school day. Longitudinally, an increase in break-time duration between primary and secondary school was associated with smaller reductions in MVPA during the school day. Moreover, participants who moved from a primary school that did not provide opportunities for PA at lunchtime to a secondary school that did provide such opportunities exhibited smaller increases in SED and smaller reductions in MVPA at lunchtime. Conclusions: Schools should consider the potential negative impact of reducing break time duration on students' MVPA and SED during the school day. School-based interventions that combine longer breaks and more PA opportunities during lunchtime may be a fruitful direction for future research. Further research should also explore other factors in the school environment to explain the school-level clustering observed, and study sex differences in the way that the school environment influences activity intensity for adolescent populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]