Suchergebnisse

PURPOSE: The Children in Need Census (CIN) is a case-based administrative dataset on children referred to social care services in England. CIN includes information on the 'needs' of children, and whether they received social care support. Local and national government bodies in England currently use CIN for evaluation purposes. Data are accessible to researchers under certain conditions, allowing researchers to investigate the health implications of adverse childhood experiences. However, CIN suffers from lack of metadata, meaning it can be challenging for researchers to process and interpret data, particularly if researchers are unfamiliar with the English children's social care system. To address this issue, we provide the background to CIN and describe the available data from 2008 to 2016. PARTICIPANTS: CIN is derived from case records held by English local authorities on all children referred to children's social care for a 'needs assessment', regardless of whether they are eventually assessed as 'in need of social care support'. Local authorities submit these case records to the UK Department for Education for collation. CIN holds information on an estimated 2.76 million children from October 2008 to March 2016. Since 2013/2014, just under 900 000 children have been recorded in the CIN annually, equivalent to around 8% of children in England (annual prevalence). Approximately, 650 000 children enter or renter the dataset each year, equivalent to 5% of children in England (annual incidence). DATA SUMMARY: Of the estimated 2.76 million children in the data, 50% are male and 47% female. 45% are referred to children's social care services due to abuse or neglect. 10.7% of children in CIN went onto a child protection plan, meaning they were judged to be (at risk of) suffering significant harm. FUTURE PLANS: CIN data collection is annual and ongoing. Data from the most recent census period typically become available for researchers in the following Spring.

ObjectivesThe evidence-base for inter-related paternal and child health trajectories is not supported by linked, routinely collected administrative data in England. We conducted a scoping review to identify methods used globally for linking fathers and children in administrative data for public health research and map these methods onto dimensions of fatherhood.
ApproachWe searched PubMed, Scopus and Google/Google Scholar for articles published 2000-2020 from OECD countries that link fathers' and children's records in administrative data. Search terms included for example: "father" and "administrative data" or "record linkage". The exposures of interest were any demographic, health, or other characteristics of fathers during their offspring's childhood or prior to birth captured within administrative data. We included studies where paternal information came from fathers' linked records and if outcomes were related to child health and development (e.g. educational attainment, behavioural outcomes, hospital admissions) measured before 18 years of age.
ResultsWe identified 77 studies that quantified the association between paternal exposures and child health and development outcomes, using linked administrative data on fathers and their children. Four methods have been used globally to link fathers and children across vital statistics, health, social care, education, and criminal justice records. These methods are based on personal identity numbers (PINs), address or household identifiers, information from birth registrations, or health claims. We mapped what we can learn from these different linkages to dimensions of fatherhood identified through a conceptual framework. For example, for the linkage method based on address/household identifiers, co-residency may be used as a proxy for all dimensions of paternal involvement. However, substantial assumptions are needed when using linkage methods as proxies for paternal involvement.
ConclusionIn many settings, changes in practice (such as recording fathers' National Health Service numbers on hospital birth notifications in England) are required to facilitate linkage of father-child health data at the population level. This would help advance fatherhood research and enable targeted service offers to new fathers.

This study uses observations of team meetings and interviews with 17 primary care professionals in four GP practices in England to generate hypotheses about how "vulnerable family" team meetings might support responses by GPs to maltreatment-related concerns and joint working with other professionals. These meetings are also called "safeguarding meetings". The study found that vulnerable family meetings were used as a way of monitoring children or young people and their families and supporting risk assessment by information gathering. Four factors facilitated the meetings: meaningful information flow into the meetings from other agencies, systematic ways of identifying cases for discussion, limiting attendance to core members of the primary care team and locating the meeting as part of routine clinical practice. Our results generate hypotheses about a model of care that can be tested for effectiveness in terms of service measures, child and family outcomes, and as a potential mechanism for other professionals to engage and support GPs in their everyday responses to vulnerable and maltreated children. The potential for adverse as well as beneficial effects should be considered from involving professionals outside the core primary care team (e.g., police, children's social care, education and mental health services).

Examining whether it''s possible to eradicate child maltreatment, this book draws on on global research and evidence-based practice across health, social welfare and education. It describes a range of current approaches to prevention and early intervention and presents the case for a public health approach to overcoming child maltreatment

BackgroundThe health visiting service in England leads the government's Healthy Child Programme (HCP) for children under five years. Local authorities and their provider partners deliver this service differently across England.
ObjectiveTo describe local authority variation in the delivery of health visiting to children under five years in England (2018-2020).
MethodsWe used publicly available statistics on mandated health visiting contacts, and administrative data from the Community Services Dataset (CSDS) on duration, location, and medium of contacts. We mapped population coverage of mandated contacts (new birth visit, 6-8-week review, one-year review, and 2-2½ -year review) and described the frequency and characteristics of mandated and additional contacts across local authorities.
ResultsBased on publicly available data, almost all eligible children received their new birth visit, 6-8-week review and one-year review (89%-99%), with substantial variation across local authorities in children receiving he 2-2½ -year review: median 81%, range 33%-98%. Based on CSDS, 80% of local authorities (n=46/57) delivered more additional than mandated contacts: a median of 1.6 additional contacts (range: 0.1-8.5) were delivered for each mandated contact. There was also significant variation in the duration of contacts and the percentage of contacts delivered face-to-face and at home.
ConclusionsDespite decreases in funding and workforce since 2015, in 2018--2020, health visiting teams reached nearly all babies and most children face-to-face via mandated contacts, and conducted over one and a half times the number of additional contacts relative to mandated contacts, with variation between local areas. This represents a significant public health infrastructure to support the health and development of babies and children and the wellbeing of their families in the critical period before school. Our study highlights the importance of taking into account additional contacts. Further work is needed to understand variation, including in the way additional contacts are used.