Estimating the prevalence of child maltreatment is challenging due to the absence of a clear ‘gold standard’ as to what constitutes maltreatment. This systematic review aims to review studies using self-report maltreatment to capture prevalence rates worldwide. PubMed, Ovid SP and grey literature from the NSPCC, UNICEF, The UK Government, and WHO from 2000 to 2017 were searched. The literature review focused on the variation found in self-reported lifetime prevalence for each type of maltreatment between studies by continent and gender, and how methodological differences may explain differences found. Sexual abuse is the most commonly studied form of maltreatment across the world with median (25th to 75th centile) prevalence of 20.4% (13.2% to 33.6%) and 28.8% (17.0% to 40.2%) in North American and Australian girls respectively, with lower rates generally for boys. Rates of physical abuse were more similar across genders apart from in Europe, which were 12.0% (6.9% to 23.0%) and 27.0% (7.0% to 43.0%) for girls and boys respectively, and often very high in some continents, for example, 50.8% (36.0% to 73.8%) and 60.2% (43.0% to 84.9%) for girls and boys respectively in Africa. Median rates of emotional abuse were nearly double for girls than boys in North America (28.4% vs 13.8% respectively) and Europe (12.9% vs 6.2% respectively) but more similar across genders groups elsewhere. Median rates of neglect were highest in Africa (girls: 41.8%, boys: 39.1%) and South America (girls: 54.8%, boys: 56.7%) but were based on few studies in total, whereas in the two continents with the highest number of studies, median rates differed between girls (40.5%) and boys (16.6%) in North America but were similar in Asia (girls: 26.3%, boys: 23.8%). Median prevalence rates differ substantially by maltreatment category, gender and by continent. The number of studies and available data also varies and relatively little is known about prevalence for some forms of maltreatment, particularly outside of the North American context. Prevalence rates require caution in interpretation as some variation will reflect methodological differences, including the data collection methods, and how the maltreatment is defined.

Background: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a common and significant problem for patients, clinicians, and healthcare services. Recurrent UTIs (rUTIs) are common, with a 3% prevalence in the UK. Although acute UTIs have a significant negative impact on the lives of patients, evidence of the impact of rUTIs is limited. To enhance shared decision-making around rUTI management, it is important to understand both the patients’ and healthcare professionals’ (HCPs’) perspectives. The objective of this qualitative evidence synthesis is to understand patients’ and HCPs’ experiences and views in the management of rUTIs. Methods: A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) was performed that included primary qualitative studies involving patients with rUTIs or primary care HCPs who manage patients with rUTIs, up to June 2022. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, ASSIA, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, OpenGrey, and the Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC). The QES was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022295662). Reciprocal translation was conducted and developed into a line of argument synthesis. We appraised the confidence in our review findings by using GRADE-CERQual. Results: Twelve studies were included in the final review; ten of those included patients, and three included HCPs (one study included both). Our review demonstrates that women with rUTIs have a unique experience, but it is generally of a chronic condition with significant impacts on numerous aspects of their lives. Antibiotics can be “transformative”, but patients have serious concerns about their use and feel non-antibiotic options need further research and discussion. HCPs share similar views about the impacts of rUTIs and concerns about antibiotic use and find the management of rUTIs to be complex and challenging. Based on our GRADE-CERQual assessment of the review findings, we have moderate confidence in those related to patients and low confidence in those related to HCPs. New conceptual models for both patients and HCPs are presented. Conclusions: This review has significant clinical implications. Patients require information on antibiotic alternative acute and preventative treatments for rUTIs, and this is not currently being addressed. There are communication gaps around the impact of rUTIs on patients, their perceived expectation for antibiotics, and the reasons for treatment failure. Further development of current clinical guidance and a patient decision aid would help address these issues.

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is a major cause of maternal morbidity. Bleeding is caused by a combination of physical causes, such as failure of the uterus to contract or operations, and is made worse by impairment of the blood clotting system. A number of studies have shown that low levels of the blood clotting factor fibrinogen are associated with progression of bleeding, the need for invasive interventions and transfusions of red blood cells and fresh frozen plasma (FFP). This trial will investigate whether early infusion of fibrinogen concentrate during a major PPH, with the aim of correcting a low fibrinogen to a level that is normal for delivery, based on the Fibtem test, reduces the total number of allogeneic blood products (red blood cells, FFP, cryoprecipitate and platelets) transfused after study medication until discharge, compared to placebo. This is a prospective, randomised, double-blind placebo controlled trial. Women will enter an observational phase and if their Fibtem levels fall they will be randomised in the interventional phase. A total of 60 women will be randomised and women are eligible for the trial if they meet all of the following inclusion criteria: age 18 years or over, gestation ≥24 + 0 weeks, haemorrhage of about 1500 ml and on-going bleeding without another complication or haemorrhage of about 1000 ml and caesarean section/uterine atony/placental abruption/placenta praevia/cardiovascular instability or microvascular oozing. Participants with a Fibtem A5 < 16 mm will be randomly allocated to receive either a bolus infusion of fibrinogen concentrate or placebo (isotonic saline). The dose of fibrinogen concentrate or placebo will be calculated based on the woman’s ideal body weight for height and the measured Fibtem A5 with the aim of increasing the Fibtem A5 to 23 mm. The trial aims to provide evidence on the efficacy and safety of fibrinogen concentrate during acute bleeding in an obstetric setting. ISRCTN ref: ISRCTN46295339 (01.07.2013); EudraCT: 2012-005511-11 (28.11.2012), UKCRN ref: 13940.

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.

Worldwide, cancer screening faced significant disruption in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. If this has led to changes in public attitudes towards screening and reduced intention to participate, there is a risk of long-term adverse impact on cancer outcomes. In this study, we examined previous participation and future intentions to take part in cervical and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening following the first national lockdown in the UK.