Re: Family Nurse Partnership again

[Guest guest]

,

Should there be a national, collaborative SENATE bid to cover this multi-centre Evaluation?

There is only one in my Region (Southend is in the EoE) but 4 sites in London, so perhaps Kings should lead on this collaborative, with expertise like yours and Jane Sandall's?

Woody.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 24 April 2008 15:15 Subject: Family Nurse Partnership again

The 20 'Wave 2' sites for the Family Nurse Partnership were announced in March, and a call for proposals for the evaluation study has now come out. The 20 new sites are Sunderland, Cumbria, Liverpool, Blackpool, Leeds, Hull, Nottingham, Calderdale, Stockport, South Birmingham, Coventry, North East Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Islington, Lambeth, Hastings and Rother, Milton Keynes, Plymouth, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and Southampton; the original 10 (Wave 1) were Somerset, Manchester, Slough, Tower Hamlets, Derby, Walsall, Southwark, County Durham/Darlington, SE Essex, Barnsley.

I attach details of a seminar held in January, which discussed issues for commissioning the evaluation study, and a powerpoint from giving the initial 'implementation results' from the Wave 1 pilots. These have only just been released, so that all researchers bidding for the evaluation get them at the same time. For anyone who doesn't get attachments, they are available as part of an annexe to the research evaluation call (which is too big to attach), on the DCFS website, or on http://www.nihr.ac.uk/calls_for_proposals.aspx

best wishes

Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service

In 2008 we are celebrating 150 years since our foundation by Ruskin. Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/150years for more information.

This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system.

Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University.

Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications

[Guest guest]

Nice idea, Woody, but I think we would be seriously outclassed if we were not able to work with the 'big guns' in multi-site complex evaluations.  Also, timing is quite tight, so most will already have worked out a lot of their thinking.  My suspicion is that it will go to Birkbeck, as they already have a head start having done the pilot stage evaluation and Sure Start evaluation.  Oxford and IoE are also big players in the field.  Sadly, practice knowledge/experience doesn't count for much here.  The areas that will participate in the evaluations have already been identified, as well, as condition of the funding they receive - South East Essex is there.  On 24 Apr 2008, at 15:57, Caan, Woody wrote:,Should there be a national, collaborative SENATE bid to cover this multi-centre Evaluation?There is only one in my Region (Southend is in the EoE) but 4 sites in London, so perhaps Kings should lead on this collaborative, with expertise like yours and Jane Sandall's?Woody.From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 24 April 2008 15:15 Subject: Family Nurse Partnership againThe 20 'Wave 2' sites for the Family Nurse Partnership were announced in March, and a call for proposals for the evaluation study has now come out.  The 20 new sites are Sunderland, Cumbria, Liverpool, Blackpool, Leeds, Hull, Nottingham, Calderdale, Stockport, South Birmingham, Coventry, North East Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Islington, Lambeth, Hastings and Rother, Milton Keynes, Plymouth, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and Southampton; the original 10 (Wave 1) were Somerset, Manchester, Slough, Tower Hamlets, Derby, Walsall, Southwark, County Durham/Darlington, SE Essex, Barnsley.I attach details of a seminar held in January, which discussed issues for commissioning the evaluation study, and a powerpoint from giving the initial 'implementation results' from the Wave 1 pilots.  These have only just been released, so that all researchers bidding for the evaluation get them at the same time.  For anyone who doesn't get attachments, they are available as part of an annexe to the research evaluation call (which is too big to attach), on the DCFS website, or on http://www.nihr.ac.uk/calls_for_proposals.aspxbest wishesEmail has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management serviceIn 2008 we are celebrating 150 years since our foundation by Ruskin. Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/150years for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications sarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]



Many thanks for this , very useful to have

Very best wishesMaggie

Family Nurse Partnership again

The 20 'Wave 2' sites for the Family Nurse Partnership were announced in March, and a call for proposals for the evaluation study has now come out.� The 20 new sites are�Sunderland, Cumbria, Liverpool, Blackpool, Leeds, Hull, Nottingham, Calderdale, Stockport, South Birmingham, Coventry, North East Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Islington, Lambeth, Hastings and Rother, Milton Keynes, Plymouth, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and Southampton; the original 10 (Wave 1) were�Somerset, Manchester, Slough, Tower Hamlets, Derby, Walsall, Southwark, County Durham/Darlington, SE Essex, Barnsley.

I attach details of a seminar held in January, which discussed issues for commissioning the evaluation study, and a powerpoint from giving the initial 'implementation results' from the Wave 1 pilots.� These have only just been released, so that all researchers bidding for the evaluation get them at the same time.� For anyone who doesn't get attachments, they are available as part of an annexe to the research evaluation call (which is too big to attach), on the DCFS website, or on�http://www.nihr.ac.uk/calls_for_proposals.aspx

best wishes

sarahcowley183@...

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

The 20 'Wave 2' sites for the Family Nurse Partnership were announced in March, and a call for proposals for the evaluation study has now come out. The 20 new sites are Sunderland, Cumbria, Liverpool, Blackpool, Leeds, Hull, Nottingham, Calderdale, Stockport, South Birmingham, Coventry, North East Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Islington, Lambeth, Hastings and Rother, Milton Keynes, Plymouth, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and Southampton; the original 10 (Wave 1) were Somerset, Manchester, Slough, Tower Hamlets, Derby, Walsall, Southwark, County Durham/Darlington, SE Essex, Barnsley.I attach details of a seminar held in January, which discussed issues for commissioning the evaluation study, and a powerpoint from giving the initial 'implementation results' from the Wave 1 pilots. These have only just been released, so that all researchers bidding for the evaluation get them at the same time. For anyone who doesn't get attachments, they are available as part of an annexe to the research evaluation call (which is too big to attach), on the DCFS website, or on http://www.nihr.ac.uk/ calls_for_proposals.aspxbest wishessarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Well - have had a quick look at this and am not a researcher like you two are - Woody and - but I would not touch this with a barge pole unless I was in with those in the know.

There are some things in it in terms of outcomes etc which just to me smack of government satisfaction rather than outcomes for the families and children involved -my intuition says it does not feel right - and also I think it begins to hint at the difficulties involved in a RCT but I guess like a lot of government things - it will end up saying what they want it to say!

I know I am cynical but somehow what I was reading summed it all up for me!!

Be good to talk about it further.

Margaret

Re: Family Nurse Partnership again

Nice idea, Woody, but I think we would be seriously outclassed if we were not able to work with the 'big guns' in multi-site complex evaluations. Also, timing is quite tight, so most will already have worked out a lot of their thinking. My suspicion is that it will go to Birkbeck, as they already have a head start having done the pilot stage evaluation and Sure Start evaluation. Oxford and IoE are also big players in the field. Sadly, practice knowledge/experience doesn't count for much here. The areas that will participate in the evaluations have already been identified, as well, as condition of the funding they receive - South East Essex is there.

On 24 Apr 2008, at 15:57, Caan, Woody wrote:

,

Should there be a national, collaborative SENATE bid to cover this multi-centre Evaluation?

There is only one in my Region (Southend is in the EoE) but 4 sites in London, so perhaps Kings should lead on this collaborative, with expertise like yours and Jane Sandall's?

Woody.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 24 April 2008 15:15 Subject: Family Nurse Partnership again

The 20 'Wave 2' sites for the Family Nurse Partnership were announced in March, and a call for proposals for the evaluation study has now come out. The 20 new sites are Sunderland, Cumbria, Liverpool, Blackpool, Leeds, Hull, Nottingham, Calderdale, Stockport, South Birmingham, Coventry, North East Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Islington, Lambeth, Hastings and Rother, Milton Keynes, Plymouth, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and Southampton; the original 10 (Wave 1) were Somerset, Manchester, Slough, Tower Hamlets, Derby, Walsall, Southwark, County Durham/Darlington, SE Essex, Barnsley.

I attach details of a seminar held in January, which discussed issues for commissioning the evaluation study, and a powerpoint from giving the initial 'implementation results' from the Wave 1 pilots. These have only just been released, so that all researchers bidding for the evaluation get them at the same time. For anyone who doesn't get attachments, they are available as part of an annexe to the research evaluation call (which is too big to attach), on the DCFS website, or on http://www.nihr.ac.uk/calls_for_proposals.aspx

best wishes

Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service

In 2008 we are celebrating 150 years since our foundation by Ruskin. Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/150years for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

I know what you mean, Margaret; although, to be fair, the reason the government are so enthusiastic about this programme is because the outcomes it has shown in the US are so close the what the government are looking for.  For me, the problem with just replicating it and testing against 'standard health visiting' (whatever that is, particularly for this very disadvantaged group) is that that does not help us to know what it is about the Olds programme that makes it work.  Is it the frequency of visiting, the 'motivational interviewing,' the structured programme, the supervision and/or training given to the visitors?  Or is it the strict targeting, that means 'things can only get better' for such a disadvantaged group, given any kind of  sensible input?  Unless it is compared with some variation that tests these process and content issues, we will never know.  It is good that an economic package will be included in the evaluation, and that it will take into account the cost of all services, including crime, social care, benefits etc, but overall it is hard to know what to wish for in terms of results.  On 24 Apr 2008, at 17:10, Margaret Buttigieg wrote:Well - have had a quick look at this and am not a researcher like you two are - Woody and - but I would not touch this with a barge pole unless I was in with those in the know. There are some things in it in terms of outcomes etc which just to me smack of government satisfaction rather than outcomes for the families and children involved -my intuition says it does not feel right - and also I think it begins to hint at the difficulties involved in a RCT but I guess like a lot of government things - it will end up saying what they want it to say! I know I am cynical but somehow what I was reading summed it all up for me!! Be good to talk about it further. Margaret  Re: Family Nurse Partnership againNice idea, Woody, but I think we would be seriously outclassed if we were not able to work with the 'big guns' in multi-site complex evaluations.  Also, timing is quite tight, so most will already have worked out a lot of their thinking.  My suspicion is that it will go to Birkbeck, as they already have a head start having done the pilot stage evaluation and Sure Start evaluation.  Oxford and IoE are also big players in the field.  Sadly, practice knowledge/experience doesn't count for much here.  The areas that will participate in the evaluations have already been identified, as well, as condition of the funding they receive - South East Essex is there.  On 24 Apr 2008, at 15:57, Caan, Woody wrote:,Should there be a national, collaborative SENATE bid to cover this multi-centre Evaluation?There is only one in my Region (Southend is in the EoE) but 4 sites in London, so perhaps Kings should lead on this collaborative, with expertise like yours and Jane Sandall's?Woody.From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 24 April 2008 15:15 Subject: Family Nurse Partnership againThe 20 'Wave 2' sites for the Family Nurse Partnership were announced in March, and a call for proposals for the evaluation study has now come out.  The 20 new sites are Sunderland, Cumbria, Liverpool, Blackpool, Leeds, Hull, Nottingham, Calderdale, Stockport, South Birmingham, Coventry, North East Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Islington, Lambeth, Hastings and Rother, Milton Keynes, Plymouth, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and Southampton; the original 10 (Wave 1) were Somerset, Manchester, Slough, Tower Hamlets, Derby, Walsall, Southwark, County Durham/Darlington, SE Essex, Barnsley.I attach details of a seminar held in January, which discussed issues for commissioning the evaluation study, and a powerpoint from giving the initial 'implementation results' from the Wave 1 pilots.  These have only just been released, so that all researchers bidding for the evaluation get them at the same time.  For anyone who doesn't get attachments, they are available as part of an annexe to the research evaluation call (which is too big to attach), on the DCFS website, or on http://www.nihr.ac.uk/calls_for_proposals.aspxbest wishesEmail has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management serviceIn 2008 we are celebrating 150 years since our foundation by Ruskin. Visitwww.anglia.ac.uk/150years for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications sarahcowley183btinternethttp://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn sarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Hi

It is good to get your research mind round it and your perspective .

I think whoever does it will find it a problem to establish what is standard health visiting and as I have said before - health visiting in London is very diffident to other areas and even in other areas - it is often different in parts due to need such as a real rural area or a sink estate or whatever.

I would be concerned if they take standard HV as the CHPP as I doubt if anywhere with the amount of HVs in post can do that.

MY thought to about what makes a different is giving people time and working with them from where they are to where it would be better for them to be. The psychological literature would show that and you see it in coaching and leadership development and if you do give people as much time as the FNP does - there will inevitably be some change.

I still think it is a poison chalice to do this piece of work - bit like the FII!

Margaret

Re: Family Nurse Partnership again

Nice idea, Woody, but I think we would be seriously outclassed if we were not able to work with the 'big guns' in multi-site complex evaluations. Also, timing is quite tight, so most will already have worked out a lot of their thinking. My suspicion is that it will go to Birkbeck, as they already have a head start having done the pilot stage evaluation and Sure Start evaluation. Oxford and IoE are also big players in the field. Sadly, practice knowledge/experience doesn't count for much here. The areas that will participate in the evaluations have already been identified, as well, as condition of the funding they receive - South East Essex is there.

On 24 Apr 2008, at 15:57, Caan, Woody wrote:

,

Should there be a national, collaborative SENATE bid to cover this multi-centre Evaluation?

There is only one in my Region (Southend is in the EoE) but 4 sites in London, so perhaps Kings should lead on this collaborative, with expertise like yours and Jane Sandall's?

Woody.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 24 April 2008 15:15 Subject: Family Nurse Partnership again

The 20 'Wave 2' sites for the Family Nurse Partnership were announced in March, and a call for proposals for the evaluation study has now come out. The 20 new sites are Sunderland, Cumbria, Liverpool, Blackpool, Leeds, Hull, Nottingham, Calderdale, Stockport, South Birmingham, Coventry, North East Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Islington, Lambeth, Hastings and Rother, Milton Keynes, Plymouth, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and Southampton; the original 10 (Wave 1) were Somerset, Manchester, Slough, Tower Hamlets, Derby, Walsall, Southwark, County Durham/Darlington, SE Essex, Barnsley.

I attach details of a seminar held in January, which discussed issues for commissioning the evaluation study, and a powerpoint from giving the initial 'implementation results' from the Wave 1 pilots. These have only just been released, so that all researchers bidding for the evaluation get them at the same time. For anyone who doesn't get attachments, they are available as part of an annexe to the research evaluation call (which is too big to attach), on the DCFS website, or on http://www.nihr.ac.uk/calls_for_proposals.aspx

best wishes

Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service

In 2008 we are celebrating 150 years since our foundation by Ruskin. Visitwww.anglia.ac.uk/150years for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

There is one aspect of the Olds program that I don't think has been properly thought about here.

I attended a WHO mental health conference at the Commonwealth Institute about 4 years ago - and one of Old's team was presenting their project(s). Women who participated in Head Start were recruited during pregnancy and signed up for the duration - i.e. until the child was 2. Those who were not committed to this period were not recruited. I was unsure if I heard this correctly and went to speak to the presenter afterwards - and it was definitely the case that the sample was biased right from the start.

Where dose this leave our UK families and their HVs in this FNP?

Regards

Sheelah

Re: Family Nurse Partnership again

Nice idea, Woody, but I think we would be seriously outclassed if we were not able to work with the 'big guns' in multi-site complex evaluations. Also, timing is quite tight, so most will already have worked out a lot of their thinking. My suspicion is that it will go to Birkbeck, as they already have a head start having done the pilot stage evaluation and Sure Start evaluation. Oxford and IoE are also big players in the field. Sadly, practice knowledge/experience doesn't count for much here. The areas that will participate in the evaluations have already been identified, as well, as condition of the funding they receive - South East Essex is there.

On 24 Apr 2008, at 15:57, Caan, Woody wrote:

,

Should there be a national, collaborative SENATE bid to cover this multi-centre Evaluation?

There is only one in my Region (Southend is in the EoE) but 4 sites in London, so perhaps Kings should lead on this collaborative, with expertise like yours and Jane Sandall's?

Woody.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 24 April 2008 15:15 Subject: Family Nurse Partnership again

The 20 'Wave 2' sites for the Family Nurse Partnership were announced in March, and a call for proposals for the evaluation study has now come out. The 20 new sites are Sunderland, Cumbria, Liverpool, Blackpool, Leeds, Hull, Nottingham, Calderdale, Stockport, South Birmingham, Coventry, North East Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Islington, Lambeth, Hastings and Rother, Milton Keynes, Plymouth, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and Southampton; the original 10 (Wave 1) were Somerset, Manchester, Slough, Tower Hamlets, Derby, Walsall, Southwark, County Durham/Darlington, SE Essex, Barnsley.

I attach details of a seminar held in January, which discussed issues for commissioning the evaluation study, and a powerpoint from giving the initial 'implementation results' from the Wave 1 pilots. These have only just been released, so that all researchers bidding for the evaluation get them at the same time. For anyone who doesn't get attachments, they are available as part of an annexe to the research evaluation call (which is too big to attach), on the DCFS website, or on http://www.nihr.ac.uk/calls_for_proposals.aspx

best wishes

Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service

In 2008 we are celebrating 150 years since our foundation by Ruskin. Visitwww.anglia.ac.uk/150years for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Hello SheelahYou are right; it is an 'all or nothing' package, which is one of the differences between FNP and 'standard health visiting.'   Neither the visitors nor the mothers have the leeway (officially) to vary the programme, although in practice there is a great deal of variation, because not all the visitors were able to carry out all the prescribed visits in Olds' three RCTs, nor will they here, I am sure.  In the UK plots, a recruitment target of 75% was met amongst the target population of teenage first-time parents.  They also included, on referral, selected vulnerable first-time parents up to the age of 24 years.  I suppose it is the same with any research project,  that you recruit people to complete the programme you are studying.  The problem, then, is that transfer to the 'real world' has to be another study, to see whether it is realistic, or even desired,  to always stick the programme:  what they call 'programme fidelity.'  One of the things health visitors have been castigated for is the variation in the way they work, but at the same time, that is one of the key things they are trained for; to vary the service they offer to meet the needs of those they are visiting in a personalised (rather than programmed) way.  best wishes On 25 Apr 2008, at 10:21, Sheelah Seeley wrote:There is one aspect of the Olds program that I don't think has been properly thought about here.I attended a WHO mental health conference at the Commonwealth Institute about 4 years ago - and one of Old's team was presenting their project(s).  Women who participated in Head Start were recruited during pregnancy and signed up for the duration - i.e. until the child was 2.  Those who were not committed to this period were not recruited.  I was unsure if I heard this correctly and went to speak to the presenter afterwards - and it was definitely the case that the sample was biased right from the start.Where dose this leave our UK families and their HVs in this FNP? RegardsSheelah  Re: Family Nurse Partnership againNice idea, Woody, but I think we would be seriously outclassed if we were not able to work with the 'big guns' in multi-site complex evaluations.  Also, timing is quite tight, so most will already have worked out a lot of their thinking.  My suspicion is that it will go to Birkbeck, as they already have a head start having done the pilot stage evaluation and Sure Start evaluation.  Oxford and IoE are also big players in the field.  Sadly, practice knowledge/experience doesn't count for much here.  The areas that will participate in the evaluations have already been identified, as well, as condition of the funding they receive - South East Essex is there.  On 24 Apr 2008, at 15:57, Caan, Woody wrote:,Should there be a national, collaborative SENATE bid to cover this multi-centre Evaluation?There is only one in my Region (Southend is in the EoE) but 4 sites in London, so perhaps Kings should lead on this collaborative, with expertise like yours and Jane Sandall's?Woody.From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 24 April 2008 15:15 Subject: Family Nurse Partnership againThe 20 'Wave 2' sites for the Family Nurse Partnership were announced in March, and a call for proposals for the evaluation study has now come out.  The 20 new sites are Sunderland, Cumbria, Liverpool, Blackpool, Leeds, Hull, Nottingham, Calderdale, Stockport, South Birmingham, Coventry, North East Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Islington, Lambeth, Hastings and Rother, Milton Keynes, Plymouth, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and Southampton; the original 10 (Wave 1) were Somerset, Manchester, Slough, Tower Hamlets, Derby, Walsall, Southwark, County Durham/Darlington, SE Essex, Barnsley.I attach details of a seminar held in January, which discussed issues for commissioning the evaluation study, and a powerpoint from giving the initial 'implementation results' from the Wave 1 pilots.  These have only just been released, so that all researchers bidding for the evaluation get them at the same time.  For anyone who doesn't get attachments, they are available as part of an annexe to the research evaluation call (which is too big to attach), on the DCFS website, or on http://www.nihr.ac.uk/calls_for_proposals.aspxbest wishesEmail has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management serviceIn 2008 we are celebrating 150 years since our foundation by Ruskin. Visitwww.anglia.ac.uk/150years for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications sarahcowley183btinternethttp://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COnsarahcowley183btinternethttp://myprofile.cos.com'>http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COnsarahcowley183btinternethttp://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn sarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Thank you

Re: Family Nurse Partnership again

Nice idea, Woody, but I think we would be seriously outclassed if we were not able to work with the 'big guns' in multi-site complex evaluations. Also, timing is quite tight, so most will already have worked out a lot of their thinking. My suspicion is that it will go to Birkbeck, as they already have a head start having done the pilot stage evaluation and Sure Start evaluation. Oxford and IoE are also big players in the field. Sadly, practice knowledge/experience doesn't count for much here. The areas that will participate in the evaluations have already been identified, as well, as condition of the funding they receive - South East Essex is there.

On 24 Apr 2008, at 15:57, Caan, Woody wrote:

,

Should there be a national, collaborative SENATE bid to cover this multi-centre Evaluation?

There is only one in my Region (Southend is in the EoE) but 4 sites in London, so perhaps Kings should lead on this collaborative, with expertise like yours and Jane Sandall's?

Woody.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 24 April 2008 15:15 Subject: Family Nurse Partnership again

The 20 'Wave 2' sites for the Family Nurse Partnership were announced in March, and a call for proposals for the evaluation study has now come out. The 20 new sites are Sunderland, Cumbria, Liverpool, Blackpool, Leeds, Hull, Nottingham, Calderdale, Stockport, South Birmingham, Coventry, North East Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Islington, Lambeth, Hastings and Rother, Milton Keynes, Plymouth, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and Southampton; the original 10 (Wave 1) were Somerset, Manchester, Slough, Tower Hamlets, Derby, Walsall, Southwark, County Durham/Darlington, SE Essex, Barnsley.

I attach details of a seminar held in January, which discussed issues for commissioning the evaluation study, and a powerpoint from giving the initial 'implementation results' from the Wave 1 pilots. These have only just been released, so that all researchers bidding for the evaluation get them at the same time. For anyone who doesn't get attachments, they are available as part of an annexe to the research evaluation call (which is too big to attach), on the DCFS website, or on http://www.nihr.ac.uk/calls_for_proposals.aspx

best wishes

Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service

In 2008 we are celebrating 150 years since our foundation by Ruskin. Visitwww.anglia.ac.uk/150years for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn