Dataset Information

A health-education intervention to improve outcomes for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties: protocol for a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

One in seven (14%) children aged 4-17 years old meet criteria for a mental illness over a 12-month period. The majority of these children have difficulty accessing clinical assessment and treatment despite evidence demonstrating the importance of early intervention. Schools are increasingly recognised as universal platforms where children with mental health concerns could be identified and supported. However, educators have limited training or access to clinical support in this area.

Methods and analysis

This study is a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a co-designed health and education model aiming to improve educator identification and support of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Twelve Victorian government primary schools representing a range of socio-educational communities will be recruited from metropolitan and rural regions, with half of the schools being randomly allocated to the intervention. Caregivers and educators of children in grades 1-3 will be invited to participate. The intervention is likely to involved regular case-based discussions and paediatric support.

Ethics and dissemination

Informed consent will be obtained from each participating school, educator and caregiver. Participants are informed of their voluntary participation and ability to withdrawal at any time. Participant confidentiality will be maintained and data will be secured on a password protected, restricted access database on the Murdoch Children's Research Institute server. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. Schools and caregivers will be provided with a report of the study outcomes and implications at the completion of the study.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12621000652875.

SUBMITTER: Garvey W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9226964 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The majority of young autistic children display impairing emotional and behavioural difficulties that contribute to family stress. There is some evidence that behavioural parenting interventions are effective for reducing behavioural difficulties in autistic children, with less evidence assessing change in emotional difficulties. Previous trials have tended to use unblinded parent-report measures as primary outcomes and many do not employ an active control, limiting the conclusions that can be drawn. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Autism Spectrum Treatment and Resilience study is a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing the specific effect of a 12-week group parenting intervention (Predictive Parenting) on primary and secondary outcomes, in comparison to an attention control condition consisting of psychoeducation parent groups. Following a feasibility study to test research procedures and the interventions, the pilot RCT participants include 60 parents of autistic children aged 4-8 years who are randomised to Predictive Parenting versus the attention control. Measures are administered at baseline and post intervention to assess group differences in child and parent outcomes, costs and service use and adverse events. The primary outcome is an objective measure of child behaviours that challenge during interactions with their parent and a researcher. The trial aims to provide data on recruitment, retention, completion of measures and acceptability of the intervention and research protocol, in addition to providing a preliminary indication of potential efficacy and establishing an effect size that could be used to power a larger-scale efficacy trial. We will also provide preliminary estimates of the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval was granted from NHS Camden and Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee (ref: 16/LO/1769) along with NHS R&D approval from South London and Maudsley, Guy's and St Thomas', and Croydon Health Services NHS Trusts. The findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN91411078.

Project description:Adolescence offers a window of opportunity during which improvements in health behaviours could benefit long-term health, and enable preparation for parenthood-albeit a long way off, passing on good health prospects to future children. This study was carried out to evaluate whether an educational intervention, which engages adolescents in science, can improve their health literacy and behaviours. A cluster-randomised controlled trial of 38 secondary schools in England, UK was conducted. The intervention (LifeLab) drew on principles of education, psychology and public health to engage students with science for health literacy, focused on the message "Me, my health and my children's health". The programme comprised: • Professional development for teachers. • A 2-3 week module of work for 13-14-year-olds. • A "hands-on" practical health science day visit to a dedicated facility in a university teaching hospital. Data were collected from 2929 adolescents (aged 13-14 years) at baseline and 2487 (84.9%) at 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome was change in theoretical health literacy from pre- to 12 months post- intervention. This study is registered (ISRCTN71951436) and the trial status is complete. Participation in the LifeLab educational intervention was associated with an increase in the students' standardised total theoretical health literacy score (adjusted difference between groups = 0.27 SDs (95%CI = 0.12, 0.42)) at 12-month follow-up. There was an indication that intervention participants subsequently judged their own lifestyles more critically than controls, with fewer reporting their behaviours as healthy (53.4% vs. 59.5%; adjusted PRR = 0.94 [0.87, 1.01]). We conclude that experiencing LifeLab led to improved health literacy in adolescents and that they demonstrated a move towards a more critical judgement of health behaviour 12 months after the intervention. Further work is needed to examine whether this leads to sustained behaviour change, and whether other activities are needed to support this change.

Project description:IntroductionNon-specific neck pain causes pain and disability and contributes substantial socioeconomic burden internationally. Up to 50% of adults experience neck pain annually, leading to reduced the quality of life. An active behavioural physiotherapy intervention (ABPI) may be feasible to manage patients with acute non-specific neck pain to prevent transition to chronicity. A recent pilot and feasibility trial investigating an acute whiplash-associated disorder population found potential value of the ABPI with 95% of participants fully recovered (Neck Disability Index: NDI ?4, compared with 17% in the standard physiotherapy arm); supporting a definitive trial. Qualitative findings from the physiotherapists supported the potential of the ABPI in a non-specific neck pain population.Methods and analysisTwo phases: (1) Pragmatic cluster randomised double-blind, parallel 2-arm (ABPI vs standard physiotherapy intervention) pilot and feasibility trial to evaluate the procedures and feasibility of the ABPI for the management of acute non-specific neck pain. Six physiotherapy departments from six public hospitals in Thailand will be recruited and cluster randomised by a computer-generated randomisation sequence with block sampling. Sixty participants (30 each arm, 10 per hospital) will be assessed at baseline and 3 months following baseline for NDI, Numerical Rating Scale for pain intensity, cervical range of motion, fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire and EuroQol-5 dimensions 5 levels outcomes, and (2) Embedded qualitative study using semistructured interviews to explore acceptability of the ABPI to participants (n=12) and physiotherapists (n=3). Descriptive analysis of the quantitative data and interpretative phenomenological analysis to code and analyse qualitative data (deductive and inductive) will inform feasibility for a future definitive trial.Ethics and disseminationThis trial is approved by the Naresuan University Institutional Review Board (NUIRB_0380/61).Trial registration number and statusTCTR20180607001; Recruiting commenced 1 February 2019.

Project description:BackgroundSupporting self-management behaviours is recommended guidance for people with asthma. Preliminary work suggests that a brief, intensive, patient-centred intervention may be successful in supporting people with asthma to participate in life roles and activities they value. We seek to assess the feasibility of undertaking a cluster-randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of a brief, goal-setting intervention delivered in the context of an asthma review consultation.Methods/designA two armed, single-blinded, multi-centre, cluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial will be conducted in UK primary care. Randomisation will take place at the practice level. We aim to recruit a total of 80 primary care patients with active asthma from at least eight practices across two health boards in Scotland (10 patients per practice resulting in ~40 in each arm). Patients in the intervention arm will be asked to complete a novel goal-setting tool immediately prior to an asthma review consultation. This will be used to underpin a focussed discussion about their goals during the asthma review. A tailored management plan will then be negotiated to facilitate achieving their prioritised goals. Patients in the control arm will receive a usual care guideline-based review of asthma. Data on quality of life, asthma control and patient confidence will be collected from both arms at baseline and 3 and 6 months post-intervention. Data on health services resource use will be collected from all patient records 6 months pre- and post-intervention. Semi-structured interviews will be carried out with healthcare staff and a purposive sample of patients to elicit their views and experiences of the trial. The outcomes of interest in this feasibility trial are the ability to recruit patients and healthcare staff, the optimal method of delivering the intervention within routine clinical practice, and acceptability and perceived utility of the intervention among patients and staff.Trial registrationISRCTN18912042.

Project description:Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of feedback on safety of prescribing compared with moderately enhanced usual care.Design Three arm, highly pragmatic cluster randomised trial.Setting and participants 262/278 (94%) primary care practices in three Scottish health boards.Interventions Practices were randomised to: "usual care," consisting of emailed educational material with support for searching to identify patients (88 practices at baseline, 86 analysed); usual care plus feedback on practice's high risk prescribing sent quarterly on five occasions (87 practices, 86 analysed); or usual care plus the same feedback incorporating a behavioural change component (87 practices, 86 analysed).Main outcome measures The primary outcome was a patient level composite of six prescribing measures relating to high risk use of antipsychotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, and antiplatelets. Secondary outcomes were the six individual measures. The primary analysis compared high risk prescribing in the two feedback arms against usual care at 15 months. Secondary analyses examined immediate change and change in trend of high risk prescribing associated with implementation of the intervention within each arm.Results In the primary analysis, high risk prescribing as measured by the primary outcome fell from 6.0% (3332/55 896) to 5.1% (2845/55 872) in the usual care arm, compared with 5.9% (3341/56 194) to 4.6% (2587/56 478) in the feedback only arm (odds ratio 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.96) compared with usual care; P=0.007) and 6.2% (3634/58 569) to 4.6% (2686/58 582) in the feedback plus behavioural change component arm (0.86 (0.78 to 0.95); P=0.002). In the pre-specified secondary analysis of change in trend within each arm, the usual care educational intervention had no effect on the existing declining trend in high risk prescribing. Both types of feedback were associated with significantly more rapid decline in high risk prescribing after the intervention compared with before.Conclusions Feedback of prescribing safety data was effective at reducing high risk prescribing. The intervention would be feasible to implement at scale in contexts where electronic health records are in general use.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01602705.