Search

There is a social gradient to the determinants of health; low socioeconomic status (SES) has been linked to reduced educational attainment and employment prospects, which in turn affect physical and mental wellbeing. One goal of preventive interventions, such as parenting programs, is to reduce these health inequalities by supporting families with difficulties that are often patterned by SES. Despite these intentions, a recent individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of the Incredible Years (IY) parenting program found no evidence for differential benefit by socioeconomic disadvantage (Gardner et al. in Public Health Resesearch 5, 1–144, 2017). However, it did not examine whether this was influenced by engagement in the intervention. Using intervention arm data from this pooled dataset (13 trials; N = 1078), we examined whether there was an SES gradient to intervention attendance (an indicator of engagement). We ran mixed-effects Poisson regression models to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for program attendance for each of five (binary) markers of SES: low income; unemployment; low education status; teen parent; and lone parent status. The multilevel structure of the data allowed for comparison of within-trial and between-trial effects, including tests for contextual effects. We found evidence that low SES was associated with reduced attendance at parenting programs—an 8–19% reduction depending on the SES marker. However, there was no evidence that this association is impacted by differences in SES composition between trials or by the attendance levels of higher-SES families. The findings underscore the importance of developing and prioritizing strategies that enable engagement in parenting interventions and encourage program attendance by low-SES families.

Historically, computing instructors and researchers have developed a wide variety of tools to support teaching and educational research, including exam and code testing suites and data collection solutions. Many are then community or individually maintained. However, these tools often find limited adoption beyond their creators. As a result, it is common for many of the same functionalities to be re-implemented by different instructional groups within the CS Education community. We hypothesize that this is due in part to accessibility, discoverability, and adaptability challenges, among others. Further, instructors often face institutional barriers to deployment, which can include hesitance of institutions to utilize community developed solutions that often lack a centralized authority. This working group will explore what solutions are currently available, what instructors need, and reasons behind the above-mentioned phenomenon. This will be accomplished via a literature review and survey to identify the tools that have been developed by the community; the solutions that are currently available and in use by instructors; what features are needed moving forward for classroom and research use; what support for extensions is needed to support further CS Education research; and what institutional challenges instructors and researchers are currently facing or have faced in the past in developing, deploying or otherwise using community software solutions. Finally, the working group will identify factors that limit adoption of solutions and ways to integrate and improve the accessibility, discoverability, and dissemination of existing community projects, as well as manage and overcome institutional challenges., QC 20220913Part of proceedings: ISBN 978-145039200-6

BACKGROUND: Parent carers of children with special educational needs or disability are at higher risk of poor mental and physical health. The need for a tailored, peer-led group programme was raised by parent carers, who co-developed the Healthy Parent Carers programme with researchers. This study aimed to test the feasibility of programme delivery in community settings, and the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised controlled trial design. METHODS: Participants were individually randomised with concealed allocation to a structured group programme and access to online resources (intervention), or access to the online resources only (control). Measures of wellbeing and secondary and economic outcomes were collected before randomisation, immediately post-intervention, and 6 months post-intervention. Descriptive statistics on recruitment and attrition, demographics, attendance, and fidelity of intervention delivery were analysed with feedback on the acceptability of the trial design. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-three parent carers expressed an interest in taking part. Ninety-two participants recruited from across six sites were randomised (47 intervention, 45 control). Lead and assistant facilitators were trained and delivered the group sessions. Sixteen (34%) participants in the intervention arm did not attend any sessions, and attendance varied across sites and sessions. One participant withdrew post-randomisation, and 83 (90%) participants completed outcome measures at the six-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that it was feasible to deliver the programme in community settings. The number of parent carers who expressed interest signifies the need for such a programme and the feasibility of recruiting to a definitive trial. Loss to follow-up was low. Further research is needed to explore ways to reduce barriers to participation in person and assess the feasibility and acceptability of programme content and delivery for more ethnically d

The study, a two-arm, randomized controlled, parallel group, superiority trial, aimed to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a 12-month one-to-one volunteer mentoring program designed to improve behavioral and emotional outcomes in children aged 5 to 11 years who have teacher- and parent/carer-reported behavioral difficulties. Participants were 246 children (123 intervention, 123 control; mean age 8.4 years; 87% boys) in five sites in London, UK, scoring in the "abnormal" range on the teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) Total Difficulties measure and in the "borderline" or abnormal range on the parent-rated SDQ Total Difficulties measure. Randomization on a 1:1 ratio took place using a computer-generated sequence and stratifying by site. Data collectors and statisticians were blind to participant allocation status. Outcome measures focused on parent- and teacher-rated child behavior and emotions, and child-rated self-perception and hope. Intention-to-treat analysis on all 246 randomized participants (using imputed data where necessary) showed that at post-intervention (16 months after randomization), there were no statistically significant effects on the primary outcome-parent-rated SDQ Total Difficulties (adjusted standardized mean difference = - 0.12; 95% CI: -0.38 to 0.13; p = 0.33)-or any secondary outcomes. Results from complier average causal effect (CACE) analysis using the primary outcome indicated the intervention was not effective for children who received the recommended duration of mentoring. Exploratory analyses found no sub-group effects on the primary outcome. The article concludes that the mentoring program had no effect on children's behavior or emotional well-being, and that program content needs revising to satisfactorily address key risk and protective factors.

Social emotional development in infancy is a predictor of outcomes in later life, yet there is little evidence of effectiveness for parenting interventions designed to enhance infant social emotional well-being. An 18-month two-arm randomised controlled pilot trial evaluated the feasibility of a definitive trial of Incredible Years (IY) Infant and Toddler parent programs delivered in a proportionate universal model, called Enhancing Social-Emotional Health and Well-being in the Early Years (E-SEE) STEPS. Intervention families received an IY Babies book (universal dose), followed by the IY Infant and/or the Toddler group-based programs, based on parent depression (PHQ-9) and/or child social emotional development (ASQ:SE-2) scores. Control parents received services as usual. Primary endpoints for the study were feasibility parameters relating to recruitment, retention and intervention fidelity. A total of 205 parents from two English local authorities with a child eight-weeks-old or younger were randomised (152:53, intervention:control). Trial retention rate was higher than expected, with a completion rate of 88% (n=181, 137:44) at follow-up 3; equating to 94% of 192 expected participants. Intervention uptake was lower than expected. Fidelity of delivery was acceptable. A definitive trial is feasible with design amendments to include: introduction of a child screener for intervention eligibility; enhanced intervention material; revised sample size and random allocation ratio. Our internal pilot became an external pilot due to these changes. Trial registration number; ISRCTN11079129.

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.

BACKGROUND: Parent carers of disabled children are at increased risk of mental and physical health problems. They often experience challenges to maintaining good health which have implications for their well-being and their ability to care for their children. In response to these needs, researchers and parent carers developed the Healthy Parent Carers (HPC) programme. It is a peer-led, group-based intervention that promotes behaviours associated with health and well-being. The aims of this trial are to assess the acceptability of the HPC programme and the feasibility of its delivery in the community and to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the design of the definitive trial to evaluate the programme's effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We will establish six research sites and train facilitators to deliver the manualised intervention. Parent carers of children with special educational needs and disabilities will be individually randomised, stratified by group delivery site, to either take part in a group programme and online resources (intervention) or to receive access to the online resources only (control). Measures of mental health; well-being; health-related quality of life; health behaviours; patient activation; protective factors such as resilience, social connections, and practical support; and use of health care, social care, and wider societal resources will be collected before randomisation (baseline), immediately post-intervention, and 6 months later. Recruitment of participants, adherence to the programme, and the dose received will be assessed. Group sessions will be audio-recorded to evaluate the fidelity of delivery and participant engagement. Participants' and facilitators' feedback on the programme content and delivery, their experience, and the acceptability of the outcome measures and trial design will be collected through feedback forms, interviews, and focus groups. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess whether the programme de

© 2007 - 2019 Frontiers Media S.A. All Rights Reserved. Cataract, the loss of ocular lens transparency, accounts for ~50% of worldwide blindness and has been associated with water and solute transport dysfunction across lens cellular barriers. We show that neutral amino acid antiporter LAT2 (Slc7a8) and uniporter TAT1 (Slc16a10) are expressed on mouse ciliary epithelium and LAT2 also in lens epithelium. Correspondingly, deletion of LAT2 induced a dramatic decrease in lens essential amino acid levels that was modulated by TAT1 defect. Interestingly, the absence of LAT2 led to increased incidence of cataract in mice, in particular in older females, and a synergistic effect was observed with simultaneous lack of TAT1. Screening SLC7A8 in patients diagnosed with congenital or age-related cataract yielded one homozygous single nucleotide deletion segregating in a family with congenital cataract. Expressed in HeLa cells, this LAT2 mutation did not support amino acid uptake. Heterozygous LAT2 variants were also found in patients with cataract some of which showed a reduced transport function when expressed in HeLa cells. Whether heterozygous LAT2 variants may contribute to the pathology of cataract needs to be further investigated. Overall, our results suggest that defects of amino acid transporter LAT2 are implicated in cataract formation, a situation that may be aggravated by TAT1 defects.

Background: There is a need to build the evidence base of early interventions promoting children's health and development in the UK. Malachi Specialist Family Support Services ('Malachi') is a voluntary sector organisation based in the UK that delivers a therapeutic parenting group programme called Inspiring Futures to parents of children identified as having behavioural and emotional difficulties. The programme comprises two parts, delivered sequentially: (1) a group-based programme for all parents for 10-12 weeks, and (2) one-to-one sessions with selected parents from the group-based element for up to 12 weeks. Methods/design: A randomised controlled trial will be conducted to evaluate Malachi's Inspiring Futures parenting programme. Participants will be allocated to one of two possible arms, with follow-up measures at 16 weeks (post-parent group programme) and at 32 weeks (post-one-to-one sessions with selected parents). The sample size is 248 participants with a randomisation allocation ratio of 1:1. The intervention arm will be offered the Inspiring Futures programme. The control group will receive services as usual. The aim is to determine the effectiveness of the Inspiring Futures programme on the primary outcome of behavioural and emotional difficulties of primary school children identified as having behavioural or emotional difficulties. Discussion: This study will further enhance the evidence for early intervention parenting programmes for child behavioural and emotional problems in the UK.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to build the evidence base of early interventions promoting children's health and development in the UK. Malachi Specialist Family Support Services ('Malachi') is a voluntary sector organisation based in the UK that delivers a therapeutic parenting group programme called Inspiring Futures to parents of children identified as having behavioural and emotional difficulties. The programme comprises two parts, delivered sequentially: (1) a group-based programme for all parents for 10-12 weeks, and (2) one-to-one sessions with selected parents from the group-based element for up to 12 weeks. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial will be conducted to evaluate Malachi's Inspiring Futures parenting programme. Participants will be allocated to one of two possible arms, with follow-up measures at 16 weeks (post-parent group programme) and at 32 weeks (post-one-to-one sessions with selected parents). The sample size is 248 participants with a randomisation allocation ratio of 1:1. The intervention arm will be offered the Inspiring Futures programme. The control group will receive services as usual. The aim is to determine the effectiveness of the Inspiring Futures programme on the primary outcome of behavioural and emotional difficulties of primary school children identified as having behavioural or emotional difficulties. DISCUSSION: This study will further enhance the evidence for early intervention parenting programmes for child behavioural and emotional problems in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32083735 . Retrospectively registered 28 October 2014.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence on how best to intervene to improve paediatric acute care and therefore reduce unplanned hospital admissions is weak. We describe service evaluation work at one hospital to assess interventions at critical clinical and service decision points. DESIGN: We conducted an observational study using routine daily-collected data (April 2009-December 2015) from a medium-sized district general hospital in south-west UK, using before-and-after comparisons of admissions-related data to evaluate two interventions implemented in April and November 2014, respectively: (1) an advice and guidance (A&G) phone line, where a senior paediatrician is available for general practitioners (GPs) and emergency department (ED) and (2) a Short Stay Paediatric Assessment Unit (SSPAU). We analysed data on all admitted children (<18 years) in the catchment area (population estimate 27 740 in 2015). Outcomes were GP-referred attendances, ward admissions, less than 1 day admissions and length of stay. RESULTS: A&G phone line was associated with a reduction in the mean number of less than 1 day admissions per month (difference in means before and after intervention -16.6 (95% CI -0.2 to -32.9)) and an increase in overall monthly bed-days (difference 72.5 (95% CI 21.0 to 124.0)), but there was little evidence of a change in GP-referred attendances or ward admissions. SSPAU was associated with a reduction in the mean number of monthly ward admissions (difference -34.6 (95% CI -21.3 to -48.0)) and less than 1 day admissions (difference in means -21.7 (95% CI -8.4 to -35.1)) and a reduction in the mean number of overall bed-days per month (difference -50.2 (95% CI -12.1 to -88.3)). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions for reducing time taken to senior clinician review may be effective in better managing paediatric acute care. Further work should explore results by age, condition and injury/illness status.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to build the evidence base of early interventions to promote children's health and development in the UK. Chance UK is a voluntary sector organisation based in London that delivers a 12-month mentoring programme for primary school children identified by teachers and parents as having behavioural and emotional difficulties. The aim of the study is to determine the effectiveness of the programme in terms of children's behaviour and emotional well-being; this is the primary outcome of the trial. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial will be conducted in which participants are randomly allocated on a dynamic basis to one of two possible arms: the intervention arm (n = 123) will be offered the mentoring programme, and the control arm (n = 123) will be offered services as usual. Outcome data will be collected at three points: pre-intervention (baseline), mid-way through the mentoring year (c.9 months after randomisation) and post- mentoring programme (c.16 months after randomisation). DISCUSSION: This study will further enhance the evidence for early intervention mentoring programmes for child behaviour and emotional well-being in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47154925 . Retrospectively registered 9 September 2014.

Introduction: Behavioural and mental disorders have become a public health crisis and by 2020 may surpass physical illness as a major cause of disability. Early prevention is key. Two Incredible Years parent programmes that aim to enhance child wellbeing and development, IY-Infant and IY-Toddler, will be delivered and evaluated in a proportionate universal intervention model called E-SEE Steps. The main research question is: Does E-SEE Steps enhance child social emotional wellbeing at 20 months when compared to services as usual?

BACKGROUND: Bullying refers to verbal, physical or psychological aggression repeated over time that is intended to cause harm or distress to the victims who are unable to defend themselves. It is a key public health priority owing to its widespread prevalence in schools and harmful short- and long-term effects on victims' well-being. There is a need to strengthen the evidence base by testing innovative approaches to preventing bullying. KiVa is a school-based bullying prevention programme with universal and indicated elements and an emphasis on changing bystander behaviour. It achieved promising results in a large trial in Finland, and now requires testing in other countries. This paper describes the protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of KiVa in Wales. METHODS/DESIGN: The study uses a two-arm waitlist control pragmatic definitive parallel group cluster RCT design with an embedded process evaluation and calculation of unit cost. Participating schools will be randomised a using a 1:1 ratio to KiVa plus usual provision (intervention group) or usual provision only (control group). The trial has one primary outcome, child self-reported victimisation from bullying, dichotomised as 'victimised' (bullied at least twice a month in the last couple of months) versus 'not victimised'. Secondary outcomes are: bullying perpetration; aspects of child social and emotional well-being (including emotional problems, conduct, peer relations, prosocial behaviour); and school attendance. Follow-up is at 12 months post-baseline. Implementation fidelity is measured through teacher-completed lesson records and independent school-wide observation. A micro-costing analysis will determine the costs of implementing KiVa, including recurrent and non-recurrent unit costs. Factors related to the scalability of the programme will be examined in interviews with head teachers and focus groups with key stakeholders in the implementation of school-based bullying interventions. DIS