The Circle of Security-Parenting (COS-P) group intervention has demonstrated efficacy in reducing maternal perinatal mental health difficulty (PMHD) symptoms in some contexts. The Circle of Security Intervention (COSI) study, a multisite, individually randomised, single-blind, parallel-arm controlled trial, was conducted in England to assess the clinical effectiveness of COS-P in reducing perinatal psychopathology, parenting and infant development, as well as its acceptability among the National Health Service (NHS) participants and staff. The main aim of this work is to estimate the cost-utility of COS-P plus treatment as usual (TAU) relative to TAU among mothers and birthing parents receiving NHS perinatal mental health services (PMHS) in England.

A within-trial economic evaluation was performed comparing COS-P plus TAU with TAU alone, using data from the COSI trial, which employed a 2:1 randomisation ratio. Analyses were conducted from both NHS and personal social services (PSS) and societal perspectives. A 12-month time horizon was used, consistent with the final trial follow-up.

Secondary care NHS perinatal health services across multiple centres in England.

A total of 371 mothers and birthing parents with PMHD were randomised and had complete economic outcome data; 248 received COS-P plus TAU and 123 received TAU alone. Participants were eligible if they were receiving NHS PMHS; exclusion criteria were defined in the trial protocol.

Participants in the intervention arm received the COS-P group programme in addition to TAU. The control group received TAU alone.

The primary economic outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 12 months, derived from the 5-level EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire - responses. Costs were estimated from NHS and PSS as well as societal perspectives, including healthcare utilisation and productivity losses due to work absence.

Compared with TAU, COS-P was associated with higher costs from both NHS and PSS (£180.58; 95% CI –£1075 to £1436) and societal (£72.94; 95% CI –£1473 to £1619) perspectives. COS-P was marginally less effective in terms of QALYs (–0.01; 95% CI –0.06 to 0.05). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated substantial uncertainty around cost and effectiveness estimates.

On average, COS-P was associated with higher costs and did not demonstrate improvements in health-related quality of life compared with TAU alone. Given the uncertainty surrounding the estimates, further research is warranted to explore potential longer term economic and clinical impacts of COS-P in perinatal mental health settings.

SRCTN18308962.

This study aims at documenting the frequency of reported abuse, stigma and discrimination and exploring the perspectives for improving the quality of maternal-newborn care (QMNC) of migrant mothers’ reporting abuse, stigma or discrimination.

Mixed methods multicentre cross-sectional study.

All maternal facilities (tertiary and secondary levels of care, n=9) from Friuli-Venezia Giulia region, Northeast Italy, between November 2019 and January 2022 in Northeast Italy.

874 migrant and 3968 non-migrant women answering a validated WHO Standard-based questionnaire after birth.

Frequency of reported abuse, stigma and discrimination during facility-based childbirth was calculated and compared with those of non-migrant mothers. Thematic analysis was conducted on eight open questions, using WHO Standards as a framework for the analysis.

Among migrant women, 84 (9.6%) reported some type of abuse, stigma and discrimination, a frequency similar to non-migrant women (9.8%, p=0.880). The most frequently reported was verbal abuse (87.7%), followed by stigma and discrimination (15.1%). Most women (86.9%) provided at least one comment, with a frequency comparable to non-migrant women (p=0.076). Among a total of 327 comments, 104 (31.8%) were practical suggestions for improving QMNC. Experience of care was the domain with the highest frequency both of negative (64.9% of negative comments) and positive comments (51.7% of positive comments) and with the highest frequency of suggestions for improving QMNC (52.9% of suggestions). Overall, suggestions mainly focused on strengthening healthcare professionals’ communication skills, allowing companionship during childbirth, increasing healthcare professionals’ availability and timely support.

This study shows that both migrant and non-migrant mothers are exposed to abuse, stigma and discrimination during childbirth, and that both are willing to provide practical suggestions, which should be used for planning actions to improve QMNC.

Radiological imaging is a central facet of the multidisciplinary evaluation of suspected child physical abuse. Current guidelines for the imaging of suspected child physical abuse are often unclear, incomplete and highly variable regarding recommendations on critical questions, thereby risking clinical heterogeneity, unstructured decision-making and missed diagnoses. We, therefore, aim to develop and report an evidence-based and consensus-derived international guideline for the radiological investigation of index and contact children in the context of suspected physical abuse and to ascertain areas of scientific uncertainty to inform future research priorities.

The international guidelines for the imaging investigation of suspected child physical abuse (IGISPA) consensus group includes formal representation from 127 recognised experts across 14 subspecialties, six continents and 32 national and/or international organisations. Participants will be divided into five longitudinal subgroups (indications for imaging, skeletal imaging, visceral imaging, neuroimaging and postmortem imaging) with three cross-cutting themes (radiography, genetics and adaptations for low- and lower-middle-income countries). Each subgroup will develop preliminary consensus statements via integration of current evidence-based guidelines, systematic literature review and the clinical expertise of a multinational group of experts. Statements will then undergo anonymised voting in a modified e-Delphi process and iterative revision until consensus (≥80% agreement) is achieved. Final statements will undergo both internal and external peer review prior to endorsement.

As an anonymous survey of consenting healthcare professionals, this study did not require ethical approval. Experts provided written informed consent to participate prior to commencement of the modified Delphi process. The IGISPA consensus statement and any subsequent guidance will be published open access in peer-reviewed medical journals.

To assess the feasibility of delivering the swallowing prehabilitation intervention known as Swallowing Intervention Package: Self-Monitoring, Assessment and Rehabilitation Training (SIP SMART) within the National Health Service (NHS) head and neck cancer care pathway.

Two-arm cluster-randomised pilot trial: SIP SMART2 trial.

Adults newly diagnosed with stage II–IV head and neck cancer receiving curative treatment within a multidisciplinary team who agree to participate.

Six hospitals were randomised. Trained clinicians at the intervention sites delivered the manualised SIP SMART intervention, while standard care was provided at care as usual (CAU) sites. The intervention included two 45-minute consultations incorporating an X-ray swallow assessment, tailored exercises/advice and specific behaviour change strategies while CAU involved a single consultation of information giving and provision of a generic exercise sheet.

Study outcomes related to feasibility of the cluster-randomised design, recruitment of both sites and patients and completeness of clinical and health economic data collected at baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks and 24 weeks after treatment.

12 hospitals expressed interest and six were randomised (50%) and provided data to the point of study completion. Patient recruitment across all sites (n=76) reached the target, although two sites fell short of their individual targets. The proportion of people with HNC recruited versus those eligible for each arm was 39% (95% CI 29 to 49) for SIP SMART group and 55% (95% CI 43 to 66) for CAU. The end point data at 24 weeks were completed for 50% (95% CI 33 to 67) for SIP SMART and 78% (95% CI 62 to 89) for CAU. Adherence to the intervention was above 50% at all time points. No harms related to the intervention were reported.

It is feasible to deliver the SIP SMART intervention embedded within the NHS cancer care pathway using a cluster-randomised design. A future trial will be optimised for efficiency in set-up and follow-up data collection based on these findings and learnings from the accompanying process evaluation study.

ISRCTN12377415.