Search

Background and aim: Reducing alcohol misuse by male prisoners is an important global issue. Control of drinking behaviour could be a useful target for intervention in this population, and locus of control could be a causal factor in this. We aimed to assess the effect of a clinical psychologist‐facilitated group intervention on male prisoners' locus of control of drinking behaviour. Design A two‐arm, single‐site, open, randomized controlled trial. Setting: A category B local training prison in South Wales, housing about 770 mainly sentenced men. Participants: Prisoners serving less than 2 years who met inclusion criteria for pre‐imprisonment alcohol misuse, alone or with drug misuse. A total of 119 were allocated to the intervention arm and 119 to the control arm; 104 and 87, respectively, completed the post‐randomization baseline interview and 68 and 60 completed a second interview approximately 4 weeks later, respectively, after intervention or treatment as usual (TAU) alone. Intervention: Nine clinical psychologist‐facilitated groups in the prison over 3 weeks. Range of participants per session was one to seven, with three to five most usual. Measures: The primary outcome was locus of control of behaviour (LCB); secondary outcomes included mental state generally (comprehensive psychiatric rating scale/CPRS) and specifically (Beck Depression Inventory/BDI). An integral process evaluation was conducted. Findings LCB scores decreased during the study, but without significant intervention effect [−1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) = –5.1 to 1.6, P = 0.329]. Change among completers in the control group was from a mean score of 37.4 [standard deviation (SD) = 10.0] to 33.7[SD = 11.7] and in the intervention group from 37.4 (SD = 11.6) to 31.9 (SD = 11.8). Secondary outcomes, including change in mental state, did not differ between arms, but 686 (64%) sessions were lost, most because of 'prison issues'. Conclusions: A clinical psychologist‐facilitated group intervention did not have a statistically significant effect on sense of control of drinking behaviour among men with pre‐imprisonment alcohol misuse serving less than 2 years in a South Wales prison. The study proved coterminous, however, with 40% prison staff cuts which seem likely to have contributed to the high loss of group sessions and possibly overwhelmed any treatment effect. Intervention completion failures, previously cited as harmful, had no effect here, so the trial should be repeated when the prison climate improves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Infant Mental Health Journal is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Rational, aims, and objectives The Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) is a licensed intensive home visiting intervention developed in the United States. It has been provided in England by the Department of Health since 2006. The Building Blocks trial assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FNP in England. Methods We performed a cost-utility analysis (National Health Service (NHS) perspective) alongside the Building Blocks trial (over 2.5 y). The analysis was conducted in accordance with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) reference case standards. Health-related quality of life was elicited from mothers using the EQ-5D-3L. Resource-use data were collected from self-reported questionnaires, Hospital Episode Statistics, general practitioner records and the central Department of Health FNP database. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.5%. The base case analysis used an intention to treat approach on the imputed dataset using multiple imputation. Results The FNP intervention costs on average £1812 more per participant compared to usual care (95% confidence interval: −£2700; £5744). Incremental adjusted mean QALYs are marginally higher for FNP (mean difference 0.0036, 95% confidence interval: −0.017; 0.025). The probability of FNP being cost-effective is less than 20% given the current NICE willingness to pay threshold of £20 000 per additional QALY. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusion Given the absence of significant benefits of FNP in terms of the primary outcomes of the trial and only marginal maternal QALY gains, FNP does not represent a cost-effective intervention when compared with existing services already offered to young pregnant women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim This paper focuses on stakeholders' active involvement at key stages of the research as members of a Stakeholder Action Group (SAG), particularly in the context of lay stakeholder involvement. Some challenges that can arise and wider issues (e.g. empowerment, the impact of user involvement) are identified and explored within the literature on service user involvement in health care research, reflecting on the implications for researchers. Background In the DEPICTED study, lay and professional stakeholders were actively involved in developing a complex research intervention. Lay stakeholders comprised teenage and adult patients with diabetes, parents and patient organization representatives. Professional stakeholders were from a range of disciplines. Methods Three 1-day research meetings were attended by 13-17 lay stakeholders and 10-11 professional stakeholders (plus researchers). The SAG was responsible for reviewing evidence, advising on developing ideas for the research intervention and guiding plans for evaluation of the intervention in a subsequent trial. Formal evaluations were completed by stakeholders following each SAG meeting. Results Throughout the first (developmental) stage of this two-stage study, lay and professional stakeholders participated or were actively involved in activities that provided data to inform the research intervention. Lay stakeholders identified the need for and contributed to the design of a patient-held tool, strongly influenced the detailed design and content of the research intervention and outcome questionnaire, thus making a major contribution to the trial design. Conclusion Stakeholders, including teenagers, can be actively involved in designing a research intervention and impact significantly on study outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper concerns the evaluation of health care for teenagers and examines the role of primary care and its interaction with the teenage users of this service. It recognizes that the majority of health care for teenagers takes place within general practice. The challenge posed is to identify and put in place suitable evaluation tools. There are government targets to improve the health of teenagers by reducing teenage pregnancy, drug use, smoking rates and suicides. It is an assumption of this paper that improvements in experiences of primary care will lead to improvements in more population-based outcomes of care, although this link needs investigation. The paper shows that there are few measures of generic outcome which are available for use in experiments to assess teenage health care as a baseline now. This has implications for conducting future research projects. Such measures are important and it is a necessary feature of research into teenage health that these measures are devised, tested and validated as a priority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Design Setting Sample Methods Main outcome measures Results Conclusion Warm water immersion during labour provides women with analgesia and comfort. This cohort study aimed to establish among women using intrapartum water immersion analgesia, without antenatal or intrapartum risk factors, whether waterbirth is as safe for them and their babies as leaving the water before birth.Cohort study with non‐inferiority design.Twenty‐six UK NHS maternity services.A total of 73 229 women without antenatal or intrapartum risk factors, using intrapartum water immersion, between 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2022. The analysis excluded 12 827 (17.5%) women who received obstetric or anaesthetic interventions before birth.Non‐inferiority analysis of retrospective and prospective data captured in NHS maternity and neonatal information systems.Maternal primary outcome: obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) by parity; neonatal composite primary outcome: fetal or neonatal death, neonatal unit admission with respiratory support or administration of antibiotics within 48 hours of birth.Rates of the primary outcomes were no higher among waterbirths compared with births out of water: rates of OASI among nulliparous women (waterbirth: 730/15 176 [4.8%] versus births out of water: 641/12 210 [5.3%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.97, one‐sided 95% CI, −∞ to 1.08); rates of OASI among parous women (waterbirth: 269/24 451 [1.1%] versus births out of water 144/8565 [1.7%]; aOR 0.64, one‐sided 95% CI −∞ to 0.78) and rates of the composite adverse outcome among babies (waterbirth 263/9868 [2.7%] versus births out of water 224/5078 [4.4%]; aOR 0.65, one‐sided 95% CI −∞ to 0.79).Among women using water immersion during labour, remaining in the pool and giving birth in water was not associated with an increase in the incidence of adverse primary maternal or neonatal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An uncontrolled study with process evaluation was conducted in three U.K. community maternity sites to establish the feasibility and acceptability of delivering a novel breastfeeding peer‐support intervention informed by motivational interviewing (MI; Mam‐Kind). Peer‐supporters were trained to deliver the Mam‐Kind intervention that provided intensive one‐to‐one peer‐support, including (a) antenatal contact, (b) face‐to‐face contact within 48 hr of birth, (c) proactive (peer‐supporter led) alternate day contact for 2 weeks after birth, and (d) mother‐led contact for a further 6 weeks. Peer‐supporters completed structured diaries and audio‐recorded face‐to‐face sessions with mothers. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of mothers, health professionals, and all peer‐supporters. Interview data were analysed thematically to assess intervention acceptability. Audio‐recorded peer‐support sessions were assessed for intervention fidelity and the use of MI techniques, using the MITI 4.2 tool. Eight peer‐supporters delivered the Mam‐Kind intervention to 70 mothers in three National Health Service maternity services. Qualitative interviews with mothers (n = 28), peer‐supporters (n = 8), and health professionals (n = 12) indicated that the intervention was acceptable, and health professionals felt it could be integrated with existing services. There was high fidelity to intervention content; 93% of intervention objectives were met during sessions. However, peer‐supporters reported difficulties in adapting from an expert‐by‐experience role to a collaborative role. We have established the feasibility and acceptability of providing breastfeeding peer‐support using a MI‐informed approach. Refinement of the intervention is needed to further develop peer‐supporters' skills in providing mother‐centred support. The refined intervention should be tested for effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a reply from the authors of a study published in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. The study aimed to determine whether waterbirth was associated with increased rates of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) or neonatal morbidity compared to leaving the water prior to birth. The study found that the rates of OASI among waterbirths and births out of water were 2.5% and 3.8% respectively. The authors dispute claims of bias in the study and emphasize the need for further research on OASI. [Extracted from the article]