Search

With increasing survival rates of children born extremely preterm (EPT), before gestational week 28, the post-discharge life of these families has gained significant research interest. Quantitative studies of parental experiences post-discharge have previously reported elevated levels depressive symptoms, posttraumatic stress-disorder and anxiety among the parents. The current investigation aims to qualitatively explore the situation for parents of children born EPT in Sweden during the first year at home. Semi-structured interviews were performed with 17 parents of 14 children born EPT; eight parents were from an early intervention group and nine parents from a group that received treatment as usual, with extended follow-up procedures. Three main themes were identified using a thematic analytic approach: child-related concerns, the inner state of the parent, and changed family dynamics. Parents in the intervention group also expressed themes related to the intervention, as a sense of security and knowledgeable interventionists. The results are discussed in relation to different concepts of health, parent-child interaction and attachment, and models of the recovery processes. In conclusion, parents describe the first year at home as a time of prolonged parental worries for the child as well as concerns regarding the parent's own emotional state.

Background: Internet-administered cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT) has been demonstrated to be an effective intervention for adults with depression and/or anxiety and is recommended in national guidelines for provision within Swedish primary care. However, the number and type of organizations that have implemented ICBT within primary care in Sweden is currently unclear. Further, there is a lack of knowledge concerning barriers and facilitators to ICBT implementation., Objective: The two primary objectives were to identify and describe primary care organizations providing ICBT in Sweden and compare decision makers' (ie, directors of primary care organizations) views on barriers and facilitators to implementation of ICBT among ICBT implementers (ie, organizations that offered ICBT) and nonimplementers (ie, organizations that did not offer ICBT)., Methods: An online survey based on a checklist for identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation was developed and made accessible to decision makers from all primary care organizations in Sweden. The survey consisted of background questions (eg, provision of ICBT and number of persons working with ICBT) and barriers and facilitators relating to the following categories: users, therapists, ICBT programs, organizations, and wider society., Results: The participation rate was 35.75% (404/1130). The majority (250/404, 61.8%) of participants were health care center directors and had backgrounds in nursing. Altogether, 89.8% (363/404) of the participating organizations provided CBT. A minority (83/404, 20.5%) of organizations offered ICBT. Most professionals delivering ICBT were psychologists (67/83, 80%) and social workers (31/83, 37%). The majority (61/83, 73%) of organizations had 1 to 2 persons delivering ICBT interventions. The number of patients treated with ICBT during the last 12 months was 1 to 10 in 65% (54/83) of the organizations, ranging between 1 and 400 treated patients across the whole sample. There were 9 significant (P<.05) differences out of 37 possible between implementers and nonimplementers. For example, more implementers (48/51, 94%) than nonimplementers (107/139, 76.9%) perceived few technical problems (P<.001), and more implementers (53/77, 68%) than nonimplementers (103/215, 47.9%) considered that their organization has resources to offer ICBT programs (P<.001)., Conclusions: Despite research demonstrating the effectiveness of ICBT for depression and anxiety and national guidelines recommending its use, ICBT is implemented in few primary care organizations in Sweden. Several interesting differences between implementers and nonimplementers were identified, which may help inform interventions focusing on facilitating the implementation of ICBT., (©Anders Brantnell, Joanne Woodford, Enrico Baraldi, Theo van Achterberg, Louise von Essen. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 12.08.2020.)

Background: Improved neonatal care has resulted in increased survival rates among infants born after only 22 gestational weeks, but extremely preterm children still have an increased risk of neurodevelopmental delays, learning disabilities and reduced cognitive capacity, particularly executive function deficits. Parent-child interaction and parental mental health are associated with infant development, regardless of preterm birth. There is a need for further early interventions directed towards extremely preterm (EPT) children as well as their parents. The purpose of this paper is to describe the Stockholm Preterm Interaction-Based Intervention (SPIBI), the arrangements of the SPIBI trial and the chosen outcome measurements., Methods: The SPIBI is a randomized clinical trial that includes EPT infants and their parents upon discharge from four neonatal units in Stockholm, Sweden. Inclusion criteria are EPT infants soon to be discharged from a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), with parents speaking Swedish or English. Both groups receive three initial visits at the neonatal unit before discharge during the recruitment process, with a strengths-based and development-supportive approach. The intervention group receives ten home visits and two telephone calls during the first year from a trained interventionist from a multi-professional team. The SPIBI intervention is a strengths-based early intervention programme focusing on parental sensitivity to infant cues, enhancing positive parent-child interaction, improving self-regulating skills and supporting the infant's next small developmental step through a scaffolding process and parent-infant co-regulation. The control group receives standard follow-up and care plus extended assessment. The outcomes of interest are parent-child interaction, child development, parental mental health and preschool teacher evaluation of child participation, with assessments at 3, 12, 24 and 36 months corrected age (CA). The primary outcome is emotional availability at 12 months CA., Discussion: If the SPIBI shows positive results, it could be considered for clinical implementation for child-support, ethical and health-economic purposes. Regardless of the outcome, the trial will provide valuable information about extremely preterm children and their parents during infancy and toddlerhood after regional hospital care in Sweden., Trial Registration: The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov in October 2018 (NCT03714633).

Background: Healthcare research funders may undertake various roles to facilitate implementation of research findings. Their ability to enact such roles depends on several factors, knowledge of implementation being one essential requirement. However, previous studies do not assess the type or level of knowledge about implementation that research funders possess. This paper therefore presents findings from a qualitative, inductive study of the implementation knowledge of research funders. Three aspects of this knowledge are explored, namely how research funders define implementation, their level of self-assessed implementation knowledge and the factors influencing their self-assessment of implementation knowledge., Methods: Research funders (n = 18) were purposefully selected from a sample of research funding organisations in Sweden (n = 10). In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded and transcribed verbatim. An inductive method using a systematic coding procedure was employed to derive the findings., Results: The research funders defined implementation as either an outcome or a process, with the majority believing that implementation of healthcare research results demands a process, although its complexity varied in the research funders' view. They perceived their own level of implementation knowledge as either limited or substantial, with a majority regarding it as limited. Clinical research experience, clinical experience and task relevance were singled out as the clearest factors affecting the self-assessment of their own implementation knowledge., Conclusions: This study, the first to focus on implementation knowledge of research funders, demonstrates that they are a category of policy-makers who may possess knowledge, based on their previous professional experience, that is comparable to some important findings from implementation research. Consequently, the findings not only pinpoint the relevance of professional experience, but also reveal a lack of awareness and knowledge of the results of implementation research among research funders in charge of healthcare research.

Background: Implementation of clinical research results is challenging, yet the responsibility for implementation is seldom addressed. The process from research to the use of clinical research results in health care can be facilitated by research funders. In this paper, we report the roles of ten Swedish research funders in relation to implementation and their views on responsibilities in implementation., Findings: Ten cases were studied and compared using semi-structured interviews. In addition, websites and key documents were reviewed. Eight facilitative roles for research funders in relation to the implementation of clinical research results were identified. Three of them were common for several funders: "Advocacy work," "Monitoring implementation outcomes," and "Dissemination of knowledge." Moreover, the research funders identified six different actors responsible for implementation, five of which belonged to the healthcare setting. Collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities among the identified actors responsible for implementation., Conclusions: The roles commonly identified by the Swedish funders, "Advocacy work," "Monitoring implementation outcomes," and "Dissemination of knowledge," seem feasible facilitative roles in relation to the implementation of clinical research results. However, many actors identified as responsible for implementation together with the fact that collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities entail a risk of implementation becoming no one's responsibility.