Assessing the impact of specialist home visiting upon maltreatment in England: a feasibility study of data linkage from a public health trial to routine health and social care data

Nurse-led home-visitation programme for first-time mothers in reducing maltreatment and improving child health and development (BB:2-6): longer-term outcomes from a randomised cohort using data linkage

OBJECTIVES

Measure effectiveness of family nurse partnership (FNP) home-visiting programme in reducing maltreatment and improving maternal health and child health, developmental and educational outcomes; explore effect moderators, mediators; describe costs.

DESIGN

Follow-up of BB:0-2 trial cohort (ISRCTN:23019866) up to age 7 years in England using record linkage.

PARTICIPANTS

1618 mothers aged 19 years or younger and their firstborn child(ren) recruited to BB:0-2 trial at less than 25 weeks gestation and not mandatorily withdrawn from trial or opted out. Intervention families were offered up to a maximum of 64 home visits by specially trained nurses from pregnancy until firstborn child was 2 years old, plus usually provided health and social care support. Comparator was usual care alone.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome: state-verified child-in-need status recorded at any time during follow-up.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

referral to social services, child protection registration (plan), child-in-need categorisation, looked-after status, recorded injuries and ingestions any time during follow-up, early childcare and educational attendance, school readiness and attainment at key stage 1 (KS1), healthcare costs.

RESULTS

Match rates for 1547 eligible children (1517 singletons, 15 sets of twins) were 98.3% (NHS Digital) and 97.4% (National Pupil Database). There was no difference between study arms in the proportion of children being registered as in need (adjusted OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.31), or for any other measure of maltreatment. Children in the FNP arm were more likely to achieve a good level of development at reception age (school readiness) (adjusted OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.52). After adjusting for birth month, children in FNP arm were more likely to reach the expected standard in reading at KS1 (adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.57). We found no trial arm differences for resource use and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

FNP did not improve maltreatment or maternal outcomes. There was evidence of small advantages in school readiness and attainment at KS1.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN23019866.

Early positive approaches to support for families of young children with intellectual disability: the E-PAtS feasibility RCT

Background

Parents of children with intellectual disability are 1.5–2 times more likely than other parents to report mental health difficulties. There is a lack of clinically effective and cost-effective group well-being interventions designed for family carers of young children with intellectual disability.

Aim

To examine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Early Positive Approaches to Support (E-PAtS) intervention.

Design

A feasibility study (including randomisation of families into a two-arm trial), questionnaires to assess the feasibility of proposed outcome measures (including resource use and health-related quality of life) and practitioner/family carer interviews. An additional question was included in an online UK survey of families, conducted by the research team to assess usual practice, and a survey of provider organisations.

Setting

Families recruited from community contexts (i.e. third sector, local authority services, special schools) and self-referral. The E-PAtS intervention was delivered by trained community-based providers.

Participants

Families with at least one child aged 1.5–5 years with an intellectual disability. At least one parent had to have English-language ability (spoken) for E-PAtS programme participation and participants had to provide informed consent.

Interventions

E-PAtS intervention – two caregivers from each family invited to eight 2.5-hour group sessions with usual practice. Usual practice – other support provided to the family, including other parenting support.

Objectives

To assess randomisation willingness/feasibility, recruitment of providers/parents, retention, usual practice, adherence, fidelity and feasibility of proposed outcome measures (including the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale as the proposed primary outcome measure, and parent anxiety/depression, parenting, family functioning/relationships, child behavioural/emotional problems and adaptive skills, child and parent quality of life, and family services receipt as the proposed secondary outcome measures).

Results

Seventy-four families (95 carers) were recruited from three sites (with 37 families allocated to the intervention). From referrals, the recruitment rate was 65% (95% confidence interval 56% to 74%). Seventy-two per cent of families were retained at the 12-month follow-up (95% confidence interval 60% to 81%). Exploratory regression analysis showed that the mean Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale well-being score was 3.96 points higher in the intervention group (95% confidence interval –1.39 to 9.32 points) at 12 months post randomisation. High levels of data completeness were achieved on returned questionnaires. Interviews (n = 25) confirmed that (1) recruitment, randomisation processes and the intervention were acceptable to family carers, E-PAtS facilitators and community staff; (2) E-PAtS delivery were consistent with the logic model; and (3) researchers requesting consent in future for routine data would be acceptable. Recorded E-PAtS sessions demonstrated good fidelity (96% of components present). Adherence (i.e. at least one carer from the family attending five out of eight E-PAtS sessions) was 76%. Health-related quality-of-life and services receipt data were gathered successfully. An online UK survey to assess usual practice (n = 673) showed that 10% of families of young children with intellectual disability received any intervention over 12 months. A provider survey (n = 15) indicated willingness to take part in future research.

Limitations

Obtaining session recordings for fidelity was difficult. Recruitment processes need to be reviewed to improve diversity and strategies are needed to improve primary outcome completion.

Conclusions

Study processes were feasible. The E-PAtS intervention was well received and outcomes for families were positive. A barrier to future organisation participation is funding for intervention costs. A definitive trial to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of E-PAtS would be feasible.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70419473.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Family Nurse Partnership to reduce maltreatment and improve child health and development in young children: the BB:2–6 routine data-linkage follow-up to earlier RCT

Background

The short-term effectiveness (to 24 months post partum) of a preventative home-visiting intervention, the Family Nurse Partnership, was previously assessed in the Building Blocks trial (BB:0–2).

Objectives

The objectives were to establish the medium-term effectiveness of the Family Nurse Partnership in reducing maltreatment and improving maternal health (second pregnancies) and child health, developmental and educational outcomes (e.g. early educational attendance, school readiness); to explore effect moderators and mediators; and to describe the costs of enhancing usually provided health and social care with the Family Nurse Partnership.

Design

Children and their mothers from an existing trial cohort were followed up using routine data until the child was 7 years of age.

Setting

This study was set in 18 partnerships between local authorities and health-care organisations in England.

Participants

The participants were mothers [and their firstborn child(ren)] recruited as pregnant women aged ≤ 19 years, in local authority Family Nurse Partnership catchment areas, at < 25 weeks’ gestation, able to provide consent and able to converse in English. Participants mandatorily withdrawn (e.g. owing to miscarriage) from the BB:0–2 trial were excluded.

Interventions

The intervention comprised up to a maximum of 64 home visits by specially trained family nurses from early pregnancy until the firstborn child was 2 years of age, plus usually provided health and social care support. The comparator was usual care alone.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was child-in-need status recorded at any time during follow-up. The secondary outcomes were as follows: (1) referral to social services, child protection registration (plan), child-in-need categorisation, looked-after status, recorded injuries and ingestions at any time during follow-up; (2) early child care and educational attendance, school readiness (Early Years Foundation Stage Profile score) and attainment at Key Stage 1; and (3) health-care costs.

Data sources

The following data sources were used: maternally reported baseline and follow-up data (BB:0–2), Hospital Episode Statistics data (NHS Digital), social care and educational data (National Pupil Database) and abortions data (Department of Health and Social Care).

Results

There were no differences between study arms in the rates of referral to social services, being registered as a child in need, receiving child protection plans, entering care or timing of first referral for children subsequently assessed as in need. There were no differences between study arms in rates of hospital emergency attendance, admission for injuries or ingestions, or in duration of stay for admitted children. Children in the Family Nurse Partnership arm were more likely to achieve a good level of development at reception age (school readiness), an effect strengthened when adjusting for birth month. Differences at Key Stage 1 were not statistically different, but, after adjusting for birth month, children in the Family Nurse Partnership arm were more likely to reach the expected standard in reading. Programme effects were greater for boys (Key Stage 1: writing); children of younger mothers (Key Stage 1: writing, Key Stage 1: mathematics); and children of mothers not in employment, education or training at study baseline (Key Stage 1: writing). There were no differences between families who were part of the Family Nurse Partnership and those who were not for any other outcome. The differences between study arms in resource use and costs were negligible.

Limitations

The outcomes are constrained to those available from routine sources.

Conclusions

There is no observable benefit of the programme for maltreatment or maternal outcomes, but it does generate advantages in school readiness and attainment at Key Stage 1.

Future work

The trajectory of longer-term programme benefits should be mapped using routine and participant-reported measures.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 9, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.