Background: Research suggests there is a high prevalence of anxiety and depression amongst patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, which can influence the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs. It is therefore important for clinicians involved in musculoskeletal rehabilitation programs to consider screening patients for elevated levels of anxiety and depression and to provide appropriate counselling or treatment where necessary. The HADS has been used as a screening tool for assessment of anxiety and depression in a wide variety of clinical groups. Recent research however has questioned its suitability for use with some patient groups due to problems with dimensionality and the behaviour of individual items. The aim of this study is to assess the underlying structure and psychometric properties of the HADS among patients attending musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Methods: Data was obtained from 296 patients attending an outpatient musculoskeletal pain clinic. The total sample was used to identify the proportion of patients with elevated levels of anxiety and depression. Half the sample (n = 142) was used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA), with the holdout sample (n = 154) used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to explore the underlying structure of the scale. Results: A substantial proportion of patients were classified as probable cases on the HADS Anxiety subscale (38.2%) and HADS Depression subscale (30.1%), with the sample recording higher mean HADS subscales scores than many other patient groups (breast cancer, end-stage renal disease, heart disease) reported in the literature. EFA supported a two factor structure (representing anxiety and depression) as proposed by the scale's authors, however item 7 (an anxiety item) failed to load appropriately. Removing Item 7 resulted in a clear two factor solution in both EFA and CFA. Conclusion: The high levels of anxiety and depression detected in this sample suggests that screening for psychological comorbidity is important in musculoskeletal rehabilitation settings. It is necessary for clinicians who are considering using the HADS as a screening tool to first assess its suitability with their particular patient group. Although EFA and CFA supported the presence of two subscales representing anxiety and depression, the results with this musculoskeletal sample suggest that item 7 should be removed from the anxiety subscale.

Background and Aims Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for children (aged ≤ 18 years) present methodological challenges. PROMs can be categorised by their diverse underlying conceptual bases, including functional, disability and health (FDH) status; quality of life (QoL); and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Some PROMs are designed to be accompanied by preference weights. PROMs should account for childhood developmental differences by incorporating age-appropriate health/QoL domains, guidance on respondent type(s) and design. This systematic review aims to identify generic multidimensional childhood PROMs and synthesise their characteristics by conceptual basis, target age, measurement considerations, and the preference-based value sets that accompany them. Methods The study protocol was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021230833), and reporting followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We conducted systematic database searches for generic multidimensional childhood PROMs covering the period 2012–2020, which we combined with published PROMs identified by an earlier systematic review that covered the period 1992–2011. A second systematic database search identified preference-based value sets for generic multidimensional PROMs. The PROMs were categorised by conceptual basis (FDH status, QoL and HRQoL) and by target age (namely infants and pre-schoolers aged < 5 years, pre-adolescents aged 5–11, adolescents aged 12–18 and multi-age group coverage). Descriptive statistics assessed how PROM characteristics (domain coverage, respondent type and design) varied by conceptual basis and age categories. Involvement of children in PROM development and testing was assessed to understand content validity. Characteristics of value sets available for the childhood generic multidimensional PROMs were identified and compared. Results We identified 89 PROMs, including 110 versions: 52 FDH, 29 QoL, 12 HRQoL, nine QoL-FDH and eight HRQoL-FDH measures; 20 targeted infants and pre-schoolers, 29 pre-adolescents, 24 adolescents and 37 for multiple age groups. Domain coverage demonstrated development trajectories from observable FDH aspects in infancy through to personal independence and relationships during adolescence. PROMs targeting younger children relied more on informant report, were shorter and had fewer ordinal scale points. One-third of PROMs were developed following qualitative research or surveys with children or parents for concept elicitation. There were 21 preference-based value sets developed by 19 studies of ten generic multidimensional childhood PROMs: seven were based on adolescents’ stated preferences, seven were from adults from the perspective of or on behalf of the child, and seven were from adults adopting an adult’s perspective. Diverse preference elicitation methods were used to elicit values. Practices with respect to anchoring values on the utility scale also varied considerably. The range and distribution of values reflect these differences, resulting in value sets with notably different properties. Conclusion Identification and categorisation of generic multidimensional childhood PROMs and value sets by this review can aid the development, selection and interpretation of appropriate measures for clinical and population research and cost-effectiveness-based decision-making.

Background: Large-scale partnerships between universities and health services are widely seen as vehicles for bridging the evidence–practice gap and for accelerating the adoption of new evidence in healthcare. Recently, different versions of these partnerships – often called academic health science centres – have been established across the globe. Although they differ in structure and processes, all aim to improve the integration of research and education with health services. Collectively, these entities are often referred to as Research Translation Centres (RTCs) and both England and Australia have developed relatively new and funded examples of these collaborative centres. Methods: This paper presents findings from a rapid review of RTCs in Australia and England that aimed to identify their structures, leadership, workforce development and strategies for involving communities and service users. The review included published academic and grey literature with a customised search of the Google search engine and RTC websites. Results: RTCs are complex system-level interventions that will need to disrupt the current paradigms and silos inherent in healthcare, education and research in order to meet their aims. This will require vision, leadership, collaborations and shared learnings, alongside structures, processes and strategies to deliver impact in the face of complexity. The impact of RTCs in overcoming the deeply entrenched silos across organisations, disciplines and sectors needs to be captured at the systems, organisation and individual levels. This includes workforce capacity and public and patient involvement that are vital to understanding the evolution of RTCs. In addition, new models of leadership are needed to support the brokering and mobilisation of knowledge in complex organisations. Conclusions: The development and funding of RTCs represents one of the most significant shifts in the health research landscape and it is imperative that we continue to explore how we can progress the integration of research and healthcare and ensure research meets stakeholder needs and is translated via the collaborations supported by these organisations. Because RTCs are a recent addition to the healthcare landscape in Australia, it is instructive to review the processes and infrastructure needed to support their implementation and applied health research in England.

Background: Worldwide, women seldom reach the recommended target of exclusive breastfeeding up to 6 months postpartum. The aim of the current study was to update a previously published review that presented a conceptual and methodological synthesis of interventions designed to promote exclusive breastfeeding up to 6 months in high-income countries. Materials and Methods: A systematic search of leading databases was conducted for scholarly, peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trials published from June 2013 to December 2016. Twelve new articles were identified as relevant; all were published in English and assessed exclusive breastfeeding with a follow-up period extending beyond 4 months postpartum. Articles were analyzed for overall quality of evidence in regard to duration of exclusive breastfeeding, using the Grading and Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results: A significant increase in the duration of exclusive breastfeeding was found in 4 of the 12 studies. All four successful interventions had long-duration postpartum programs, implemented by telephone, text message, or through a website. Some of the successful interventions also included prenatal education or in-hospital breastfeeding support. Conclusions: Results from this review update correspond closely with previous findings, in that all of the successful interventions had lengthy postnatal support or an education component. More studies assessed intervention fidelity than in the previous review; however, there was little discussion of maternal body–mass index. While a pattern of successful interventions is beginning to emerge, further research is needed to provide a robust evidence base to inform future interventions, particularly with overweight and obese women.

Background: Informant discrepancies have been reported between parent and adolescent measures of depressive disorders and suicidality. We aimed to examine the concordance between adolescent and parent ratings of depressive disorder using both clinical interview and questionnaire measures and assess multi-informant and multi-method approaches to classification. Method: Within the context of assessment of eligibility for a randomized clinical trial, 50 parent–adolescent pairs (mean age of adolescents = 15.0 years) were interviewed separately with a structured diagnostic interview for depression, the KID-SCID. Adolescent self-report and parent-report versions of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire and the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire were also administered. We examined the diagnostic concordance rates of the parent vs. adolescent structured interview methods and the prediction of adolescent diagnosis via questionnaire methods. Results: Parent proxy reporting of adolescent depression and suicidal thoughts and behavior is not strongly concordant with adolescent report. Adolescent self-reported symptoms on depression scales provide a more accurate report of diagnosable adolescent depression than parent proxy reports of adolescent depressive symptoms. Adolescent self-report measures can be combined to improve the accuracy of classification. Parents tend to over report their adolescent’s depressive symptoms while under reporting their suicidal thoughts and behavior. Conclusion: Parent proxy report is clearly less reliable than the adolescent’s own report of their symptoms and subjective experiences, and could be considered inaccurate for research purposes. While parent report would still be sought clinically where an adolescent refuses to provide information, our findings suggest that parent reporting of adolescent suicidality should be interpreted with caution.