Child-focused psychosocial interventions for anger and aggression in children under 12 years of age (Protocol)

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:

To evaluate the effectiveness of child-focused psychosocial interventions for anger and aggression in children under 12 years of age.

The effectiveness, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for maltreated children and adolescents: An evidence synthesis

DESIGN We will address our research objectives by searching the published and unpublished literature and conducting an evidence synthesis of i) studies of the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions provided for children and adolescents who have suffered maltreatment, ii) economic evaluations of these interventions and iii) studies of their acceptability to children, adolescents and their carers. SEARCH STRATEGY: Evidence will be identified via electronic databases for health and allied health literature, social sciences and social welfare, education and other evidence based depositories, and economic databases. We will identify material generated by user-led,voluntary sector enquiry by searching the internet and browsing the websites of relevant UK government departments and charities. Additionally, studies will be identified via the bibliographies of retrieved articles/reviews; targeted author searches; forward citation searching. We will also use our extensive professional networks, and our planned consultations with key stakeholders and our study steering committee. Databases will be searched from inception to time of search. REVIEW STRATEGY Inclusion criteria: 1) Infants, children or adolescents who have experienced maltreatment between the ages of 0 17 years. 2) All psychosocial interventions available for maltreated children and adolescents, by any provider and in any setting, aiming to address the sequelae of any form of maltreatment, including fabricated illness. 3) For synthesis of evidence of effectiveness: all controlled studies in which psychosocial interventions are compared with no-treatment, treatment as usual, waitlist or other-treated controls. For a synthesis of evidence of acceptability we will include any design that asks participants for their views or provides data on non-participation. For decision-analytic modelling we may include uncontrolled studies. Primary and secondary outcomes will be confirmed in consultation with stakeholders. Provisional primary outcomes are psychological distress/mental health (particularly PTSD, depression and anxiety, self-harm); ii) behaviour; iii) social functioning; iv) cognitive / academic attainment, v) quality of life, and vi) costs. After studies that meet the inclusion criteria have been identified (independently by two reviewers), data will be extracted and risk of bias (RoB) assessed (independently by two reviewers) using the Cochrane Collaboration RoB Tool (effectiveness), quality hierarchies of data sources for economic analyses (cost-effectiveness) and the CASP tool for qualitative research (acceptability). Where interventions are similar and appropriate data are available (or can be obtained) evidence synthesis will be performed to pool the results. Where possible, we will explore the extent to which age, maltreatment history (including whether intra- or extra-familial), time since maltreatment, care setting (family / out-of-home care including foster care/residential), care history, and characteristics of intervention (type, setting, provider, duration) moderate the effects of psychosocial interventions. A synthesis of acceptability data will be undertaken, using a narrative approach to synthesis. A decision-analytic model will be constructed to compare the expected cost-effectiveness of the different types of intervention identified in the systematic review. We will also conduct a Value of information analysis if the data permit. EXPECTED OUTPUTS: A synthesis of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for maltreated children (taking into account age, maltreatment profile and setting) and their acceptability to key stakeholders.

Psychosocial interventions for reducing the harmful effects of war and conflict-related violence on young children aged 0-11 years (Protocol)

Children living in a conflict-affected society can be exposed to daily violence in their communities and, as such, may be at risk of a range of harmful effects. Psychosocial interventions in conflict-affected areas aim to improve outcomes for children and can be treatment or prevention focused. The literature mainly focuses on psychological effects e.g. PTSD or anxiety disorders. Until recently, rather less attention was paid to the influence of mediating variables (cultural context or personal capacity) and their importance in reducing harmful effects.

This systematic review will assess the effectiveness of interventions in reducing the harmful effects of war and conflict-related violence on young children. It will also determine whether the interventions have differential effects depending on age and gender.

Children living in conflict-affected societies have unique needs for support and services. As such, any intervention delivered should be designed and implemented using the best available evidence. Professionals, policy makers and service provider will benefit from this review as to ‘what works’ for this vulnerable population and further exploration (via a Ph.D.) is planned to further extend the impact of this review.

Parent education and home-based behaviour analytic intervention: an examination of parents' perceptions of outcome

There is convincing evidence that applied behaviour analysis (ABA) offers a highly effective form of intervention for children with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). There is less evidence, however, about how parents perceive and evaluate ABA programmes. In this paper an examination of parents’ perceptions of outcome is reported. Twenty-two questionnaires were completed by two groups of parents. The first group had just completed an introductory course in ABA and were in the early stages of implementing ABA programmes with their children. The second group had been involved in ABA education for more than 2 years. Overall, both groups of parents reported a positive impact of ABA on the lives of their children, their family life, and themselves. The long- term group reported that they had achieved complex goals with their children, whilst the short-term group reported an immediate positive impact on child and family functioning and parental self-esteem. Conclusions are drawn in the context of evidence-based practice.

The contribution of qualitative research in designing a complex intervention for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in two different healthcare systems

Background: Developing complex interventions for testing in randomised controlled trials is of increasing importance in healthcare planning. There is a need for careful design of interventions for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). It has been suggested that integrating qualitative research in the development of a complex intervention may contribute to optimising its design but there is limited evidence of this in practice. This study aims to examine the contribution of qualitative research in developing a complex intervention to improve the provision and uptake of secondary prevention of CHD within primary care in two different healthcare systems.

Methods: In four general practices, one rural and one urban, in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, patients with CHD were purposively selected. Four focus groups with patients (N = 23) and four with staff (N = 29) informed the development of the intervention by exploring how it could be tailored and integrated with current secondary prevention activities for CHD in the two healthcare settings. Following an exploratory trial the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention were discussed in four focus groups (17 patients) and 10 interviews (staff). The data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results: Integrating qualitative research into the development of the intervention provided depth of information about the varying impact, between the two healthcare systems, of different funding and administrative arrangements, on their provision of secondary prevention and identified similar barriers of time constraints, training needs and poor patient motivation. The findings also highlighted the importance to patients of stress management, the need for which had been underestimated by the researchers. The qualitative evaluation provided depth of detail not found in evaluation questionnaires. It highlighted how the intervention needed to be more practical by minimising administration, integrating role plays into behaviour change training, providing more practical information about stress management and removing self-monitoring of lifestyle change.

Conclusion: Qualitative research is integral to developing the design detail of a complex intervention and tailoring its components to address individuals' needs in different healthcare systems. The findings highlight how qualitative research may be a valuable component of the preparation for complex interventions and their evaluation.

Development of a Complex Intervention for Secondary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease in Primary Care Using the UK Medical Research Council Framework

Objective: To apply the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for development and evaluation of trials of complex interventions to a primary healthcare intervention to promote secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Study Design: Case report of intervention development. Methods: First, literature relating to secondary prevention and lifestyle change was reviewed. Second, a preliminary intervention was modeled, based on literature findings and focus group interviews with patients (n = 23) and staff (n = 29) from 4 general practices. Participants’ experiences of and attitudes toward key intervention components were explored. Third, the preliminary intervention was pilot-tested in 4 general practices. After delivery of the pilot intervention, practitioners evaluated the training sessions, and qualitative data relating to experiences of the intervention were collected using semistructured interviews with staff (n = 10) and patient focus groups (n = 17). Results: Literature review identified 3 intervention components: a structured recall system, practitioner training, and patient information. Initial qualitative data identified variations in recall system design, training requirements (medication prescribing, facilitating behavior change), and information appropriate to the prospective study participants. Identifying detailed structures within intervention components clarified how the intervention could be tailored to individual practice, practitioner, and patient needs while preserving the theoretical functions of the components. Findings from the pilot phase informed further modeling of the intervention, reducing administrative time, increasing practical content of training, and omitting unhelpful patient information. Conclusion: Application of the MRC framework helped to determine the feasibility and development of a complex intervention for primary care research.