Background: Population-wide newborn blood spot screening programmes are a successful public health intervention used to detect whether the baby is at risk of certain rare conditions, with the aim of earlier diagnosis and provision of optimal care and treatment. Evaluating candidate conditions to include in newborn blood spot and genetic sequencing raises questions regarding acceptability to parents/carers. Methods: In the context of the possible expansion of the newborn blood spot screening programme in the United Kingdom, this review aimed to systematically review research on the acceptability to parents of newborn blood spot screening and genetic sequencing. A protocol was developed prior to commencing the review and was registered on the PROSPERO database. A team of researchers carried out the review, with checking at all stages carried out by at least two individuals. We included research published after 2013 with participants who were pregnant or a recent parent of a newborn and were resident in a high-income country. We included quantitative and qualitative studies that investigated the acceptability to parents/carers of newborn blood spot screening or genetic sequencing. Quantitative studies were narratively synthesised, and theories/frameworks identified and evaluated. Qualitative studies were analysed for recurring themes, and a meta-synthesis was carried out to compare and contrast these two types of data. We quality appraised included articles using tools appropriate for their study design. Results: Searches were carried out in September to November 2023 and screening identified 25 relevant research articles. Just over half were from North America, with four existing reviews and nine qualitative studies. Domains of acceptability described in the literature were: support for screening; level of anxiety, information and knowledge; consent; views of the procedure; and support after screening. The research indicated consensus support for blood spot screening, and for expanding to some other conditions, although some parental anxiety was reported. Parents/carers mostly perceived that they had received sufficient information, but the timing of this could be improved. While parents indicated interest in genomic screening, studies highlighted the need for clearer consent procedures and greater support for parents following genomic screening than for blood spot screening. Only three included studies reported using any kind of theoretical framework. Discussion: Most parents/carers found newborn blood spot screening programmes to be acceptable and favoured their large-scale implementation. A minority of parents/carers expressed concerns regarding the acceptability of processes underpinning newborn blood spot screening, such as consent, the timing of receiving information and support available after testing. More research is needed regarding the acceptability of newborn genomic sequencing screening programmes, which are less established compared with newborn blood spot screening programmes. Limitations: The over-representation of studies conducted in the United States has implications for the applicability of findings to other countries where testing is not typically mandatory and health systems differ considerably. Most studies were of cross-sectional design and there was limited representation of people from lower incomes and non-white ethnicity. While the inclusion of studies only in populations of future or very recent parents provided coherence to the findings, unclear reporting of participants may have resulted in under- or overinclusion of some studies. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR159927.

BACKGROUND: Group trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy (TF-CBT) is widely used to treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children and adolescents. However, the available evidence remains unclear. METHOD: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations, LILACS, and international trial registers were searched from database inception to April 30, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared TF-CBT with any control condition for treating children and adolescents with PTSD. Analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.3 and Stata 16.0. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020206096). RESULTS: Eleven RCTs involving 1942 patients were included. Group TF-CBT was significantly more effective than other treatments at post-treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.65 to -0.22), follow-up (SMD: -0.33, 95% CI: -0.52 to -0.13), and in relieving depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.29, 95% CI: -0.49 to -0.09), but not in terms of acceptability. Subgroup analyses showed that group TF-CBT was superior to other treatments in studies including children with post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) (SMD: -0.54, 95% CI: -0.79 to -0.28) and psychiatric comorbidities (SMD: -0.48, 95% CI: -0.72 to -0.23). LIMITATIONS: The small sample sizes of identified studies limited some findings. CONCLUSION: When considering effectiveness at post-treatment and follow-up or the reduction of depressive symptoms, group TF-CBT could be a good choice for children and adolescents with PTSD. Among these patients, those with PTSS or psychiatric comorbidities may benefit the most.

This review compared the efficacy and acceptability of different delivery formats for cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) in insomnia. We searched five databases for randomized clinical trials that compared one CBT-I delivery format against another format or control conditions for insomnia in adults. We used pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses with the random-effects model to synthesize data. A total of 61 unique trials including 11,571 participants compared six CBT-I delivery formats with four control conditions. At post-intervention, with low to high certainty evidence, individual, group, guided self-help, digital assisted, and unguided self-help CBT-I could significantly increase sleep efficiency and total sleep time (TST) and reduce sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and insomnia severity compared with treatment as usual (MD range for sleep efficiency: 7.81%-12.45%; MD range for TST: 16.14-33.96 min; MD range for SOL:-22.42 to-13.81 min; MD range for WASO:-40.84 to-19.48 min; MD range for insomnia severity:-6.40 to-3.93) and waitlist (MD range for sleep efficiency: 7.68%-12.32%; MD range for TST: 12.67-30.49 min; MD range for SOL:-19.07 to-10.46 min; MD range for WASO:-47.10 to-19.15 min; MD range for insomnia severity:-7.59 to-5.07). The effects of different CBT-I formats per-sisted at short-term follow-up (4 wk-6 mo). Individual, group, and digital assisted CBT-I delivery formats would be the more appropriate choices for insomnia in adults, based on post-intervention and short-term effects. Further trials are needed to investigate the long-term effects of different CBT-I formats. (c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.