Search

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.