Search

In a randomized controlled trial, we tested the efficacy of Baby Triple P in a community sample of first-time parent couples. The intervention was developed to promote better mental health, a positive couple relationship, positive parenting, and a better parent-infant relationship. One hundred and fifty six couples were randomly allocated to intervention (n = 78) or care as usual (n = 78) conditions. The intervention was delivered in four antenatal face-to-face group sessions followed by four early postnatal individual telephone sessions. Couples completed self-report assessments at baseline, immediately postintervention and at 12 and 24 months. The study had one primary (the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale) and 11 secondary outcomes. Over half of the intervention and care as usual participants remained in the study for the full 24 months. Intention to treat analysis of the full sample yielded positive results in some mental health domains for mothers and fathers, but this was not evident when follow up sensitivity analysis was conducted on a subsample of the data. There was limited support for the intervention in relation to secondary outcomes such as the couple relationship, social support and parenting. However, the parent couples were positive about the intervention and described it as providing the support that they wanted. This trial provides some evidence in support of Baby Triple P as an early intervention for new parent couples. High levels of satisfaction with the intervention are promising, especially in relation to the engagement of fathers. Trial Registration: ISRCTN31955576 Highlights: This randomized controlled trial provides some evidence that the mental health of new parents is amenable to intervention. This randomized controlled trial provides some evidence in support of Baby Triple P as an early intervention. Evidence from this study demonstrates that engagement and retention of fathers is possible and fathers value involvement. Initial engagement is a critical point in the delivery of early interventions; couples who are engaged are more likely to complete the intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Community-based screening and treatment of women aged 70–85 years at high fracture risk reduced fractures; moreover, the screening programme was cost-saving. The results support a case for a screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK. Introduction: The SCOOP (screening for prevention of fractures in older women) randomized controlled trial investigated whether community-based screening could reduce fractures in women aged 70–85 years. The objective of this study was to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of screening for fracture risk in a UK primary care setting compared with usual management, based on the SCOOP study. Methods: A health economic Markov model was used to predict the life-time consequences in terms of costs and quality of life of the screening programme compared with the control arm. The model was populated with costs related to drugs, administration and screening intervention derived from the SCOOP study. Fracture risk reduction in the screening arm compared with the usual management arm was derived from SCOOP. Modelled fracture risk corresponded to the risk observed in SCOOP. Results: Screening of 1000 patients saved 9 hip fractures and 20 non-hip fractures over the remaining lifetime (mean 14 years) compared with usual management. In total, the screening arm saved costs (£286) and gained 0.015 QALYs/patient in comparison with usual management arm. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that a screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK would gain quality of life and life years, and reduce fracture costs to more than offset the cost of running the programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study evaluated the implementation fidelity and effectiveness of KiVa, an evidence-based program that aims to prevent and address bullying in schools, with a particular emphasis on changing the role of bystanders. The study was a two-arm waitlist control cluster randomized controlled trial in which 22 primary schools (clusters) (N = 3214 students aged 7-11) were allocated using a 1:1 ratio to intervention (KiVa; 11 clusters, n = 1588 students) and a waitlist control (usual school provision; 11 clusters, n = 1892 children)). The trial statistician (but not schools or researchers) remained blind to allocation status. The outcomes were as follows: student-reported victimization (primary outcome) and bullying perpetration; teacher-reported child behavior and emotional well-being; and school absenteeism (administrative records). Implementation fidelity was measured using teacher-completed online records (for class lessons) and independent researcher observations (for school-wide elements). Outcome analyses involved 11 intervention schools (n = 1578 children) and 10 control schools (n = 1636 children). There was no statistically significant effect on the primary outcome of child-reported victimization (adjusted intervention/control OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.06; p = 0.11) or on the secondary outcomes. The impact on victimization was not moderated by child gender, age, or victimization status at baseline. Lesson adherence was good but exposure (lesson length) was lower than the recommended amount, and there was considerable variability in the implementation of whole school elements. The trial found insufficient evidence to conclude that KiVa had an effect on the primary outcome. A larger trial of KiVa in the UK is warranted, however, with attention to issues regarding implementation fidelity. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN23999021 Date 10-6-13. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]