Search

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To investigate the additional programme cost and cost-effectiveness of 'right@home' Nurse Home Visiting (NHV) programme in relation to improving maternal and child outcomes at child age 3 years compared with usual care., Design: A cost-utility analysis from a government-as-payer perspective alongside a randomised trial of NHV over 3-year period. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 5%. Analysis used an intention-to-treat approach with multiple imputation., Setting: The right@home was implemented from 2013 in Victoria and Tasmania states of Australia, as a primary care service for pregnant women, delivered until child age 2 years., Participants: 722 pregnant Australian women experiencing adversity received NHV (n=363) or usual care (clinic visits) (n=359)., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: First, a cost-consequences analysis to compare the additional costs of NHV over usual care, accounting for any reduced costs of service use, and impacts on all maternal and child outcomes assessed at 3 years. Second, cost-utility analysis from a government-as-payer perspective compared additional costs to maternal QALYs to express cost-effectiveness in terms of additional cost per additional QALY gained., Results: When compared with usual care at child age 3 years, the right@home intervention cost $A7685 extra per woman (95% CI $A7006 to $A8364) and generated 0.01 more QALYs (95% CI -0.01 to 0.02). The probability of right@home being cost-effective by child age 3 years is less than 20%, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $A50 000 per QALY., Conclusions: Benefits of NHV to parenting at 2 years and maternal health and well-being at 3 years translate into marginal maternal QALY gains. Like previous cost-effectiveness results for NHV programmes, right@home is not cost-effective at 3 years. Given the relatively high up-front costs of NHV, long-term follow-up is needed to assess the accrual of health and economic benefits over time., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN89962120., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The 'right@home' sustained nurse home visiting trial is a research collaboration between the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY); the Translational Research and Social Innovation (TReSI) Group at Western Sydney University; and the Centre for Community Child Health (CCCH), which is a department of The Royal Children's Hospital and a research group of Murdoch Children’s Research Institute. Ownership of the right@home implementation and support licence, which is purchased by Australian state governments for roll out, is shared between institutes., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: In conjunction with a beta-lactam, aminoglycosides are the first-choice antibiotic for empirical treatment of sepsis in the neonatal period. The m.1555A>G variant predisposes to ototoxicity after aminoglycoside administration and has a prevalence of 1 in 500. Current genetic testing can take over 24 hours, an unacceptable delay in the acute setting. This prospective-observational trial will implement a rapid point of care test (POCT), facilitating tailored antibiotic prescribing to avoid hearing loss., Methods and Analysis: The genedrive POCT can detect the m.1555A>G variant in 26 min from buccal swab. This system will be integrated into the clinical pathways at two large UK neonatal centres over a minimum 6-month period. The primary outcome is the number of neonates successfully tested for the variant out of all babies prescribed antibiotics. As a secondary outcome, clinical timings will be compared with data collected prior to implementation, measuring the impact on routine practice., Ethics and Dissemination: Approval for the trial was granted by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Human Research Authority in August 2019. Results will be published in full on completion of the study., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN13704894., Protocol Version: V 1.3., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SA, LK and GM are employees of genedrive., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: While the number of women entering medical school now equals or surpasses the number of men, gender equity in medicine has not been achieved. Women continue to be under-represented in leadership roles (eg, deans, medical chairs) and senior faculty positions. In addition, women do not enter medical specialties as often as men, which can have important implications for work environment, reimbursement and the delivery of patient care. Compared with other medical specialties (eg, anaesthesiology, dermatology, etc), critical care medicine is a medical specialty with some of the lowest representation of women. While strategies to improve gender equity in critical care medicine exist in the published literature, efforts to comprehensively synthesise, prioritise and implement solutions have been limited.The objective of this programme of work is to establish priorities for the development and implementation of key strategies to improve the outcomes, well-being and experiences of women in critical care in Canada., Methods and Analysis: Three phases encompass this programme of work. In phase I, we will catalogue published strategies focused on improving gender inequity across medical specialties through a scoping review. In phase II, we will conduct a modified Delphi consensus process with decision-makers, physicians and researchers to identify key strategies (identified in phase I and proposed by participants in phase II) for improving gender inequity in the specialty of critical care medicine. Finally, in phase III, we will conduct a 1-day stakeholder meeting that engages participants from phase II to build capacity for the development and implementation of top ranked strategies. Data analyses from this programme of work will be both quantitative and qualitative., Ethics and Dissemination: The proposed programme of work is a foundational step towards establishing targeted strategies to improve gender inequity in the medical specialty of critical care medicine. Strategies will be prioritised by stakeholders, mapped to preidentified drivers of gender equity in the specialty and be scalable to institutional needs. A final report of our results including the list of top prioritised strategies and implementation objectives will be disseminated to panel participants, critical care leadership teams and major critical care societies who are partners in this work, around the country to facilitate uptake at the local level.The University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board has approved this study (REB16-0890)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: By the time children start school, inequities in learning, development and health outcomes are already evident. Sustained nurse home visiting (SNHV) offers a potential platform for families experiencing adversity, who often have limited access to services. While SNHV programmes have been growing in popularity in Australia and internationally, it is not known whether they can improve children's learning and development when offered via the Australian service system. The right@home trial aims to investigate the effectiveness of an SNHV programme, offered to women from pregnancy to child age 2 years, in improving parent care of and responsivity to the child, and the home learning environment., Methods and Analysis: Pregnant Australian women (n=722) are identified after completing a screening survey of 10 factors known to predict children's learning and development (eg, young pregnancy, poor mental or physical health, lack of support). Consenting women-surveyed while attending clinics at 10 hospitals in Victoria and Tasmania-are enrolled if they report having 2 or more risk factors. The intervention comprises 25 home visits from pregnancy to 2 years, focusing on parent care of the child, responsivity to the child and providing a good quality home learning environment. The standard, universal, Australian child and family health service provides the comparator (control). Primary outcome measures include a combination of parent-reported and objective assessments of children's sleep, safety, nutrition, parenting styles and the home learning environment, including the Home Observation of the Environment Inventory and items adapted from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children., Ethics and Dissemination: This study is approved by the Royal Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committees (HREC 32296) and site-specific HRECs. The investigators and sponsor will communicate the trial results to stakeholders, participants, healthcare professionals, the public and other relevant groups via presentations and publications., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN89962120, pre-results., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objectives: Early identification of developmental vulnerability is vital. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of moderate or high developmental risk on the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) at 6-month, 12-month and 18-month well-child checks; identify associated risk factors; and examine documentation of the PEDS at well-child checks., Design, Participants: A prospective birth cohort of 2025 children with 50% of those approached agreeing to participate. Demographic data were obtained via questionnaires and linked electronic medical records. Telephone interviews were conducted with parents to collect PEDS data., Primary and Secondary Outcomes: Multiple logistic regression analyses identified risk factors for moderate or high developmental risk on the PEDS. A Cumulative Risk Index examined the impact of multiple risk factors on developmental risk and documentation of the PEDS at the well-child checks., Results: Of the original cohort, 792 (39%) had 6-month, 649 (32%) had 12-month and 565 (28%) had 18-month PEDS data. Parental concerns indicating moderate or high developmental risk on the PEDS were 27% (95% CI 24 to 30) at 6 months, 27% (95% CI 24 to 30) at 12 months and 33% (95% CI 29 to 37) at 18 months. Factors associated with moderate or high developmental risk were perinatal risk (OR 12 months: 1.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.7)); maternal Middle Eastern or Asian nationality (OR 6 months: 1.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.4)), (OR 12 months: 1.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.7)); and household disadvantage (OR 6 months: 1.5 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.2). As the number of risk factors increased the odds increased for high or moderate developmental risk and no documentation of the PEDS at well-child checks., Conclusions: Children with multiple risk factors are more likely to have parental concerns indicating developmental vulnerability using the PEDS and for these concerns to not be documented., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)