1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Feasibility and acceptability of the Alarm Distress Baby Scale (ADBB) in universal health visiting practice in England: a mixed-methods study using Normalisation Process Theory

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The Alarm Distress Baby Scale (ADBB) is a validated observation tool, designed for use by healthcare practitioners to identify infant social withdrawal. A modified version (m-ADBB) was later developed as a clinically useful behavioural tool. However, neither version has been tested in the UK context. This study aimed to test the feasibility and acceptability of using the ADBB and m-ADBB within universal health visiting practice in England.

          Methods

          A mixed methods convergent parallel design was used. Five health visitors were trained in the ADBB and 20 in the m-ADBB, from two National Health Service (NHS) community sites in England. Quantitative data were collected from health visitors, while qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with health visitors and service managers, guided by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). Thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data and descriptive analysis for the quantitative data. NPT provided a framework for analysing the implementation process in routine health visitor practice.

          Results

          The m-ADBB was used with 225 babies and behaviour concerns were identified in 23 babies (10%). Eleven themes were identified, aligned with the four NPT constructs: (1) Coherence: perceived uniqueness of the scale, new vocabulary for articulating baby behaviour, enrichment of existing knowledge and skills; (2) Cognitive participation: commitment to the use of the ADBB/m-ADBB, consolidation of new practice; (3) Collective action: implementation of the m-ADBB scale in routine practice, organisation and management support, existing systems and pathways for children and families and (4) Reflexive monitoring: perceived benefits of integrating the scales in practice, quality assurance for embedding the scales in practice, appraisal of the training and scales in practice.

          Conclusions

          The ADBB/m-ADBB was perceived to have enhanced the health visitors’ skills and knowledge in infant observation. The m-ADBB required minimal additional time and was highly acceptable to health visitors. These findings have significant implications for health visiting practice and future research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic review

            OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on the implementation of e-health to identify: (1) barriers and facilitators to e-health implementation, and (2) outstanding gaps in research on the subject. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PSYCINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched for reviews published between 1 January 1995 and 17 March 2009. Studies had to be systematic reviews, narrative reviews, qualitative metasyntheses or meta-ethnographies of e-health implementation. Abstracts and papers were double screened and data were extracted on country of origin; e-health domain; publication date; aims and methods; databases searched; inclusion and exclusion criteria and number of papers included. Data were analysed qualitatively using normalization process theory as an explanatory coding framework. FINDINGS: Inclusion criteria were met by 37 papers; 20 had been published between 1995 and 2007 and 17 between 2008 and 2009. Methodological quality was poor: 19 papers did not specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria and 13 did not indicate the precise number of articles screened. The use of normalization process theory as a conceptual framework revealed that relatively little attention was paid to: (1) work directed at making sense of e-health systems, specifying their purposes and benefits, establishing their value to users and planning their implementation; (2) factors promoting or inhibiting engagement and participation; (3) effects on roles and responsibilities; (4) risk management, and (5) ways in which implementation processes might be reconfigured by user-produced knowledge. CONCLUSION: The published literature focused on organizational issues, neglecting the wider social framework that must be considered when introducing new technologies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Thematic analysis: A practical guide

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Paediatr Open
                BMJ Paediatr Open
                bmjpo
                bmjpo
                BMJ Paediatrics Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2399-9772
                2025
                18 March 2025
                : 9
                : 1
                : e002997
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentInnovation & Research , Institute of Health Visiting , London, UK
                [2 ]departmentSchool of Nursing and Midwifery , Western Sydney University , Penrith, New South Wales, Australia
                [3 ]departmentCentre for Health Services Studies , University of Kent , Canterbury, UK
                [4 ]departmentDepartment of Social Policy and Intervention , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [5 ]departmentChief Executive Officer , Institute of Health Visiting , London, UK
                [6 ]departmentFaculty of Public Health and Policy , London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine , London, UK
                Author notes

                None declared.

                Supplemental material: Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2374-5844
                Article
                bmjpo-2024-002997
                10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002997
                11927413
                40102022
                c4f9cc3e-c06b-4f5c-bd6d-13e8e64e9154
                Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 22 August 2024
                : 11 February 2025
                Funding
                Funded by: The Royal Foundation of the Prince and Princess of Wales;
                Award ID: N/A
                Categories
                Original Research
                Child Psychology
                1506

                infant,child health,nursing,qualitative research
                infant, child health, nursing, qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article