Search

Objective: Evaluating effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 'Families for Health V2' (FFH) compared with usual care (UC).Design: Multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) (investigators blinded, families unblinded) and economic evaluation. Stratified randomisation by family; target of 120 families.Setting: Three National Health Service Primary Care Trusts in West Midlands, England.Participants: Overweight or obese (≥91st or ≥98th centile body mass index (BMI)) children aged 6-11 years and their parents/carers, recruited March 2012-February 2014.Interventions: FFH; a 10-week community-based family programme addressing parenting, lifestyle change and social and emotional development. UC; usual support for childhood obesity at each site.Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were 12-months change in children's BMI z-score and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALY). Secondary outcomes included changes in children's physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption and quality of life, parents' BMI and mental well-being, family eating/activity, parent-child relationships and parenting style.Results: 115 families (128 children) were randomised to FFH (n=56) or UC (n=59). There was no significant difference in BMI z-score 12-months change (0.114, 95% CI -0.001 to 0.229, p=0.053; p=0.026 in favour of UC with missing value multiple imputation). One secondary outcome, change in children's waist z-score, was significantly different between groups in favour of UC (0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29). Economic evaluation showed that mean costs were significantly higher for FFH than UC (£998 vs £548, p<0.001). Mean incremental cost-effectiveness of FFH was estimated at £552 175 per QALY.Conclusions: FFH was neither effective nor cost-effective for the management of obesity compared with UC.Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN45032201. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background English alcohol policy is implemented at local government level, leading to variations in how it is put into practice. We evaluated whether differences in the presence or absence of cumulative impact zones and the 'intensity' of licensing enforcement--both aimed at regulating the availability of alcohol and modifying the drinking environment--were associated with harm as measured by alcohol-related hospital admissions. Methods Premises licensing data were obtained at lower tier local authority (LTLA) level from the Home Office Alcohol and Late Night Refreshment Licensing data for 2007-2012, and LTLAs were coded as 'passive', low, medium or highly active based on whether they made use of cumulative impact areas and/ or whether any licences for new premises were declined. These data were linked to 2009-2015 alcohol-related hospital admission and alcohol-related crime rates obtained from the Local Alcohol Profiles for England. Population size and deprivation data were obtained from the Office of National Statistics. Changes in directly age-standardised rates of people admitted to hospital with alcohol-related conditions were analysed using hierarchical growth modelling. Results Stronger reductions in alcohol-related admission rates were observed in areas with more intense alcohol licensing policies, indicating an 'exposure-response' association, in the 2007-2015 period. Local areas with the most intensive licensing policies had an additional 5% reduction (p=0.006) in 2015 compared with what would have been expected had these local areas had no active licensing policy in place. Conclusions Local licensing policies appear to be associated with a reduction in alcohol-related hospita admissions in areas with more intense licensing policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]