We are extremely grateful to all the mothers who took part in the study, to Pink Parents, to Alice Mills for carrying out the child psychiatric ratings, and to the entire Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children team. We would also like to thank the Wellcome Trust for funding this investigation. AbstractExisting research on children with lesbian parents is limited by reliance on volunteer or convenience samples. The present study examined the quality of parent-child relationships and the socioemotional and gender development of a community sample of 7-year-old children with lesbian parents. Families were recruited through the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, a geographic population study of 14,000 mothers and their children. Thirty-nine lesbian-mother families, 74 two-parent heterosexual families, and 60 families headed by single heterosexual mothers were compared on standardized interview and questionnaire measures administered to mothers, co-mothers/fathers, children, and teachers. Findings are in line with those of earlier investigations showing positive mother-child relationships and well-adjusted children.

Objective: To explore attachment narratives in children diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder (RAD). Method: We compared attachment narratives, as measured by the Manchester Child Attachment Story Task, in a group of 33 children with a diagnosis of RAD and 37 comparison children. Results: The relative risk (RR) for children with RAD having an insecure attachment pattern was 2.4 (1.4-4.2) but 30% were rated as securely attached. Within the RAD group, children with a clear history of maltreatment were more likely to be Insecure-Disorganised than children without a clear history of maltreatment. Conclusions: Reactive attachment disorder is not the same as attachment insecurity, and questions remain about how attachment research informs clinical research on attachment disorders.

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms PROGRAMME GRANTS FOR APPLIED RESEARCH VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12 AUGUST 2016 ISSN 2050 DOI 10.3310/pgfar04120Improving patients' experience and outcome of total joint replacement: the RESTORE programme Ashley W Blom, Neil Artz, Andrew D Beswick, Amanda Burston, Paul Dieppe, Karen T Elvers, Rachael Gooberman-Hill, Jeremy Horwood, Paul Jepson, Emma Johnson, Erik Lenguerrand, Elsa Marques, Sian Noble, Mark Pyke, Catherine Sackley, Gina Sands, Adrian Sayers, Victoria Wells and Vikki Wylde Improving patients' experience and outcome of total joint replacement: the RESTORE programme ISSN 2050-4330 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full PGfAR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/pgfar. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Programme Grants for Applied Research journalReports are published in Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the PGfAR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. Programme Grants for Applied Research programmeThe Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 2006 to produce independent research findings that will have practical application for the benefit of patients and the NHS in the relatively near future. The Programme is managed by the NIHR Central Commissioning Facility (CCF) with strategic input from the Programme Director.The programme is a national response mode funding scheme that aims to provide evidence to improve health outcomes in England through promotion of health, prevention of ill health, and optimal disease management (including safety and quality), with particular emphasis on conditions causing significant disease burden.For more information about the PGfAR programme please visit the website: http://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding/programme-grants-forapplied-research.htm This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by PGfAR as project number RP-PG-0407-10070. The contractual start date was in December 2008. The final report began editorial review in September 2014 and was accepted for publication in August 2015. As the funder, the PGfAR programme agreed the research questions and study designs in advance with the investigators. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The PGfAR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accurac...

No abstract

Background: Prosthetic implants used in total hip replacements (THR) have a range of bearing surface combinations (metal-onpolyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic, and metal-on-metal), head sizes (small [<36 mm in diameter] and large [!36 mm in diameter]), and fixation techniques (cemented, uncemented, hybrid, and reverse hybrid). These can influence prosthesis survival, patients' quality of life, and healthcare costs. Objectives: To compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of implants for patients of different age and sex profiles. Methods: We developed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of various implants against small-head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants. The probability that patients required 1 or more revision surgeries was estimated from analyses of more than 1 million patients in the UK and Swedish hip joint registries, for men and women younger than 55, 55 to 64, 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and 85 years and older. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices, national tariffs, and the literature. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THR in the United Kingdom.Results: Small-head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants were the most cost-effective for men and women older than 65 years. These findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. Small-head cemented ceramic-on-polyethylene implants were most cost-effective in men and women younger than 65 years, but these results were more uncertain. Conclusions: The older the patient group, the more likely that the cheapest implants, small-head cemented metal-on-polyethylene implants, were cost-effective. We found no evidence that uncemented, hybrid, or reverse hybrid implants were the most cost-effective option for any patient group. Our findings can influence clinical practice and procurement decisions for healthcare payers worldwide.