Suchergebnisse

AbstractGroup Stepping Stones Triple P (GSSTP), is an evidence‐based intervention for parents of children with intellectual disability that aims to improve child behavioural difficulties. GSSTP was designed to be delivered face‐to‐face, but during the COVID‐19 pandemic some services started delivering it remotely. The evidence base for remote intervention is growing, but few studies have focused on the experiences of practitioners delivering the interventions and the consequences of their service provision. We aimed to explore UK practitioners' experiences of delivering remotely GSSTP. The objectives were to identify the advantages and disadvantages of remote GSSTP, to determine whether adjustments were made to enable delivery, and to assess perceived acceptability. Participants were identified using consecutive sampling from the Triple P UK practitioner network. Eleven practitioners, who had experience of delivering GSSTP remotely and face‐to‐face, reported their experiences in an online survey. Ten participants also took part in semi‐structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. According to 55% of practitioners, parent attendance had increased with remote delivery, and 73% of practitioners found remote GSSTP equally or more effective than face‐to‐face. Survey findings about managing parent engagement remotely were mixed and building rapport with patients was considered equally or more difficult remotely. The key themes from the thematic analysis were the practitioners' 'sincere enthusiasm' over the advantages of the remote GSSTP provision, the 'person‐centered strategies' that characterised their practice, the emergence of 'remote delivery as the way forward' for parenting services and finally, the 'challenges of remote delivery'. Remote GSSTP was perceived to be acceptable to participants and practitioners; the advantages of remote delivery appeared to outweigh the disadvantages. Practitioners reported strategies to prompt engagement and recreate group interactions in the remote setting that could be integrated in the practice of other group parenting providers.

Abstract
Purpose
Core Outcome Sets (COS) are agreed sets of outcomes to be used in all trials that evaluate the effect of interventions. This report considers the added value of including grey and qualitative literature in a study to identify COSs of family-focused interventions for CM and DVA.

Methods
We identified outcomes of interventions for DVA or CM through systematically searching 12 academic databases and 86 organisation websites, leading to the inclusion of 485 full-text reports across 6 reviews. We developed a candidate outcome longlist comprising 347 extracted outcomes.

Results
We identified 87% (282/347) of candidate outcomes from the grey and qualitative literature, and 37% (127/347) from the trial literature. Of the candidate outcomes on the longlist, 22% (75/347) were identified solely from the grey or qualitative literature and 7% (26/347) from trial literature. Three of the eight outcomes in the final core outcome sets may have been missed if grey or qualitative literature had not been searched.

Conclusions
The qualitative and grey literature adds DVA and CM outcomes that are relevant to survivor perspectives but not reported in trials; this had an impact on the final COSs. It is important for COS developers to consider what they may be missing if they do not search the qualitative and grey literature.