Abstract
. Aim
. A UK programme, led by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). (https://www.nihr.ac.uk) and coordinated by Applied Research Collaborations (ARC), (https://www.nihr.ac.uk/explore-nihr/support/collaborating-in-applied-health-research.htm) aimed to identify and select evidence-based, implementation-ready service innovations for evaluation. The programme focused on seven areas of health provision. We report on a prioritisation process designed to identify and assess innovations in one of these areas: child and maternal health (CH&M).
.
. Methods
. We developed a three-stage, online, stakeholder driven process to 1) identify, 2) assess and prioritise and 3) select evidence-based interventions or service models, using crowdsourcing to identify projects and the APEASE criteria to assess and select projects. A brief evidence review was conducted for all initial suggestions to identify those with the largest evidence-base to take forward for ranking by stakeholders. Stakeholder workshops considered and ranked these suggestions using the APEASE criteria. We then conducted in-depth evidence reviews for the highest ranked suggestions. The Project Management Group and Advisory Board used these reviews and the APEASE criteria to select the final projects.
.
. Results
. We received 32 initial suggestions from a range of clinicians, practitioners and researchers. Fourteen of the most evidence-based suggestions were considered and ranked at four themed stakeholder workshops. Nine suggestions were ranked for further in-depth evidence review and a final four projects were selected for implementation evaluation using the APEASE criteria. These were: 1. Maternal Mental Health Services Multidisciplinary Teams 2. Early years tooth brushing programme 3. Trauma-focused CBT for young people in care and 4. Independent Domestic Violence Advisors in maternity settings. Feedback from participants suggested that having public representatives participating in all stakeholder meetings, rather than being consulted separately, focused discussions clearly on patient benefit rather than research aims.
.
. Conclusions
. The stakeholder-driven process achieved its aim of identifying, prioritising and assessing and selecting, evidence-based projects for wider implementation and evaluation. The concurrent process could be adapted by other researchers or policy makers.
.

OBJECTIVES: Parent carers of children with special educational needs or disability are at risk of poorer mental and physical health. In response to these needs, we codeveloped the 'Healthy Parent Carers' (HPC) programme. This study examined the views and experiences of participants in the HPC feasibility trial to inform programme refinement. INTERVENTION, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: HPC is a peer-led group-based intervention (supported by online materials) for primary carers of disabled children, encouraging behaviours linked with health and well-being. It was delivered by two lead and six assistant peer facilitators in six community sites (one lead and one assistant per group) in South West England over six or 12 sessions. Control participants had online materials only. The trial involved 47 intervention and 45 control parent carers (97% female and 97% white) and eight facilitators (one male). DESIGN: a preplanned mixed methods process evaluation using questionnaires and checklists (during and after the intervention), qualitative interviews with participants after intervention (n=18) and a focus group with facilitators after trial. RESULTS: HPC was highly acceptable to participants and facilitators and experiences were very positive. Participants reported that the programme increased awareness of what parent carers could and could not change and their self-efficacy to engage in health-promoting behaviours. The intended mechanisms of action (social identification and peer support) matched participants' expectations and experiences. Control participants found the online-only programme flexible but isolating, as there were no opportunities to share ideas and problem solve with peers, the key function of the programme. Areas for improvement were identified for programme content, facilitator training and delivery. CONCLUSION: HPC was acceptable, well received and offers considerable potential to improve the health of parent carers. Under the pandemic, the challenge going forward is how best to maintain reach and fidelity to function while delivering a more virtual programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN151144652.

The study, a two-arm, randomized controlled, parallel group, superiority trial, aimed to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a 12-month one-to-one volunteer mentoring program designed to improve behavioral and emotional outcomes in children aged 5 to 11 years who have teacher- and parent/carer-reported behavioral difficulties. Participants were 246 children (123 intervention, 123 control; mean age 8.4 years; 87% boys) in five sites in London, UK, scoring in the "abnormal" range on the teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) Total Difficulties measure and in the "borderline" or abnormal range on the parent-rated SDQ Total Difficulties measure. Randomization on a 1:1 ratio took place using a computer-generated sequence and stratifying by site. Data collectors and statisticians were blind to participant allocation status. Outcome measures focused on parent- and teacher-rated child behavior and emotions, and child-rated self-perception and hope. Intention-to-treat analysis on all 246 randomized participants (using imputed data where necessary) showed that at post-intervention (16 months after randomization), there were no statistically significant effects on the primary outcome-parent-rated SDQ Total Difficulties (adjusted standardized mean difference = - 0.12; 95% CI: -0.38 to 0.13; p = 0.33)-or any secondary outcomes. Results from complier average causal effect (CACE) analysis using the primary outcome indicated the intervention was not effective for children who received the recommended duration of mentoring. Exploratory analyses found no sub-group effects on the primary outcome. The article concludes that the mentoring program had no effect on children's behavior or emotional well-being, and that program content needs revising to satisfactorily address key risk and protective factors.

. Plain English summary
. Background
. Patient and public involvement means researchers working with members of the public, patients or carers to jointly plan and carry out research.
. Aim
. This article is written by members of three involvement groups, and the university employees that they work with. We wanted to jointly reflect on what enables our collaborative work, and what the challenges are for everyone involved.
. What we did and how we did it
. We wanted to establish what the literature defines as ‘good’ public involvement and compare this with processes and practices in our involvement groups. We therefore carried out a literature review and each group met separately to discuss what characterises good involvement, and what the challenges are. From these discussions we developed a set of descriptions about each group. We compared the literature review findings with what came out of the discussions within the involvement groups.
. Findings
. Some of the involvement principles from the literature were similar to the priorities of the involvement groups. In addition, the groups identified characteristics of ‘good’ involvement practice that were not reported in the literature: passion and enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. In this article we present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and difficulties we have experienced.
.
. Abstract
. Background
. Patient and public involvement is important for producing relevant and accessible health research. Evidence of impact from involvement is growing, but there is also a need for research on how to create conditions for meaningful collaborations between researchers and public advisers.
. Objective
. We report on a co-produced self-reflective evaluation of involvement practices in three UK research programmes.
. Methods
. A structured review identified research-based principles for ‘good’ public involvement in research. In parallel, members of three involvement groups co-developed statements on how the groups work, and enablers and challenges to collaborative research. The author team analysed these statements using the findings from the review.
. Results
. We identified 11 international articles reporting research-based principles for involvement published between 2013 and 2017. We identified five ‘values’ and seven ‘practice principles’ for ‘good’ involvement. There was convergence between these principles and the priorities of the involvement groups. But the groups also identified additional good involvement practice that were not reported by the literature: passion, enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. We present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and highlight principles that have been challenging to implement.
. Conclusions
. Ongoing appraisal of public involvement is crucial. We present a process for self-evaluation, illuminate what ‘good’ means to researchers and public advisers involved in research, and identify areas for improvement. We conclude that provision of resources that enable support to public advisers in turn enable universities and research teams to implement other principles of good involvement.
.

Abstract
. Background
. Parent carers of disabled children are at increased risk of mental and physical health problems. They often experience challenges to maintaining good health which have implications for their well-being and their ability to care for their children. In response to these needs, researchers and parent carers developed the Healthy Parent Carers (HPC) programme. It is a peer-led, group-based intervention that promotes behaviours associated with health and well-being. The aims of this trial are to assess the acceptability of the HPC programme and the feasibility of its delivery in the community and to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the design of the definitive trial to evaluate the programme’s effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
.
. Methods
. We will establish six research sites and train facilitators to deliver the manualised intervention. Parent carers of children with special educational needs and disabilities will be individually randomised, stratified by group delivery site, to either take part in a group programme and online resources (intervention) or to receive access to the online resources only (control). Measures of mental health; well-being; health-related quality of life; health behaviours; patient activation; protective factors such as resilience, social connections, and practical support; and use of health care, social care, and wider societal resources will be collected before randomisation (baseline), immediately post-intervention, and 6 months later. Recruitment of participants, adherence to the programme, and the dose received will be assessed. Group sessions will be audio-recorded to evaluate the fidelity of delivery and participant engagement. Participants’ and facilitators’ feedback on the programme content and delivery, their experience, and the acceptability of the outcome measures and trial design will be collected through feedback forms, interviews, and focus groups.
.
. Discussion
. This trial will assess whether the programme delivery and evaluative trial design are feasible, to inform whether to progress to a definitive randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Healthy Parent Carers programme.
.
. Trial registration
. ISRCTN, ISRCTN151144652, registered on 25 October 2018; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03705221, registered on 15 October 2018.
.

for an experimental study of children’s responses to peer provocation, this investigation examined the correlations between children’s observed behaviours and their self-reports of their emotional experiences, expressions, and social goals provided in an interview immediately following the provocation. Participants were 565 children (approximate ages 8, 10, and 12 years old) who were provoked in two ways in an experimental play session: By losing at a computer game they were playing for a desirable prize, and by being taunted by a peer actor. Children’s responses to provocation were reliably coded for verbalisations, facial expressions, and gestures. Results indicated often significant but quite modest correlations between children’s self-reports of their emotional behaviour and their behaviours as coded during the play session. For the magnitude of these correlations, there were not significant developmental differences, and the strength of the correlations did not differ for same- or for other-gender dyads. There was some evidence that for girls, self-reports corresponded to emotional behaviours more strongly than for boys.

BACKGROUND: Bullying refers to verbal, physical or psychological aggression repeated over time that is intended to cause harm or distress to the victims who are unable to defend themselves. It is a key public health priority owing to its widespread prevalence in schools and harmful short- and long-term effects on victims' well-being. There is a need to strengthen the evidence base by testing innovative approaches to preventing bullying. KiVa is a school-based bullying prevention programme with universal and indicated elements and an emphasis on changing bystander behaviour. It achieved promising results in a large trial in Finland, and now requires testing in other countries. This paper describes the protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of KiVa in Wales. METHODS/DESIGN: the study uses a two-arm waitlist control pragmatic definitive parallel group cluster RCT design with an embedded process evaluation and calculation of unit cost. Participating schools will be randomised a using a 1:1 ratio to KiVa plus usual provision (intervention group) or usual provision only (control group). The trial has one primary outcome, child self-reported victimisation from bullying, dichotomised as 'victimised' (bullied at least twice a month in the last couple of months) versus 'not victimised'. Secondary outcomes are: bullying perpetration; aspects of child social and emotional well-being (including emotional problems, conduct, peer relations, prosocial behaviour); and school attendance. Follow-up is at 12 months post-baseline. Implementation fidelity is measured through teacher-completed lesson records and independent school-wide observation. A micro-costing analysis will determine the costs of implementing KiVa, including recurrent and non-recurrent unit costs. Factors related to the scalability of the programme will be examined in interviews with head teachers and focus groups with key stakeholders in the implementation of school-based bullying interventions. DISCUSSION: the results from this trial will provide evidence on whether the KiVa programme is transportable from Finland to Wales in terms of effectiveness and implementation. It will provide information about the costs of delivery and generate insights into factors related to the scalability of the programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN23999021 Date 10-6-13.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: to review the efficacy of child-focused cognitive behavioural interventions for improving outcomes for children who have experienced physical abuse.

. Purpose
. – the purpose of this paper is to describe how and why school-based programmes to prevent or reduce bullying involve parents, and what impact involving parents has on bullying.
.
.
. Design/methodology/approach
. – a review of relevant literature, in particular systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
.
.
. Findings
. – the logic of involving parents in school-based bullying prevention programmes is that this increases the likelihood of parents first, telling schools that their child is being bullied, which in turn enables the school to act appropriately, and second, being able to address bullying-related issues effectively at home. Parent involvement is associated with a reduction in bullying but further research is needed to determine if it is a causal factor. Programmes tend not to include a parenting education and support element, despite negative parenting behaviour being associated with children being a victim or a bully/victim.
.
.
. Practical implications
. – There is good reason to involve parents in school-based bullying prevention. Given the parenting risk factors for bullying perpetration and victimisation, bullying prevention programmes could also usefully offer parenting education and support.
.
.
. Originality/value
. – the paper focuses exclusively on the role of parents in school-based bullying prevention programmes. It articulates the logic of involving parents and summarises the impact of parent involvement.
.

PurposeThis paper seeks to describe a cost‐benefit analysis of early childhood education programmes.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis utilises the best evidence available for early education programmes, combined with data from Washington State and economic literature to determine the monetary implications of these programmes.FindingsThe results indicate that early childhood education can yield benefits that substantially outweigh the costs of the programmes. In addition, these benefits were found to apply in many different public sector areas.Originality/valueThe paper offers an analytic model to determine the long‐term benefits of early intervention programmes.

BACKGROUND: Many approaches are used to address behavioural problems in childhood including medication or, more usually, psychological treatments either directly with the child and/or his/her family. Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural interventions have been shown to be highly effective but access to these treatments is limited due to factors such as time and expense. Presenting the information parents need in order to manage these behaviour problems in booklet or other media-based format would most likely reduce the cost and increase access to these interventions. OBJECTIVES: to review the effects of media-based cognitive-behavioural therapies for any young person with a behavioural disorder (diagnosed using a recognised instrument) compared to standard care and no-treatment controls. SEARCH STRATEGY: the following electronic databases were systematically searched: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2005), EMBASE (1980 to August 2005), PsycINFO (1887 to August 2005), CINAHL (1982 to August 2005), Biosis (1985 to August 2005) and Sociofile (1974 to August 2005). References in all selected trials were checked for other trials and experts in the field were contacted for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (e.g. trials which used sequential randomisation) of media-based behavioural treatments for behaviour problems in children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Abstracts and titles of studies identified from searches of electronic databases were read to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria. Full copies of those possibly meeting these criteria from electronic or other searches were assessed by the reviewers and queries were resolved by discussion. Data were analysed using RevMan 4.2. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies including 943 participants were included within this review. In general, media-based therapies for behavioural disorders in children had a moderate, if variable, effect when compared with both no-treatment controls with effects sizes ranging from -0.12 (-1.65, 1.41) to -32.60 (-49.93, -15.27) and as and adjunct to medication with effect sizes ranging from -2.71 (-5.86, -0.44) to -39.55 (-75.01, -4.09). Significant improvements were made with the addition of up to two hours of therapist time. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: These formats of delivering behavioural interventions for carers of children are worth considering in clinical practice. Media-based interventions may, in some cases, be enough to make clinically significant changes in a child's behaviour, and may reduce the amount of time primary care workers have to devote to each case. They can also be used as the first stage of a stepped care approach. Consequently this would increase the number of families who could possibly benefit from these types of intervention, releasing clinician time that can be reallocated to more complex cases. Media-based therapies would therefore appear to have both clinical and economic implications as regards the treatment of children with behavioural problems.