Search

Abstract Background Childhood adversities worsen physical and mental health across the lifespan. Health and social care practitioners play a key role in identifying and responding to childhood adversity, however, may be reluctant to do so due to a perceived lack of services to refer to, time pressures and a deficit of training and confidence. We aimed to (1) quantify changes in practitioner comfort and confidence to identify and respond to childhood adversity following a multimodal intervention within an integrated child and family health and social care hub and (2) to understand barriers and facilitators of practice change. Methods Hub practitioners were surveyed about their competence and comfort to directly ask about and confidence to respond to adversity at baseline and then at six and twelve months post training. Interviews were undertaken to explore practitioner barriers and enablers of practice change. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The theoretical domains framework was used to identify the key drivers of practice change. Results Fifteen of 18 practitioners completed all three surveys and 70% reported increased competence and comfort to directly ask, and confidence to respond across a range of adversities over the 12-month intervention. Twenty-one practitioners completed interviews. Six themes were identified as either facilitators or barriers to practice change. Facilitator themes included (1) connection matters, (2) knowledge provides assurance, (3) confidence in ability and (4) choosing change. Barrier themes were (1) never enough time and (2) opening Pandora’s box. Following analysis, key drivers of practice change were ‘social influence’, ‘belief in capability’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘behaviour regulation’ while barriers to practice change were ‘environmental context and resources’ and ‘emotion’. Conclusions Practitioners reported improved confidence in identifying and responding to adversity through a multimodal intervention delivered in an integrated Child and Family Hub. Changing practice requires more than just education and training. Opportunities for social connection and coaching to improve self-confidence and perceived competence are needed to overcome the fear of opening Pandora’s box.

Abstract Background Adverse childhood experiences can impact physical and mental health throughout the lifespan. To support families experiencing adversity and improve child health and developmental equity, an integrated, multi-sector response is required. Child and Family Hubs (Hubs) are a feasible and acceptable approach to providing such a response. In the Australian context, a number of federal and New South Wales (NSW) state policies support an integrated, multi-sector response using Hubs to support families experiencing adversity. This study examined NSW policy stakeholder and health service manager perspectives on the barriers and enablers to translating policy into practice in the implementation of Child and Family Hubs. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 NSW government policy stakeholders and 13 community health service managers working in child and family policy and planning or child and family community-based services. Interviews were of 30–60 min duration and explored stakeholder knowledge, perspectives and experiences around childhood adversity, and barriers and enablers to operationalizing policies supporting Hubs. Analysis of barriers and facilitators to implementation of Hub models of care was undertaken using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results Key barriers that emerged included short-term and inconsistent funding, lack of resourcing for a Hub co-ordinator, limited support for evaluation and insufficient time to plan for Hub implementation. Key enablers included flexibility and adaptability of Hub models to meet local needs, formal change management processes, strong governance structures and engagement among Hub practitioners. Key insights included the importance of targeted strategies to support sustained individual practice change and the need for organization-wide commitment to enable the successful adoption and maintenance of the Hub model of care. Conclusions This study provides valuable insights and contributes evidence around what is needed to strengthen and support the operationalization and scalability of the Hub model of care. Key recommendations for Hub practitioners include the importance of formal change management processes and establishment of strong governance structures, while key recommendations for policymakers include the need for sustainable Hub funding and a standardized, evidence-based framework to support Hub implementation and evaluation.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to develop Service, Research and Policy priorities to prevent the impact of family adversity on child mental health and determine comparative priorities of diverse stakeholders to those with lived experience of adversity. Methods: Value-weighting approach conducted in a staged process: (i) professionals and experts with lived experience from health, education, justice and social care sectors attended a national symposium to identify priorities for family adversity and mental health and (ii) a subsequent resource allocation survey gathered views from participants and external experts on symposium priorities. Results: Consensus was reached on priorities. Service priorities included establishing intersectoral hubs for children and families and early childhood nurse home-visiting programs. Research priorities included scaling up evidence-based interventions and evaluating cross-sector, flexible funding models for services addressing childhood adversity. Policy priorities included developing evidence-based policies with evaluation and implementation plans and flexible funding models to support integrated care. Conclusions: Our results provide detailed and actionable clarity on next steps to address family adversities. Implications for Public Health: The priorities call for a focus on cross-sectoral approaches to preventing or mitigating the effects of family adversity. The current Australian policy environment provides a timely opportunity to action the proposed interventions.

BackgroundAcute gastroenteritis is a highly contagious disease demanding effective public health and clinical care systems for prevention and early intervention to avoid outbreaks and symptom deterioration. The Netherlands and Australia are both top-performing, high-income countries where general practitioners (GPs) act as healthcare gatekeepers. However, there is a lower annual incidence and per-case costs for childhood gastroenteritis in Australia. Understanding the systems and policies in different countries can lead to improvements in processes and care. Therefore, we aimed to compare public health systems and clinical care for children with acute gastroenteritis in both countries.MethodsA cross-country expert study was conducted for the Netherlands and Australia. Using the Health System Performance Assessment framework and discussions within the research group, two questionnaires (public health and clinical care) were developed. Questionnaires were delivered to local experts in the Netherlands and the state of Victoria, Australia. Data synthesis employed a narrative approach with constant comparison.ResultsIn Australia, rotavirus vaccination is implemented in a national program with immunisation requirements and legislation for prevention, which is not the case in the Netherlands. Access to care differs, as Dutch children must visit their regular GP before the hospital, while in Australia, children have multiple options and can go directly to hospital. Funding varies, with the Netherlands providing fully funded healthcare for children, whilst in Australia it depends on which GP (co-payment required or not) and hospital (public or private) they visit. Additionally, the guideline-recommended dosage of the antiemetic ondansetron is lower in the Netherlands.ConclusionsHealthcare approaches for managing childhood gastroenteritis differ between the Netherlands and Australia. The lower annual incidence and per-case costs for childhood gastroenteritis in Australia cannot solely be explained by the differences in healthcare system functions. Nevertheless, Australia's robust public health system, characterized by legislation for vaccinations and quarantine, and the Netherland's well-established clinical care system, featuring fully funded continuity of care and lower ondansetron dosages, offer opportunities for enhancing healthcare in both countries.

This study examined the sustained and moderating effects of a behavioural sleep intervention for autistic children in a randomised controlled trial. Autistic children (5-13 years) with sleep problems were randomised to the Sleeping Sound intervention or Treatment as Usual (TAU). At 12-month follow-up (n = 150), caregivers of children in the Sleeping Sound group reported greater reduction in child sleep problems compared to TAU (p < 0.001, effect size: - 0.4). The long-term benefits of the intervention were greater for children taking sleep medication, children of parents who were not experiencing psychological distress, and children with greater autism severity. The Sleeping Sound intervention demonstrated sustained improvements in child sleep. Identified moderators may inform treatment by indicating which subgroups may benefit from further support.