Hope Groups: a protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial of psychosocial, mental health, and parenting support groups for Ukrainian caregivers during war and conflict.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, more than two-thirds of the world's children lived in a conflict-affected country. In 2022, 13 million Ukrainians were forced to flee their homes after Russia's full-scale invasion. Hope Groups are a 12-session psychosocial, mental health, and parenting support intervention designed to strengthen parents, caregivers, and children affected by war and crisis. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of Hope Groups among Ukrainians affected by war, compared to a wait-list control group. This protocol describes a promising decentralized intervention delivery model and an innovative research design, which estimates the causal effect of Hope Groups while prioritizing prompt delivery of beneficial services to war-affected participants. METHODS: This protocol describes a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) among Ukrainians externally displaced, internally displaced within Ukraine, and living at home in war-affected areas. This study consists of 90 clusters with 4-7 participants per cluster, totaling approximately n = 450 participants. Intervention clusters will receive 12-session Hope Groups led by peer facilitators, and control clusters will be wait-listed to receive the intervention after the RCT concludes. Clusters will be matched on the facilitator performing recruitment and intervention delivery. Primary outcomes are caregiver mental health, violence against children, and positive parenting practices. Secondary outcomes include prevention of violence against women and caregiver and child well-being. Outcomes will be based on caregiver report and collected at baseline and endline (1-week post-intervention). Follow-up data will be collected among the intervention group at 6-8 weeks post-intervention, with aims for quasi-experimental follow-ups after 6 and 12 months, pending war circumstances and funding. Analyses will utilize matching techniques, Bayesian interim analyses, and multi-level modeling to estimate the causal effect of Hope Groups in comparison to wait-list controls. DISCUSSION: This study is the first known randomized trial of a psychosocial, mental health, and parenting intervention among Ukrainians affected by war. If results demonstrate effectiveness, Hope Groups hold the potential to be adapted and scaled to other populations affected by war and crisis worldwide. Additionally, methodologies described in this protocol could be utilized in crisis-setting research to simultaneously prioritize the estimation of causal effects and prompt delivery of beneficial interventions to crisis-affected populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on Open Science Framework on November 9, 2023. REGISTRATION: OSF.IO/UVJ67 .

Global, regional, and national minimum estimates of children affected by COVID-19-associated orphanhood and caregiver death, by age and family circumstance up to Oct 31, 2021: an updated modelling study.

BACKGROUND: In the 6 months following our estimates from March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021, the proliferation of new coronavirus variants, updated mortality data, and disparities in vaccine access increased the amount of children experiencing COVID-19-associated orphanhood. To inform responses, we aimed to model the increases in numbers of children affected by COVID-19-associated orphanhood and caregiver death, as well as the cumulative orphanhood age-group distribution and circumstance (maternal or paternal orphanhood). METHODS: We used updated excess mortality and fertility data to model increases in minimum estimates of COVID-19-associated orphanhood and caregiver deaths from our original study period of March 1, 2020-April 30, 2021, to include the new period of May 1-Oct 31, 2021, for 21 countries. Orphanhood was defined as the death of one or both parents; primary caregiver loss included parental death or the death of one or both custodial grandparents; and secondary caregiver loss included co-residing grandparents or kin. We used logistic regression and further incorporated a fixed effect for western European countries into our previous model to avoid over-predicting caregiver loss in that region. For the entire 20-month period, we grouped children by age (0-4 years, 5-9 years, and 10-17 years) and maternal or paternal orphanhood, using fertility contributions, and we modelled global and regional extrapolations of numbers of orphans. 95% credible intervals (CrIs) are given for all estimates. FINDINGS: The number of children affected by COVID-19-associated orphanhood and caregiver death is estimated to have increased by 90·0% (95% CrI 89·7-90·4) from April 30 to Oct 31, 2021, from 2 737 300 (95% CrI 1 976 100-2 987 000) to 5 200 300 (3 619 400-5 731 400). Between March 1, 2020, and Oct 31, 2021, 491 300 (95% CrI 485 100-497 900) children aged 0-4 years, 736 800 (726 900-746 500) children aged 5-9 years, and 2 146 700 (2 120 900-2 174 200) children aged 10-17 years are estimated to have experienced COVID-19-associated orphanhood. Globally, 76·5% (95% CrI 76·3-76·7) of children were paternal orphans, whereas 23·5% (23·3-23·7) were maternal orphans. In each age group and region, the prevalence of paternal orphanhood exceeded that of maternal orphanhood. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that numbers of children affected by COVID-19-associated orphanhood and caregiver death almost doubled in 6 months compared with the amount after the first 14 months of the pandemic. Over the entire 20-month period, 5·0 million COVID-19 deaths meant that 5·2 million children lost a parent or caregiver. Our data on children's ages and circumstances should support pandemic response planning for children globally. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Global Challenges Research Fund, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and Medical Research Council), Oak Foundation, UK National Institute for Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, and Imperial College London.

Global minimum estimates of children affected by COVID-19-associated orphanhood and deaths of caregivers: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic priorities have focused on prevention, detection, and response. Beyond morbidity and mortality, pandemics carry secondary impacts, such as children orphaned or bereft of their caregivers. Such children often face adverse consequences, including poverty, abuse, and institutionalisation. We provide estimates for the magnitude of this problem resulting from COVID-19 and describe the need for resource allocation. METHODS: We used mortality and fertility data to model minimum estimates and rates of COVID-19-associated deaths of primary or secondary caregivers for children younger than 18 years in 21 countries. We considered parents and custodial grandparents as primary caregivers, and co-residing grandparents or older kin (aged 60-84 years) as secondary caregivers. To avoid overcounting, we adjusted for possible clustering of deaths using an estimated secondary attack rate and age-specific infection-fatality ratios for SARS-CoV-2. We used these estimates to model global extrapolations for the number of children who have experienced COVID-19-associated deaths of primary and secondary caregivers. FINDINGS: Globally, from March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021, we estimate 1 134 000 children (95% credible interval 884 000-1 185 000) experienced the death of primary caregivers, including at least one parent or custodial grandparent. 1 562 000 children (1 299 000-1 683 000) experienced the death of at least one primary or secondary caregiver. Countries in our study set with primary caregiver death rates of at least one per 1000 children included Peru (10·2 per 1000 children), South Africa (5·1), Mexico (3·5), Brazil (2·4), Colombia (2·3), Iran (1·7), the USA (1·5), Argentina (1·1), and Russia (1·0). Numbers of children orphaned exceeded numbers of deaths among those aged 15-50 years. Between two and five times more children had deceased fathers than deceased mothers. INTERPRETATION: Orphanhood and caregiver deaths are a hidden pandemic resulting from COVID-19-associated deaths. Accelerating equitable vaccine delivery is key to prevention. Psychosocial and economic support can help families to nurture children bereft of caregivers and help to ensure that institutionalisation is avoided. These data show the need for an additional pillar of our response: prevent, detect, respond, and care for children. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Global Challenges Research Fund, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Medical Research Council), UK National Institute for Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, and Imperial College London.

Rapid return of children in residential care to family as a result of COVID-19: Scope, challenges, and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, some governments have mandated that residential care providers rapidly return children and youth to family. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present study was to better understand the scope and characteristics of rapid return, and to provide data-informed recommendations for service providers working with this population. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Representatives from 67 non-government organizations (NGOs) providing residential care that were government-mandated to rapidly return children and youth to family completed a brief online survey. They collectively serve 12,494 children in 14 nations. METHODS: Using a mixed methods design, results examined 1) characteristics of the rapid return mandate, 2) preparation received by children and families, 3) support services provided since the return, and 4) primary concerns for children and families. RESULTS: Data revealed that rapid return was characterized by compressed timelines that did not allow for adequate child and family assessment and preparation. However, all respondents indicated they believed at least some families would be able to remain intact safely with appropriate support. Primary concerns for children and families related to unresolved antecedents to separation, lack of economic capacity, limited monitoring, and lack of access to education. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings, 9 recommendations were made for service providers working with children and families that have been rapidly reunified as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Systems, strategies, and interventions for sustainable long-term care and protection of children with a history of living outside of family care.

OBJECTIVES: This article reviews the available evidence regarding the efficacy, effectiveness, ethics, and sustainability of approaches to strengthen systems to care for and protect children living outside family care in low- and middle-income countries. METHOD: For trafficked children, children of and on the street, children of conflict/disaster, and institutionalized children, a systems framework approach was used to organize the topic of sustainable approaches in low- and middle-income countries and addresses the following: legislation, policies, and regulations; system structures and functions (formal and informal); and continuum of care and services. The article draws on the findings of a focal group convened by the U.S. Government Evidence Summit: Protecting Children Outside of Family Care (December 12-13, 2011, Washington, DC), tasked with reviewing the literature on systems, strategies, and interventions for sustainable long-term care and protection of children with a history of living outside of family care in low- and middle-income country contexts. The specific methodology for the review is described in the commentary paper (Higgs, Zlidar, & Balster, 2012) that accompanies these papers. RESULTS: For the most part, the evidence base in support of sustainable long-term care for the populations of interest is relatively weak, with some stronger but unreplicated studies. Some populations have been studied more thoroughly than others, and there are many gaps. Most of the existing studies identify population characteristics, needs, and consequences of a lack of systemic services to promote family-like care. There is some evidence of the effectiveness of laws and policies, as well as some evidence of service effectiveness, in improving outcomes for children outside of family care. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the weaknesses and gaps of the existing research, there is a foundation of research for going forward, which should focus on developing and implementing systems for these most vulnerable children. The evidence reviewed indicates that child protection systems should aim for appropriate, permanent family care (including reunification, adoption, kinship care, or kafalah) for children in order to secure the best environment for a child's developmental prospects. Evidence also suggests that the quality and duration of care, including both permanent family care and alternative care, are important regardless of setting. The diversity of political, socioeconomic, historical, regional, community, and cultural contexts in which child protection systems operate need to be taken into account during programming and research design.