Search

There is appetite in the UK to better measure the impact of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) interventions on children. The spread of outcomes-based commissioning means outcome measurement is no longer just the territory of academic researchers but is now firmly within the purview of practitioners and policy makers. However, outcomes measured in trials only partially represent the views of those delivering and using services with respect to how success should be defined and captured. Even within trials there is huge inconsistency in the definition and measurement of important endpoints. This yields a body of evidence that is difficult to make sense of, defeating the ends for which it was produced - to improve the response to children and families who have experienced abuse. Development of Core Outcome Sets (COS) is seen as a solution to this problem, by establishing consensus across key stakeholder groups regarding a minimum standard for outcome measurement in trials, and increasingly in service delivery contexts. To date COS development has addressed outcomes relating to health conditions or interventions, with limited application to public health challenges. We reflect on our efforts to develop a COS to evaluate psychosocial interventions for children and families experiencing DVA. We highlight the value of COS development as a mechanism for improving evidence quality and the response to families experiencing abuse. Finally, we make recommendations to researchers and COS guideline developers to support this broader application of COS methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health 'stay at home' restrictions have intensified familial risk factors. Children would appear to be at increased risk of harm and abuse, yet administrative data from the early months of the pandemic showed falling cases of child maltreatment. Using weekly administrative data from Scotland, UK that span the first 17 months of the pandemic, this article found that child maltreatment activity levels fluctuated as 'stay at home' restrictions changed. During lockdown periods, the number of children subject to Inter-agency Referral Discussion fell but a higher number of children were placed on the Child Protection Register. When restrictions were eased, the number of Inter-agency Referral Discussions increased but the number of children placed on the Child Protection Register fell. To explain the fluctuations, the article asserts that the pandemic's impact on services' ability to engage directly with children and families has been critical, but the limitations of administrative data in providing an accurate measure of child maltreatment levels also need to be recognised. The article advocates that analysis of administrative data is best done in tandem with wider quantitative and qualitative sources in order to understand the impact of crisis events on children and families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]