Rebecca Nowland

Parent-led interventions are used to address child mental health, but it is unclear whether, or how, children have been involved in their development and evaluation. This review describes methods used to involve children (5–12 years), summarising outcomes and reflections and provides recommendations for best practice and further research. Searches were conducted in five databases in October 2023 and March 2025. Searches of key organisation websites, Google searching, and requests for articles via social media were also conducted. Eligible studies involved children (5–12 years) in the development and/or evaluation of parent-led interventions aimed at preventing or treating child mental health problems delivered in any setting. Study findings were combined using narrative synthesis and shared with children in participatory focus groups (17 children aged 8–11 years, 70.6% male). Review and focus group findings were combined into practice recommendations. From 9,647 studies retrieved, 16 were included. Most were evaluation studies ( n = 12) involving children via self-reported outcome measures. Four studies involved children in development, with methodologies including workshops, interviews and feasibility testing. Reporting of outcomes from the co-design process was limited but revealed the importance of creative, art-based parent-mediated activities and rewards for progress. Early involvement in intervention design, use of interactive child-specific co-design workshops, and involvement of children with lived experience are recommended. While involving children may require increased planning and time, benefits include increased acceptance, credibility, parental engagement and feasibility. Future research should include greater detail on codesign methods and effectiveness, to enable more extensive understanding of best practice.

Objectives: Loneliness and low social support are associated with poor mental health in the perinatal period (pregnancy and one year postnatal). However, no reviews have explored systematically whether interventions aimed at improving perinatal mental health also improve loneliness and/or social support satisfaction (SSS). We aimed to address this gap in the literature, to improve our understanding of mechanisms underlying interventions addressing perinatal mental health and loneliness and/or SSS. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to address perinatal mental health and also measuring either loneliness or SSS. We searched six electronic databases and eight grey literature sources. Two reviewers independently screened papers for eligibility and assessed risk of bias. Findings were presented as a narrative synthesis. Results: Of 6,422 unique retrieved records, we included 26 eligible studies (measuring both mental health and either loneliness or SSS). Of these, four studies measured mental health and loneliness, 21 measured mental health and SSS, and one measured mental health and both loneliness and SSS. Only eight of the 26 included studies were deemed to present low risk of bias. Of 17 included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), six identified significant improvements in loneliness/SSS compared to controls, but only three of these also identified significant improvements in anxiety and/or depression. Interventions with some evidence of effectiveness in improving loneliness/SSS were those facilitated by professionals, whilst those with some evidence of effectiveness in improving mental health were those that involved peer contact. Only one study conducted formal mediation analysis to delineate the pathways between these outcomes, finding no support for their hypothesis that an improvement in SSS mediates a reduction in depression. Conclusion: We found evidence that some (but not all) interventions that address perinatal mental health also improve loneliness and/or SSS. We found little empirical work to explain the pathways between these variables. Our findings suggest the need for further work exploring the relationships between loneliness/SSS and mental ill-health among perinatal parents. This will identify opportunities to prevent the onset or worsening of mental ill-health in parents (and their children) at risk of mental health problems.

Objectives New parents are at increased risk of loneliness, which adversely affects parental and infant health and well-being and has been linked to an increased likelihood of parental mental illness. In the UK, perinatal mental illness is estimated to cost £8.1bn a year, predominantly due to lasting poor health and developmental consequences for children. The purpose of this consensus statement is to determine the state of this research field, highlighting key issues for researchers, policymakers and those responsible for perinatal mental health services and interventions. We will also highlight knowledge gaps to be addressed in future perinatal loneliness research. Design, setting and participants The Parental Loneliness Research Group held six online meetings between October 2023 and May 2024, attended by academics and practitioners from the UK and USA. Attendees conducted a mapping exercise by appraising published, unpublished and ongoing perinatal loneliness research. The findings were shared with advisory groups, including parents with lived experience of loneliness. A consensus statement was then drafted, reflecting existing knowledge and gaps in the current evidence about the experience of perinatal loneliness in the first 1001 days. Results A consensus about the definitions, measurement, prevalence, antecedents, impacts and interventions relevant to perinatal loneliness is outlined. Gaps in the literature are highlighted. Conclusions Despite emerging research into perinatal loneliness, it is hard to determine prevalence due to limited analyses of national survey data. Recommendations for future research include secondary data analysis; prioritising equality, diversity and inclusion; reconsidering solutions to perinatal loneliness through a social justice lens; co-producing interventions, and rigorous evaluation of existing interventions.

The benefits of cycling as a means of active transport are well known, and there is recent UK Government interest in promoting cycling. Few children in the UK cycle to school, and little research has explored the factors that affect this. This systematic review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators for children cycling to school in the UK. We searched seven electronic databases and grey literature for sources, from 2010 onwards. In total 16 papers/articles were included. The capabilities approach (CA) was used as a framework for analysis to identify personal, social, and environmental barriers and facilitators. Personal barriers and facilitators centred around gender and age, but also related to concerns about safety or confidence. Social barriers and facilitators related to parental attitudes and wider social norms. Environmental barriers included distance, infrastructure, and deprivation. Using the CA revealed the complex interweaving of factors that must be addressed by interventions seeking to promote children’s cycling to school. For example, parental fears about children’s safety when cycling are linked to prevailing social norms and to local cycling infrastructure. Local authorities can promote cycling by developing well-connected accessible and safe cycle routes, but this alone is likely to be insufficient. Schools can enhance personal, social, and environmental conversion factors by developing and implementing active transport plans, increasing children’s personal competences, reassuring parental fears, and providing secure storage and changing facilities. Further research exploring how barriers can be addressed, together with local and national policies and targeted funding which focus on facilitation of cycling to school are warranted.

Introduction Social media influencers (SMIs) are popular sources of online information on various topics, including many aspects of health. Recently, there has been an upsurge in SMIs creating content about pregnancy and parenting, including from midwives, pregnant women and parents. Despite its popularity, SMI content on pregnancy and parenting is not currently regulated, which allows for misinformation and potential harm to women and their children. Research has also found that most women do not discuss the information they access online with their healthcare providers. This is the first scoping review to map the existing evidence on SMIs in the context of pregnancy and early parenting. Methods and analysis The scoping review will be conducted from May to December 2024 and reported using guidance from Arksey and O’Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. 10 academic databases will be searched for relevant studies, using keywords and subject headings for the concepts of “social media”, “influencers”, “pregnancy” and “parenting.” All primary and secondary research studies of pregnancy and early parenting SMIs will be included. Two authors will screen the identified studies for eligibility. The risk of bias of the included studies will not be assessed. Extracted data will be presented in tables and will be described narratively. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was not needed for this scoping review. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences, posted on social media and presented to relevant groups. Registration details The review is registered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/7v4qb https://osf.io/7v4qb)

Objective: This review will i) describe methods used to involve children in the development and/or evaluation of parent-focused interventions to prevent or treat child mental health problems; ii) summarize the perspectives of children or adults about these methods; iii) highlight any reported enablers and barriers; and iv) identify guidance and make recommendations for further research. Introduction: Parent-focused interventions (where children are not primarily involved or are excluded) have been implemented to address various child mental health outcomes. However, it is unclear to what extent, and to what end, children have been involved in developing and evaluating such interventions. Engaging children in formative research activities, with or without their parents, has the potential to improve quality and implementation of the interventions. Inclusion criteria: Eligible studies will involve children (5–12 years) in the development and/or evaluation of parent-focused interventions aimed at preventing or treating common child mental health problems (eg, anxiety, depression, ADHD, disruptive behavior) delivered in any setting (eg, school, community, home, health facility). Eligible interventions may include one or more psychosocial practice elements targeting behavioral, cognitive, emotional, interpersonal, social, and/or environmental factors implicated in the onset and maintenance of child mental health problems. Methods: Comprehensive searches will be conducted in 5 electronic databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus). Gray literature will be sourced using Google as well as through searches of key organization websites and via notifications on social media. Only English-language primary studies will be considered. Findings across a range of methodologies will be charted and combined into a narrative synthesis. Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x9376/

Background: Becoming a parent has been highlighted as a period associated with increased risks for loneliness, with around one-third of parents reporting feeling lonely often or always. However, as most understanding of loneliness is based on elderly ...

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021) resulted in isolation due to social distancing rules and lockdowns, during which technology was used to enable families and friends to maintain contact. Despite loneliness being high in parents, little is known about which parents are more likely to experience loneliness and strategies to support them.MethodThis mixed-methods study examines which parents were lonely during the pandemic and how digital technologies were used to reduce loneliness and social isolation. Data were collected during the first UK lockdown from May to July 2020 via an online survey (N = 145) and follow-up interviews (n = 13).ResultsLoneliness reported during lockdown was greater than retrospective reporting of loneliness for all respondents, but it was higher in single parents, those caring for children with specific needs, and those with lower household incomes before and during lockdown. Parents rapidly adapted to and experimented with using technology for social connection during the lockdown, which helped to reduce feelings of isolation and loneliness. Video calling was found to be useful for making connections and enhancing social presence, but parents also experienced anxieties and difficulties with its use. There were mixed views about technology use; some were keen to continue using technology for socializing after the lockdown ended, but for others, it was only a temporary measure.ConclusionAlthough technology was invaluable during the pandemic, it was not a panacea, and the way parents used it was influenced by their approach to technology and existing social behaviors and networks.

Background: Establishing and maintaining relationships and ways of connecting and being with others is an important component of health and wellbeing. Harnessing the relational within caring, supportive, educational, or carceral settings as a systems response has been referred to as relational practice. Practitioners, people with lived experience, academics and policy makers, do not yet share a well-defined common understanding of relational practice. Consequently, there is potential for interdisciplinary and interagency miscommunication, as well as the risk of policy and practice being increasingly disconnected. Comprehensive reviews are needed to support the development of a coherent shared understanding of relational practice. Method: This study uses a scoping review design providing a scope and synthesis of extant literature relating to relational practice focussing on organisational and systemic practice. The review aimed to map how relational practice is used, defined and understood across health, criminal justice, education and social work, noting any impacts and benefits reported. Searches were conducted on 8 bibliographic databases on 27 October 2021. English language articles were included that involve/discuss practice and/or intervention/s that prioritise interpersonal relationships in service provision, in both external (organisational contexts) and internal (how this is received by workers and service users) aspects. Results: A total of 8010 relevant articles were identified, of which 158 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the synthesis. Most were opinion-based or theoretical argument papers (n = 61, 38.60%), with 6 (3.80%) critical or narrative reviews. A further 27 (17.09%) were categorised as case studies, focussing on explaining relational practice being used in an organisation or a specific intervention and its components, rather than conducting an evaluation or examination of the effectiveness of the service, with only 11 including any empirical data. Of the included empirical studies, 45 were qualitative, 6 were quantitative, and 9 mixed methods studies. There were differences in the use of terminology and definitions of relational practice within and across sectors. Conclusion: Although there may be implicit knowledge of what relational practice is the research field lacks coherent and comprehensive models. Despite definitional ambiguities, a number of benefits are attributed to relational practices. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021295958