Joint production of research priorities to improve the lives of those with childhood onset conditions that impair learning: the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership for 'learning difficulties'

Co-production of the 'EPIC' multidimensional tool-kit to support neurodivergent children and young people at home and school: a feasibility and pilot study

BACKGROUND

Interventions focused on cognitive function in neurodivergent children typically focus on single functions, e.g. working memory training. They are often focused on 'deficit' models and lack an emphasis on understanding areas of individual strengths and difficulties as a prerequisite to appropriate support. The multidimensional nature and phenotypic variability of cognitive profiles in these children indicate a need for a multicomponent-tailored intervention programme focused on understanding and supporting an individual child's cognitive functioning.

AIMS

The 'EPIC' intervention (Edinburgh Psychoeducation Intervention for Children and Young People) is focused on improving cognition, learning and behaviour in neurodivergent children such as those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or who are autistic. Building on our previous co-production work, this study aimed to use a participatory methods approach to develop EPIC practices and materials in relation to our key principles which include psychoeducation, multicomponent, individualised approach, strengths and difficulties profiling and pairing of a child's individual strengths and difficulties with internal and external strategies. We also set out to assess the feasibility and acceptability of EPIC, and pilot this novel tool-kit intervention with neurodivergent children and their parents and teachers.

METHODS

The intervention practices, materials and strategies of EPIC were co-produced with neurodivergent children, their parents, teachers and clinicians taking a strengths and difficulties approach. Identification of psychoeducation activities and strategy practices (e.g. mind-maps, chunking), testing of feasibility and collection of pilot data were conducted over a bi-weekly 8-week programme. Eleven neurodivergent children aged 7 to 12 completed the 16-session individualised programme. Acceptability and feasibility were ascertained via qualitative reports elicited within child and teacher interviews and child ratings of enjoyment. Pilot evaluation data was collected pre- and post-intervention participation, and across cognitive assessments (CANTAB, BRIEF), educational attainment (WIAT) and parent and teacher questionnaires measuring clinical symptoms and behaviour (Conners, AQ, SDQ, self-perception). Data was compared with a matched neurodivergent treatment-as-usual control group (N = 9).

RESULTS

The co-produced EPIC intervention was both feasible to deliver and acceptable to children, parents and their teachers. Pilot data identified that the 8-week intervention improved cognition (short-term and working memory) and literacy (receptive vocabulary, oral word fluency, listening comprehension). Improvements in the intervention group were also found for parent-reported child behavioural difficulties and aggression, and teacher-reported scholastic competence. Effect sizes generated (Cohen's d) ranged from 0.65 to 2.83. Parents reported continuing to use EPIC strategies when interviewed over a year after participating in the programme.

CONCLUSION

The current study met our objectives fully. 'EPIC' (Edinburgh Psychoeducation Intervention for Children and Young People) is feasible in home and school contexts and improves a range of aspects of cognition, learning and behaviour in neurodivergent children. Our findings show EPIC is suitable to be assessed within a full-scale trial.

What matters to you? Engaging with children in the James Lind Alliance Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership

BACKGROUND

Previous priority setting exercises have sought to involve children, but in the final reporting, it is evident that few children had been engaged through the process. A primary aim in the Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership was to find out from children what they want research to focus on. We report on our experience to inform methods of engagement with children in future James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships and similar exercises.

METHODS

We followed the James Lind Alliance process, collecting and shortlisting questions via online surveys with adult survivors of childhood cancer, carers, and professionals, and holding a final workshop. Alongside this, a parallel process to collect and prioritise questions from children was undertaken. We created animations for parents/carers to explain the project and surveys to children, gathered questions via online surveys and held a workshop with children to identify their priorities.

RESULTS

Sixty-one children and young people with cancer and 10 siblings, aged 3-21 years, submitted 252 potential questions/topics via the surveys. Submissions were refined into 24 summary questions. These questions were discussed at a workshop with eight children; they also added more questions on topics of importance to them. Workshop participants prioritised the Top 5 questions; top priority was, 'How can we make being in hospital a better experience for children and young people? (like having better food, internet, toys, and open visiting so other family members can be more involved in the child's care)'. The Top 5 also included cancer prevention, treatments closer to home, early diagnosis, and emotional support. These questions were taken to the final workshop at which the Top 10 priorities were decided, all five children's priorities were reflected in the final Top 10.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated that it is possible to successfully involve children directly in setting priorities for future research. Future priority setting exercises on topics relevant to children, should seek to include their views. The Children's Cancer Top 10 priorities reflect the voices of children and should inform the funding of future research.

What interventions should we implement in England's mental health services? The mental health implementation network (MHIN) mixed-methods approach to rapid prioritisation

Introduction

Setting mental health priorities helps researchers, policy makers, and service funders improve mental health services. In the context of a national mental health implementation programme in England, this study aims to identify implementable evidence-based interventions in key priority areas to improve mental health service delivery.

Methods

A mixed-methods research design was used for a three step prioritisation approach involving systematic scoping reviews (additional manuscript under development), expert consultations and data triangulation. Groups with diverse expertise, including experts by experience, worked together to improve decision-making quality by promoting more inclusive and comprehensive discussions. A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) model was used to combine participants' varied opinions, data and judgments about the data's relevance to the issues at hand during a decision conferencing workshop where the priorities were finalised.

Results

The study identified mental health interventions in three mental health priority areas: mental health inequalities, child and adolescent mental health, comorbidities with a focus on integration of mental and physical health services and mental health and substance misuse problems. Key interventions in all the priority areas are outlined. The programme is putting some of these evidence-based interventions into action nationwide in each of these three priority mental health priority areas.

Conclusion

We report an inclusive attempt to ensure that the list of mental health service priorities agrees with perceived needs on the ground and focuses on evidence-based interventions. Other fields of healthcare may also benefit from this methodological approach if they need to make rapid health-prioritisation decisions.

School-based allied health interventions for children and young people affected by neurodisability: a systematic evidence map

PURPOSE

To systematically map available evidence for school-based interventions led by allied health (i.e., occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and/or speech and language therapy).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched for studies in pre-school, primary, secondary, or post-secondary settings, published 2004-2020. We coded study, population, and intervention characteristics. Outcomes were coded inductively, categorised, and linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health.

RESULTS

We included 337 studies (33 countries) in an interactive evidence map. Participants were mainly pre-school and primary-aged, including individuals with neurodisability and whole-school populations. Interventions targeted wide-ranging outcomes, including educational participation (e.g., writing, reading) and characteristics of school environments (e.g., educators' knowledge and skills, peer support). Universal, targeted, and intensive interventions were reported in 21.7%, 38.9%, and 60.2% of studies, respectively. Teachers and teaching assistants delivered interventions in 45.4% and 22.6% of studies, respectively. 43.9% of studies conducted early feasibility testing/piloting and 54.9% had ≤30 participants. Sixty-two randomised controlled trials focused on intervention evaluation or implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

In the United Kingdom, future research should take forward school-based allied health interventions that relate directly to agreed research priorities. Internationally, future priorities include implementation of tiered (universal, targeted, intensive) intervention models and appropriate preparation and deployment of the education workforce. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONAllied health professionals (occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and speech and language therapists) work in schools supporting children and young people affected by neurodisability but the content, impact, and cost-effectiveness of their interventions are not well-understood.We systematically mapped the available evidence and identified that allied health school-based interventions target highly diverse health-related outcomes and wider determinants of children and young people's health, including educational participation (e.g., literacy) and characteristics of the school environment (e.g., educators' knowledge and skills).Our interactive evidence map can be used to help stakeholders prioritise the interventions most in need of further evaluation and implementation research, including tiered models of universal, targeted, and intensive allied health support.Teachers and teaching assistants play a central role in delivering allied health interventions in schools - appropriate preparation and deployment of the education workforce should therefore be a specific priority for future international allied health research.

Involving children and young people in paediatric research priority setting: a narrative review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is twofold: first, to describe the methods used when involving children and young people (CYP) in developing a paediatric research agenda and, second, to evaluate how the existing literature describes the impact of involving CYP. We distinguish three forms of impact: impact on the research agenda (focused impact), impact on researchers and CYP (diffuse impact) and impact on future research (research impact).

DESIGN

A narrative review of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Google Scholar was conducted from October 2016 to January 2022. The included studies involved at least one CYP in developing a research agenda and were published in English.

RESULTS

22 studies were included; the CYP involved were aged between 6 years and 25 years. Little variation was found in the methods used to involve them. The methods used were James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach (n=16), focus groups (n=2), workshop (n=2), research prioritisation by affected communities (n=1) and combined methods (n=1). Impact was rarely described: focused impact in nine studies, diffuse impact in zero studies and research impact in three studies.

CONCLUSION

This study concludes that the JLA approach is most frequently used to involve CYP and that all methods used to involve them are rarely evaluated. It also concludes that the reported impact of involving CYPs is incomplete. This study implies that to convince sceptical researchers of the benefits of involving CYPs and to justify the costs, more attention should be paid to reporting these impacts.

Neuropsychological abilities underpinning academic attainment in children born extremely preterm

Children born extremely preterm (EP) have poorer academic attainment than their term-born peers. There is a need to identify the specific cognitive mechanisms that are associated with poor academic attainment in preterm populations to inform the development of intervention strategies. A parallel mediation analysis was conducted with cross-sectional data from 152 EP children (< 27 weeks of gestation) and 120 term-born controls who were assessed at age 11. Mathematics and reading attainment was assessed using the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test 2nd Edition. Controlling for sex and socio-economic status we evaluated the following mediators: verbal working memory, visuospatial working memory, verbal processing speed, attention, and visuospatial processing. These were assessed using subtests from the standardized NEPSY-II test and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-5th Edition. Verbal working memory, visuospatial working memory, visuospatial processing and verbal processing speed, but not attention, were significant independent mediators between EP birth and attainment in reading. No direct relationship between EP birth and reading attainment remained in the mediated model. All five neuropsychological variables mediated the relationship between EP birth and attainment in mathematics, but a direct effect of EP birth on mathematics remained in the mediated model. Together, all five neuropsychological abilities indirectly explained 44% of the variance in reading and 52% of the variance in mathematics. Visuospatial processing was the strongest mediator of both mathematics and reading. Components of executive function, especially visuospatial processing, are important predictors of academic attainment. Interventions to improve visuospatial skills could be trialed in EP populations.

Psychometric properties of the School Participation Questionnaire: Testing a measure of participation-related constructs

AIM

To explore concurrent validity, convergent validity, interrater reliability, test-retest reliability, and Rasch model analysis of the School Participation Questionnaire (SPQ), a tool for teachers to assess personal and environmental determinants of school participation.

METHOD

Teachers of children with additional support needs, including intellectual disability, autism, and learning difficulties completed measures. Data were collected using the SPQ and the Participation and Environment Measure for Children and Youth (PEM-CY). Test-retest and interrater reliability were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. Concurrent and convergent validity were explored via correlations with the PEM-CY. Further psychometrics were examined using a Rasch model.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-seven children (136 [72.7%] male; mean age 9y [range 5y 6mo-12y 10mo, SD 2y]) were assessed by 67 teachers. Cronbach's alpha, test-retest, and interrater reliability were acceptable-excellent across each SPQ scale (alphas=0.89, 0.9, 0.94, 0.79; test-retest ICCs=0.64, 0.61, 0.78, 0.62; interrater ICCs=0.85, 0.71, 0.90, 0.81). Concurrent and convergent validity were confirmed with significant positive correlations between SPQ and PEM-CY. After Mokken and Rasch model analysis, person and item reliability were good, and unidimensionality was confirmed. Mean administration time was 8.2 minutes.

INTERPRETATION

The results suggest that the SPQ is a rapid, reliable, and valid tool for assessment of participation-related indicators in schools.

Top 10 (plus 1) research priorities for expectant families and those with children to age 24 months in Alberta, Canada: results from the Family Research Agenda Initiative Setting (FRAISE) priority setting partnership project

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to identify the top 10 research priorities for expectant parents and caregivers of children up to age 24 months.

DESIGN

A priority setting partnership using a modified James Lind Alliance approach was implemented. First, a core steering committee was formed, consisting of 17 parents, clinicians and community agency representatives. Second, through in-person collaboration with steering committee members, we developed and distributed a survey to identify research priorities across 12 topics. In total, 596 participants consented and 480 completed the survey. Survey responses were grouped and themed into codes during a consensus-building workshop with steering committee members (n=18). Research and practice experts were consulted to provide feedback on which themes had already been researched. An in-person (n=21) workshop was used to establish the top 34 priorities, which were circulated to the broader steering committee (n=25) via an online survey. Finally, the core steering committee members (n=18) met to determine and rank a top 10 (plus 1) list of research priorities.

SETTING

This study was conducted in Alberta, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Expectant parents and caregivers of children up to age 24 months.

RESULTS

Survey results provided 3232 responses, with 202 unique priorities. After expert feedback and steering committee consensus, a list of 34 priorities was moved forward for final consideration. The final top 10 (plus 1) research priorities included three priorities on mental health/relationships, two priorities on each of access to information, immunity and child development, and one priority on each of sleep, pregnancy/labour and feeding. Selecting 11 instead of 10 priorities was based on steering committee consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings will direct future maternal-child research, ensuring it is rooted in parent-identified priorities that represent contemporary needs. To provide meaningful outcomes, research in these priority areas must consider diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and experiences.

Teachers' knowledge and approaches to supporting preterm children in the classroom

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Teachers in the UK receive little training about the long-term consequences of preterm birth on children's development. Our aim was to assess knowledge and elicit suggestions for improving educational practice in the US by means of a mixed-method study.

METHODS

246 US teachers (92.7% female) completed the validated Preterm Birth - Knowledge Scale (PB-KS). Of the participating teachers, 50.9% reported professional experience with preterm born children. A representative subsample of 35 teachers responded to a case vignette by describing how they would support the child in the classroom. Answers were coded using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, the mean PB-KS score was 15.21 (SD = 5.31). Participating teachers who had professional experience with a preterm child had higher mean PB-KS scores than teachers without (16.95 vs. 15.24, p = .012). Qualitative responses provided specific content for classroom intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that US teachers have limited knowledge of the long-term impact of preterm birth. They provided important indicators for the design of targeted classroom interventions to support the learning of preterm children.

Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work

BACKGROUND

Prioritisation processes are widely used in healthcare research and increasingly in social care research. Previous research has recommended using consensus development methods for inclusive research agenda setting. This research has highlighted the need for transparent and systematic methods for priority setting. Yet there has been little research on how to conduct prioritisation processes using rapid methods. This is a particular concern when prioritisation needs to happen rapidly. This paper aims to describe and discuss a process of rapidly identifying and prioritising a shortlist of innovations for rapid evaluation applied in the field of adult social care and social work.

METHOD

We adapted the James Lind Alliance approach to priority setting for rapid use. We followed four stages: (1) Identified a long list of innovations, (2) Developed shortlisting criteria, (3) Grouped and sifted innovations, and (4) Prioritised innovations in a multi-stakeholder workshop (n = 23). Project initiation through to completion of the final report took four months.

RESULTS

Twenty innovations were included in the final shortlist (out of 158 suggested innovations). The top five innovations for evaluation were identified and findings highlighted key themes which influenced prioritisation. The top five priorities (listed here in alphabetical order) were: Care coordination for dementia in the community, family group conferencing, Greenwich prisons social care, local area coordination and MySense.Ai. Feedback from workshop participants (n = 15) highlighted tensions from using a rapid process (e.g. challenges of reaching consensus in one workshop).

CONCLUSION

The method outlined in this manuscript can be used to rapidly prioritise innovations for evaluation in a feasible and robust way. We outline some implications and compromises of rapid prioritisation processes for future users of this approach to consider.