Search

Abstract Background At least 3% of children spend some of their childhood in public care and, as a group, have poor outcomes across a range of education, employment, health and social care outcomes. Research, using social care or government datasets, has identified a number of risk factors associated with children entering public care but the utility of risk factors in clinical practice is not established. This paper uses routine primary health care data to see if risk factors for children entering public care can be identified in clinical practice. Methods A nested case control methodology using routine primary care data from the United Kingdom. Health service use data were extracted for the 12 months before the case child entered public care and compared with 12 months of data for four control mother child pairs per case pair, matched on the age and sex of the child and the general practice. Exposures of interest were developed from a systematic review of the literature on risk factors associated with children entering public care. Results Conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the combined effect of more than one exposure of interest. Maternal mental illness (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.55-4.05), maternal age at birth of the child, socio-economic status (5th quintile vs. 1st quintile OR 7.14, 95% CI 2.92-17.4), maternal drug use (OR 28.8, 95% CI 2.29-363), non attendance at appointments (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.42-4.14), child mental illness (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.42-4.96) and child admission to hospital (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.21-9.02) were all significantly associated with children entering public care. Maternal use of primary care contraception services was negatively associated with children entering public care (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31-0.87). Conclusions Differences in health service use can be identified from routine primary care data in mother child pairs where children enter public care after controlling for maternal age and socio-economic status. The interaction between different risk factors needs testing in a cumulative risk model using longitudinal datasets.

Abstract Background The majority of children with disability live in low and middle income (LAMI) countries. Although a number of important reviews of childhood disability in LAMI countries have been published, these have not, to our knowledge, addressed the association between childhood disability and the home socio-economic circumstances (SEC). The objective of this study is to establish the current state of knowledge on the SECs of children with disability and their households in LAMI countries through a systematic review and quality assessment of existing research. Methods Electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; PUBMED; Web of Knowledge; PsycInfo; ASSIA; Virtual Health Library; POPLINE; Google scholar) were searched using terms specific to childhood disability and SECs in LAMI countries. Publications from organisations including the World Bank, UNICEF, International Monetary Fund were searched for. Primary studies and reviews from 1990 onwards were included. Studies were assessed for inclusion, categorisation and quality by 2 researchers. Results 24 primary studies and 13 reviews were identified. Evidence from the available literature on the association between childhood disability and SECs was inconsistent and inconclusive. Potential mechanisms by which poverty and low household SEC may be both a cause and consequence of disability are outlined in the reviews and the qualitative studies. The association of poor SECs with learning disability and behaviour problems was the most consistent finding and these studies had low/medium risk of bias. Where overall disability was the outcome of interest, findings were divergent and many studies had a high/medium risk of bias. Qualitative studies were methodologically weak. Conclusions This review indicates that, despite socially and biologically plausible mechanisms underlying the association of low household SEC with childhood disability in LAMI countries, the empirical evidence from quantitative studies is inconsistent and contradictory. There is evidence for a bidirectional association of low household SEC and disability and longitudinal data is needed to clarify the nature of this association.

Abstract Background Sub-optimal parenting is a common risk factor for a wide range of negative health, social and educational outcomes. Most parenting programmes have been developed in the USA in the context of delinquency prevention for targeted or indicated groups and the main theoretical underpinning for these programmes is behaviour management. The Family Links Nurturing Programme (FLNP) focuses on family relationships as well as behaviour management and is offered on a universal basis. As a result it may be better placed to improve health and educational outcomes. Developed in the UK voluntary sector, FLNP is popular with practitioners, has impressed policy makers throughout the UK, has been found to be effective in before/after and qualitative studies, but lacks a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence base. Methods/Design A multi-centre, investigator blind, randomised controlled trial of the FLNP with a target sample of 288 south Wales families who have a child aged 2-4 yrs living in or near to Flying Start/Sure Start areas. Changes in parenting, parent child relations and parent and child wellbeing are assessed with validated measures immediately and at 6 months post intervention. Economic components include cost consequences and cost utility analyses based on parental ranking of states of quality of life. Attendance and completion rates and fidelity to the FLNP course delivery are assessed. A nested qualitative study will assess reasons for participation and non-participation and the perceived value of the programme to families. By the end of May 2010, 287 families have been recruited into the trial across four areas of south Wales. Recruitment has not met the planned timescales with barriers including professional anxiety about families entering the control arm of the trial, family concern about video and audio recording, programme facilitator concern about the recording of FLNP sessions for fidelity purposes and delays due to the new UK research governance procedures. Discussion Whilst there are strong theoretical arguments to support universal provision of parenting programmes, few universal programmes have been subjected to randomised controlled trials. In this paper we describe a RCT protocol with quantitative and qualitative outcome measures and an economic evaluation designed to provide clear evidence with regard to effectiveness and costs. We describe challenges implementing the protocol and how we are addressing these. Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13919732

Objective: Evaluating effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 'Families for Health V2' (FFH) compared with usual care (UC).Design: Multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) (investigators blinded, families unblinded) and economic evaluation. Stratified randomisation by family; target of 120 families.Setting: Three National Health Service Primary Care Trusts in West Midlands, England.Participants: Overweight or obese (≥91st or ≥98th centile body mass index (BMI)) children aged 6-11 years and their parents/carers, recruited March 2012-February 2014.Interventions: FFH; a 10-week community-based family programme addressing parenting, lifestyle change and social and emotional development. UC; usual support for childhood obesity at each site.Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were 12-months change in children's BMI z-score and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALY). Secondary outcomes included changes in children's physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption and quality of life, parents' BMI and mental well-being, family eating/activity, parent-child relationships and parenting style.Results: 115 families (128 children) were randomised to FFH (n=56) or UC (n=59). There was no significant difference in BMI z-score 12-months change (0.114, 95% CI -0.001 to 0.229, p=0.053; p=0.026 in favour of UC with missing value multiple imputation). One secondary outcome, change in children's waist z-score, was significantly different between groups in favour of UC (0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29). Economic evaluation showed that mean costs were significantly higher for FFH than UC (£998 vs £548, p<0.001). Mean incremental cost-effectiveness of FFH was estimated at £552 175 per QALY.Conclusions: FFH was neither effective nor cost-effective for the management of obesity compared with UC.Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN45032201. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]