Parental domestic violence and abuse (DVA), mental ill-health (MH), and substance misuse (SU) are three public health issues that tend to cluster within families, risking negative impacts for both parents and children. Despite this, service provision for these issues has been historically siloed, increasing the barriers families face to accessing support. Our review aimed to identify family focused interventions that have combined impacts on parental DVA, MH, and/or SU. We searched 10 databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Education Research Information Centre, Sociological Abstracts, Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from inception to July 2021 for randomised controlled trials examining the effectiveness of family focused, psychosocial, preventive interventions targeting parents/carers at risk of, or experiencing, DVA, MH, and/or SU. Studies were included if they measured impacts on two or more of these issues. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 was used to quality appraise studies, which were synthesised narratively, grouped in relation to the combination of DVA, MH, and/or SU outcomes measured. Harvest plots were used to illustrate the findings. Thirty-seven unique studies were identified for inclusion. of these, none had a combined positive impact on all three outcomes and only one study demonstrated a combined positive impact on two outcomes. We also found studies that had combined adverse, mixed, or singular impacts. Most studies were based in the U.S. targeted mothers, and were rated as ‘some concerns’ or ‘high risk’ of bias. The results highlight the distinct lack of evidence for, and no ‘best bet’, family focused interventions targeting these often-clustered risks. This may, in part, be due to the ways interventions are currently conceptualised or designed to influence the relationships between DVA, MH, and/or SU. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020210350.

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.

. 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.
.