Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2020, Australia's successful COVID‐19 public health restrictions comprised a national "initial lockdown" (March–May) and "ongoing lockdown" (July–November) for metropolitan Victorian residents only. We evaluated associations between ongoing lockdown and family finances and mental health. In the June and September 2020 Royal Children's Hospital National Child Health Polls, caregivers of children in Victoria and New South Wales (NSW) reported the following: job/income loss; material deprivation (inability to pay for essential items); income poverty; mental health (Kessler‐6); perceived impact on caregiver/child mental health; and caregiver/child coping. Data from caregivers (N = 1207/902) in June/September were analysed using difference‐in‐difference modelling (NSW provided the comparator). During Victoria's ongoing lockdown, job/income loss increased by 11% (95%CI: 3%–18%); Kessler‐6 poor mental health by 6% (95%CI: −0.3%–12%) and perceived negative mental health impacts by 14% for caregivers (95%CI: 6%–23%) and 12% for children (95%CI: 4%–20%). Female (vs. male) caregivers, metropolitan (vs. regional/rural) families, and families with elementary school‐aged children (vs. pre‐/high‐school) were the most affected. The ongoing lockdown was associated with negative experiences of mental health, employment and income, but not deprivation or poverty, likely because of government income supplements introduced early in the pandemic. Future lockdowns require planned responses to outbreaks and evidence‐informed financial and mental health supports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Issue Addressed: To determine if Australian policies support a primary health care system to identify family adversity and subsequently support these families. Methods: Two methodological approaches were used: (i) a scoping review of Australian federal and two states (Victoria and New South Wales) policies related to family adversity (e.g., childhood maltreatment or household dysfunction, such as parental mental illness); (ii) thirteen semi‐structured interviews with Victorian Community Health Service (CHS) staff and government policy makers, recruited via snowball sampling to understand the context of policy making and service implementation. Data collected were subsequently discussed in relation to the Stages Model of policy analysis. Results: One hundred and eighty‐eight policies referenced family adversity. Of these, 37 policies met all eligibility criteria including a focus on early intervention within primary care and were included in the review. Most policies were developed within health departments (78%) and included a wide range of adversities, with the majority based within maternal and child health and CHS platforms. Most policy development included consultation with stakeholders. Although most policies received some level of funding, few included funding details and only a third included evaluation. Conclusions: There are many policies related to family adversity in Australia, with most focused within existing primary care platforms. Given these policies, Australia should be well positioned to identify and respond to family adversity. So What: More work needs to be done to ensure policies are adequately implemented, evaluated and transparently and appropriately funded. The co‐occurrence of adversity should focus policy action; and potentially lead to more effective and efficient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2020, school and early childhood educational centre (ECEC) closures affected over 1.5 billion school‐aged children globally as part of the COVID‐19 pandemic response. Attendance at school and access to ECEC is critical to a child's learning, well‐being and health. School closures increase inequities by disproportionately affecting vulnerable children. Here, we summarise the role of children and adolescents in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) transmission and that of schools and ECECs in community transmission and describe the Australian experience. In Australia, most SARS‐CoV‐2 cases in schools were solitary (77% in NSW and 67% in Victoria); of those that did progress to an outbreak, >90% involved fewer than 10 cases. Australian and global experience has demonstrated that SARS‐CoV‐2 is predominantly introduced into schools and ECECs during periods of heightened community transmission. Implementation of public health mitigation strategies, including effective testing, tracing and isolation of contacts, means schools and ECECs can be safe, not drivers of transmission. Schools and ECEC are essential services and so they should be prioritised to stay open for face‐to‐face learning. This is particularly critical as we continue to manage the next phase of the COVID‐19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study describes trends in social inequities in first dose measles-mumps-rubella (MMR1) vaccination coverage in Western Australia (WA) and New South Wales (NSW). Using probabilistically-linked administrative data for 1.2 million children born between 2002 and 2011, we compared levels and trends in MMR1 vaccination coverage measured at age 24 months by maternal country of birth, Aboriginal status, maternal age at delivery, socio-economic status, and remoteness in two states.Results: Vaccination coverage was 3-4% points lower among children of mothers who gave birth before the age of 20 years, mothers born overseas, mothers with an Aboriginal background, and parents with a low socio-economic status compared to children that did not belong to these social groups. In both states, between 2007 and 2011 there was a decline of 2.1% points in MMR1 vaccination coverage for children whose mothers were born overseas. In 2011, WA had lower coverage among the Aboriginal population (89.5%) and children of young mothers (89.3%) compared to NSW (92.2 and 92.1% respectively).Conclusion: Despite overall high coverage of MMR1 vaccination, coverage inequalities increased especially for children of mothers born overseas. Strategic immunisation plans and policy interventions are important for equitable vaccination levels. Future policy should target children of mothers born overseas and Aboriginal children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• One in four children delay school entry in New South Wales, Australia. • Boys, younger children, and advantaged children are more likely to delay. • The tendency to start school when first eligible clusters in disadvantaged urban areas. • Older starters are more likely to be ready for the first year of school. In Australia's most populous state, New South Wales (NSW), children born between January and July have the choice to start school in the year they turn five, or delay entry until the year they turn six. We used linked administrative data for children who started school in NSW in 2009 or 2012 (N = 162,878) to identify child, family and area characteristics associated with delayed entry, and to explore the relationship between school starting age and five domains of child development, measured using the Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) in the first year of school. Among both the 2009 and 2012 cohorts, 26% of children delayed starting school until the year they turned six. Area-level rates of delay ranged from 8% to 54% across 198 areas in NSW, with lower levels in disadvantaged urban areas. Factors associated with delayed entry included male sex, a birth date close to the enrolment cut-off date, socioeconomic advantage, and having a mother born in Australia. There was a strong, significant relationship between school starting age and early childhood development: each month of maturity corresponded to an increase of approximately 3% in the probability of scoring above the 25th percentile in all five AEDC domains. Independent of school starting age, children who were older in relation to their classroom peers had better development outcomes. The potential for initial age-related differences to impact later school outcomes warrants further longitudinal research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Poverty and deprivation can harm children's future health, learning, economic productivity and societal participation. The Australian Healthier Wealthier Families project seeks to reduce the childhood inequities caused by poverty and deprivation by creating a systematic referral pathway between two free, community-based services: universal, well-child nursing services, which provide health and development support to families with children from birth to school entry, and financial counselling. By adapting the successful Scottish 'Healthier Wealthier Children' model, the objectives of this Australian pilot are to test the (1) feasibility of systematising the referral pathway, and (2) short-term impacts on household finances, caregiver health, parenting efficacy and financial service use., Methods and Analysis: This pilot randomised controlled trial will run in three sites across two Australian states (Victoria and New South Wales), recruiting a total of 180 participants. Nurses identify eligible caregivers with a 6-item, study-designed screening survey for financial hardship. Caregivers who report one or more risk factors and consent are randomised. The intervention is financial counselling. The comparator is usual care plus information from a government money advice website. Feasibility will be evaluated using the number/proportion of caregivers who complete screening, consent and research measures, and access financial counselling. Though powered to assess feasibility, impacts will be measured 6 months post-enrolment with qualitative interviews and questionnaires about caregiver-reported income, loans and costs (adapted from national surveys, for example, the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey); health (General Health Questionnaire 1, EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale short-form); efficacy (from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children); and financial service use (study-designed) compared between arms., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics committees of the Royal Children's Hospital (HREC/57372/RCHM-2019) and South West Sydney Local Health District (2019/ETH13455) have approved the study. Participants and stakeholders will receive results through regular communication channels comprising meetings, presentations and publications., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12620000154909; prospectively registered. Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)