Search

Background A range of voluntary sector organizations are involved in the delivery of services to children, particularly within the Early Year's sector and children's centres. Peers Early Education Partnership (PEEP) Early Explorers project is one example of the way in which explicit partnerships are being forged across statutory and voluntary sectors with the aim of improving outcomes for children and families. This paper reports an exploration of stakeholder views and experiences of two Early Explorer clinics located in areas of high deprivation. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of stakeholders ( n= 25) from children's centres, PEEP, the health visiting service and service users. Data were fully transcribed and analysed using a thematic approach. Results The data suggest that the two key groups of stakeholders providing Early Explorer clinics (i.e. health visitors and PEEP practitioners) had quite different objectives in terms of their early goals for the clinic, but that despite these differences good progress was achieved in terms of working together effectively. All stakeholders including service users referred to the presence of PEEP as having improved the quality of the clinic environment, and participating mothers identified a wide range of benefits from the enhanced service. However, somewhat restricted views about the role of practitioners within the clinics were identified by users, and the findings suggest that although the early goals for the clinic had been exceeded, these may have been limited in terms of true 'partnership' working. Conclusions Early Explorer clinics appeared to have enhanced the service provided within traditional child health clinics and to have provided practitioners with access to hard-to-reach families and parents with access to services that are consistent with the broader policy aims of improving parent-infant interaction. However, questions remain as to whether the benefit of 'partnership' working was fully realized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Contemporary research into non‐vaccination has highlighted some of the attitudes, beliefs and characteristics of non‐vaccinating parents with recent research also beginning to examine the journey to non‐vaccination. However, the interaction between gender, identity and non‐vaccination is less well understood, as well as the non‐vaccination journey for parents in the United Kingdom. Methods: Using purposive sampling, we recruited mothers who have rejected some or all of their child's routine vaccinations in the last 5–10 years. Semi‐ structured interviews were conducted by phone in late 2020 and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Ten mothers were interviewed. They differed in socio‐economic, educational and cultural backgrounds, yet all wanted the same thing: to have happy and healthy children, a goal which they saw as their responsibility and within their control and did not include vaccination. Within this shared parenting priority, identities varied considerably. Most mothers strongly rejected the label or identity of 'anti‐vaxxer', preferring alternative terms with less negative social connotations. The decision not to vaccinate was predominantly made by mothers, describing a dynamic where mothers (rather than fathers/partners) were clearly responsible for their children's health, but this largely appeared to be internalized as the mother's role. Conclusions: The heterogeneity of mother's identities within the non‐vaccination movement and the pressures on mothers to raise children with 'optimum health' explored in this study suggest that non‐vaccination is a largely individual choice that requires nuanced and compassionate engagement to understand the root causes behind this decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Assent is used to take children's wishes into account when they are invited into clinical trials, but the concept has attracted considerable criticism. We investigated children's accounts of decision-making with the aim of informing practice in supporting children when invited to join a clinical trial. Methods We audio-recorded qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 22 children aged 8-16 years about being invited to take part in a clinical trial. Most children were interviewed with their parents. Analysis of the transcribed interviews examined the content of participants' accounts thematically, whilst also drawing on principles of discourse analysis, which examines how individuals use talk to achieve certain effects or social practices. Results It was not possible to separate children's knowledge of the clinical trial, or their decision-making processes from that of their parents, with parents taking a substantial mediating role in producing their children's decisions. Decision-making gradually unfolded across time and events and was interwoven within the family context, rather than happening in one moment or in the clinical setting. Whilst children valued their parents' role, a case study of child-parent disagreement indicated how children can struggle to be heard. Conclusions Decisions happen within a process of family dynamics, in contrast to ideas of assent that isolate it from this context. Parents have a substantial role in children's decisions, and thus how families come to provide consent. Reflecting this we argue that assent practices need to focus on supporting parents to support their children in learning and deliberating about trials. However, this needs to be accompanied by practitioners being alert to the possibility of divergence in child and parent views and enabling children's perspectives to be heard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]