Background: Adapting interventions that have worked elsewhere can save resources associated with developing new interventions for each specific context. While a developing body of evidence shows benefits of adapted interventions compared with interventions transported without adaptation, there are also examples of interventions which have been extensively adapted, yet have not worked in the new context. Decisions on when, to what extent, and how to adapt interventions therefore are not straightforward, particularly when conceptualising intervention effects as contingent upon contextual interactions in complex systems. No guidance currently addresses these questions comprehensively. To inform development of an overarching guidance on adaptation of complex population health interventions, this systematic review synthesises the content of the existing guidance papers. Methods: We searched for papers published between January 2000 and October 2018 in 7 bibliographic databases. We used citation tracking and contacted authors and experts to locate further papers. We double screened all the identified records. We extracted data into the following categories: descriptive information, key concepts and definitions, rationale for adaptation, aspects of adaptation, process of adaptation, evaluating and reporting adapted interventions. Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers, and retrieved data were synthesised thematically within pre-specified and emergent categories. Results: We retrieved 6694 unique records. Thirty-eight papers were included in the review representing 35 sources of guidance. Most papers were developed in the USA in the context of implementing evidence-informed interventions among different population groups within the country, such as minority populations. We found much agreement on how the papers defined key concepts, aims, and procedures of adaptation, including involvement of key stakeholders, but also identified gaps in scope, conceptualisation, and operationalisation in several categories. Conclusions: Our review found limitations that should be addressed in future guidance on adaptation. Specifically, future guidance needs to be reflective of adaptations in the context of transferring interventions across countries, including macro- (e.g. national-) level interventions, better theorise the role of intervention mechanisms and contextual interactions in the replicability of effects and accordingly conceptualise key concepts, such as fidelity to intervention functions, and finally, suggest evidence-informed strategies for adaptation re-evaluation and reporting. Trial registration: PROSPERO 2018, CRD42018112714.

Concern is growing regarding frequent and excessive misuse of alcohol by young people. The average age at which young people in Europe start to drink is twelve and a half, and during the last decade, the quantity of alcohol consumed by younger adolescents in the UK has increased. Families are known to play an important role in shaping young people's alcohol misuse, although family risk and protective factors associated with misuse in a UK context are in need of further investigation.

Process evaluations generate important data on the extent to which interventions are delivered as intended. However, the tendency to focus only on assessment of pre-specified structural aspects of fidelity has been criticised for paying insufficient attention to implementation processes and how intervention-context interactions influence programme delivery. This paper reports findings from a process evaluation nested within a randomised controlled trial of the Strengthening Families Programme 10–14 (SFP 10–14) in Wales, UK. It uses Extended Normalisation Process Theory to theorise how interaction between SFP 10–14 and local delivery systems - particularly practitioner commitment/capability and organisational capacity - influenced delivery of intended programme activities: fidelity (adherence to SFP 10–14 content and implementation requirements); dose delivered; dose received (participant engagement); participant recruitment and reach (intervention attendance). A mixed methods design was utilised. Fidelity assessment sheets (completed by practitioners), structured observation by researchers, and routine data were used to assess: adherence to programme content; staffing numbers and consistency; recruitment/retention; and group size and composition. Interviews with practitioners explored implementation processes and context. Adherence to programme content was high - with some variation, linked to practitioner commitment to, and understanding of, the intervention’s content and mechanisms. Variation in adherence rates was associated with the extent to which multi-agency delivery team planning meetings were held. Recruitment challenges meant that targets for group size/composition were not always met, but did not affect adherence levels or family engagement. Targets for staffing numbers and consistency were achieved, though capacity within multi-agency networks reduced over time. Extended Normalisation Process Theory provided a useful framework for assessing implementation and explaining variation by examining intervention-context interactions. Findings highlight the need for process evaluations to consider both the structural and process components of implementation to explain whether programme activities are delivered as intended and why.

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 inPublic Health Research; Vol. 9, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Many looked after young people in Wales are cared for by foster or kinship carers, usually as a consequence of maltreatment or developmentally traumatising experiences within a family context. Confidence in Care is a pragmatic unblinded individually randomised controlled parallel group trial evaluating a training programme to improve foster carer self-efficacy, when compared to usual care. To determine whether group-based training improves foster carer self-efficacy. Participants are foster carers, currently looking after children aged 2+ years for at least 12 weeks. Carers from households where one or more carer had previously attended the training were not eligible. Sixteen local authorities and three independent fostering providers in Wales took part. The primary outcome measure was the Carer Efficacy Questionnaire assessed at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, Quality of Attachment Questionnaire, Carer Defined Problems Scale, Carer Coping Strategies, placement moves. 312 consented foster carers were allocated to FC (n = 204) or usual care (n = 108) group. 65.3 % of FC group participants attended sufficient training sessions (8/12, including sessions three and four). There were no differences in carer-reported self-efficacy at 12 months (adjusted difference in means (95 % CI): -0.19 (-1.38 to 1.00)). Small differences in carer-reported child behaviour difficulties and carer coping strategies over time favoured the intervention but these effects diminished from three to 12 months. No other intervention effects were observed. Although well-received by participants, training was associated with small and mostly short-term benefit for trial secondary outcomes.