Ensuring Implementation Fidelity of a 10-Week Home Visiting Program in Two Randomized Clinical Trials

Interventions from pregnancy to two years after birth for parents experiencing complex post-traumatic stress disorder and/or with childhood experience of maltreatment

BACKGROUND

Acceptable, effective and feasible support strategies (interventions) for parents experiencing complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) symptoms or with a history of childhood maltreatment may offer an opportunity to support parental recovery, reduce the risk of intergenerational transmission of trauma and improve life-course trajectories for children and future generations. However, evidence relating to the effect of interventions has not been synthesised to provide a comprehensive review of available support strategies. This evidence synthesis is critical to inform further research, practice and policy approaches in this emerging area.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions provided to support parents who were experiencing CPTSD symptoms or who had experienced childhood maltreatment (or both), on parenting capacity and parental psychological or socio-emotional wellbeing.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2021 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers, together with checking references and contacting experts to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All variants of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention delivered in the perinatal period designed to support parents experiencing CPTSD symptoms or with a history of childhood maltreatment (or both), to any active or inactive control. Primary outcomes were parental psychological or socio-emotional wellbeing and parenting capacity between pregnancy and up to two years postpartum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials for inclusion, extracted data using a pre-designed data extraction form, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. We contacted study authors for additional information as required. We analysed continuous data using mean difference (MD) for outcomes using a single measure, and standardised mean difference (SMD) for outcomes using multiple measures, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data. All data are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We undertook meta-analyses using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We included evidence from 1925 participants in 15 RCTs that investigated the effect of 17 interventions. All included studies were published after 2005. Interventions included seven parenting interventions, eight psychological interventions and two service system approaches. The studies were funded by major research councils, government departments and philanthropic/charitable organisations. All evidence was of low or very low certainty. Parenting interventions Evidence was very uncertain from a study (33 participants) assessing the effects of a parenting intervention compared to attention control on trauma-related symptoms, and psychological wellbeing symptoms (postpartum depression), in mothers who had experienced childhood maltreatment and were experiencing current parenting risk factors. Evidence suggested that parenting interventions may improve parent-child relationships slightly compared to usual service provision (SMD 0.45, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.96; I2 = 60%; 2 studies, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between parenting interventions and usual perinatal service in parenting skills including nurturance, supportive presence and reciprocity (SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.58; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 149 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the effects of parenting interventions on parents' substance use, relationship quality or self-harm. Psychological interventions Psychological interventions may result in little or no difference in trauma-related symptoms compared to usual care (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.31; I2 = 39%; 4 studies, 247 participants; low-certainty evidence). Psychological interventions may make little or no difference compared to usual care to depression symptom severity (8 studies, 507 participants, low-certainty evidence, SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.03; I2 = 63%). An interpersonally focused cognitive behavioural analysis system of psychotherapy may slightly increase the number of pregnant women who quit smoking compared to usual smoking cessation therapy and prenatal care (189 participants, low-certainty evidence). A psychological intervention may slightly improve parents' relationship quality compared to usual care (1 study, 67 participants, low-certainty evidence). Benefits for parent-child relationships were very uncertain (26 participants, very low-certainty evidence), while there may be a slight improvement in parenting skills compared to usual care (66 participants, low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the effects of psychological interventions on parents' self-harm. Service system approaches One service system approach assessed the effect of a financial empowerment education programme, with and without trauma-informed peer support, compared to usual care for parents with low incomes. The interventions increased depression slightly (52 participants, low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the effects of service system interventions on parents' trauma-related symptoms, substance use, relationship quality, self-harm, parent-child relationships or parenting skills.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions to improve parenting capacity or parental psychological or socio-emotional wellbeing in parents experiencing CPTSD symptoms or who have experienced childhood maltreatment (or both). This lack of methodological rigour and high risk of bias made it difficult to interpret the findings of this review. Overall, results suggest that parenting interventions may slightly improve parent-child relationships but have a small, unimportant effect on parenting skills. Psychological interventions may help some women stop smoking in pregnancy, and may have small benefits on parents' relationships and parenting skills. A financial empowerment programme may slightly worsen depression symptoms. While potential beneficial effects were small, the importance of a positive effect in a small number of parents must be considered when making treatment and care decisions. There is a need for further high-quality research into effective strategies for this population.

Implementation fidelity of the Promoting First Relationships intervention program in a Native community

Promoting First Relationship (PFR) is an evidence-based intervention designed to promote positive, supportive relationships between primary caregivers and their young children. Implementing and testing the efficacy of PFR in a remote Native community is especially challenging and requires methods and tools for ensuring implementation fidelity. Tribal members of a Native community were successfully trained and certified to deliver PFR by university-based personnel. During PFR delivery, they achieved very high scores on adherence to intervention content (M = 0.99, SD = 0.02), and their quality of delivery uniformly exceeded established criteria. High attrition occurred before PFR was delivered. However, participants who remained in the study completed all 10 sessions of PFR content. Participants' satisfaction with the program was very high (M = 3.90 [of 4 points], SD = 0.19). High implementation fidelity was attained in the face of many inherent challenges. The suite of methods and tools used for training, monitoring, and evaluating implementation fidelity in this study provides an example that may be useful in the evaluation of evidence-based programs more generally.

Promoting First Relationships® for Primary Caregivers and Toddlers in a Native Community: a Randomized Controlled Trial

This study tested the effectiveness of Promoting First Relationships^® (PFR), a preventive intervention program aimed at fostering positive caregiver-child relationships in Native families living on a rural reservation. Participants were 162 primary caregivers (96% Native; 93% female) and their Native toddlers (10-31 months old; 50% female). Families were randomized to a PFR group (n = 81) or Resource and Referral (RR) control group (n = 81), after baseline data collection (Time 1) to assess the quality of caregiver-child interaction, caregiver knowledge about children's social-emotional needs, caregiver depressive symptoms, and child externalizing behavior. After delivery of the PFR intervention or the RR service, follow-up assessments were repeated immediately post-intervention (Time 2) and 3 months later (Time 3). After controlling for baseline assessments, multivariate analyses of covariance revealed that caregivers in the PFR group had significantly higher scores on knowledge about children's social-emotional needs at Time 2 (p < .01, η² = .06) and Time 3 (p < .05, η² = .04) and less severe depressive symptoms at Times 2 and 3 (both p < .05, η² = .04). At Time 3, the quality of caregiver-child interaction was better in the PFR group (p < .01, η² = .06), an effect that was moderated by severity of depressive symptoms (p = .05, η² = .06), with PFR having the greatest impact at low levels of initial symptoms (p = .02). Results support the positive impact of PFR in a Native community and suggest conditions under which the intervention may be most effective.

Experiences of Native Participants in the Promoting First Relationships® Intervention: Focus Group Findings

OBJECTIVES

We tested Promoting First Relationships® (PFR), an evidence-based preventive intervention program for caregivers promoting attachment and social and emotional development of infants and toddlers, in a randomized controlled trial in a Native community. Quantitative results yielded evidence of efficacy; but in this report, our objective was to assess the participants' real-life experiences, challenges, and suggested enhancements to further adapt the program.

METHODS

At the end of the study we conducted three focus groups (N = 17)-two groups for participants who completed the 10-week intervention and one group for those who did not. Focus groups were structured to generate discussion about (1) elements or activities of PFR they enjoyed and others that were challenging, (2) suggested solutions to participant challenges, (3) experiences with video recordings and handouts, and (4) aspects of the program that could be changed to make it more culturally-relevant.

RESULTS

Qualitative analysis of the focus group transcripts revealed five themes: (1) appreciation for PFR providers and program, (2) personal growth, (3) improved caregiver-child relationships, (4) participant challenges, and (5) participant suggestions to improve the program.

CONCLUSIONS

These qualitative results complement our quantitative assessment of the positive impact of the PFR program. Additionally, they provide importance guidance for future implementation of PFR in this, and other Native communities, as well as insight into broader issues to consider when adapting intervention programs for Native families.

Randomized Controlled Trial of the Promoting First Relationships® Preventive Intervention for Primary Caregivers and Toddlers in an American Indian Community

Preventive intervention programs that address parenting practices and children's developmental needs early in life have led to positive changes in caregiving behavior and children's developmental outcomes. However, little is known about the efficacy of such programs among American Indian families. This study tested the efficacy of the strengths-based Promoting First Relationships® (PFR) program in American Indian families living on a rural reservation. Participants were 34 toddlers (10-30 months old) and their primary caregivers. Families were randomized to an Immediate (n = 17) or Waitlist (n = 17) group after a home visit for baseline data collection, which included assessment of observed caregiver-child interactions, caregiver perceptions, and child behavior. After randomization, we delivered the PFR intervention in 10 visits to the Immediate group, with some adaptations based on focus groups with community members and staff input. We analyzed follow-up assessments by implementing multiple regression analyses, controlling for baseline scores and using multiple imputation to handle missing data. Results supported our primary hypotheses: the Immediate group, compared with Waitlist, had significantly higher scores on the quality (p = .011, d = 1.02) and contingent responsiveness (p = .013, d = 1.21) of caregiver-child interactions, as well as on caregiver knowledge of toddlers' social and emotional needs and level of developmentally appropriate expectations (p = .000, d = 0.58). Caregiver stress and caregivers' reports of child behavior did not differ significantly. Our results hold promise for additional PFR research in other Native communities.

Benefit-cost analysis of Promoting First Relationships®: Implications of victim benefits assumptions for return on investment

BACKGROUND

Child abuse and neglect (CAN) cost United States society $136 billion to $428 billion annually. Preventive interventions that reduce CAN may improve people's lives and generate economic benefits to society, but their magnitude is likely to vary greatly with assumptions about victim costs avoided through intervention.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the implications of different assumptions about avoided victim costs in a benefit-cost analysis of Promoting First Relationships® (PFR), a 10-session attachment and strengths-based home visiting intervention.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Participants were 247 child protection-involved but intact families in Washington State randomized to receive PFR (n = 124) or resource and referral (n = 123).

METHODS

We monetized intervention effects on out-of-home placements and implicit effects on CAN and calculated net present values under three scenarios: (1) benefits from avoided system costs, (2) additional benefits from avoided tangible victim costs, and (3) additional benefits from avoided tangible and intangible quality-of-life victim costs. For scenarios 2 and 3, we varied the CAN effect size and estimated the effect size at which PFR was reliably cost beneficial.

RESULTS

PFR's societal net benefit ranged from $1 (scenario 1) to $5514 - $25,562 (scenario 2) and $7004 - $32,072 (scenario 3) (2014 USD). In scenarios 2 and 3, PFR was reliably cost beneficial at a CAN effect size of approximately -0.25.

CONCLUSIONS

PFR is cost beneficial assuming tangible victim costs are avoided by PFR. Research into the long-term health and economic consequences of reducing CAN in at-risk populations would contribute to comprehensive, accurate benefits models.

Impact of a home visiting program on sleep problems among young children experiencing adversity

BACKGROUND

Adversity may negatively impact young children's sleep but receiving home visitation services could buffer children from this potential consequence of adversity.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined whether young children's adverse experiences increased their risk for sleep problems and if Promoting First Relationships® (PFR), a home visitation program, reduced children's risk for sleep problems both directly and indirectly through increased parenting sensitivity.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Participants were 247 parents and their 10- to 24-month-old child recruited from Child Protective Services offices.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing PFR to a resource and referral control condition was conducted. Four time points of data were collected from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Parenting sensitivity was measured at all time points using a parent-child interaction tool. Children's adversities were measured at various time points using caregiver report tools and official state records. Children's sleep problems were reported by parents at 6 months post-intervention.

RESULTS

The likelihood of having a sleep problem increased as children's adversities increased (β = .23, SE = .08, p = .005). There was no effect (direct or indirect) of treatment assignment on children's sleep problems (ps > .05). Post hoc analyses showed a treatment assignment by adversity interaction such that children's odds of having a sleep problem increased as their adversities increased, but only among children in the control condition (b = -0.37, SE = 0.17, p = .030).

CONCLUSIONS

Experiencing more adversities associated with a greater risk for sleep problems, but PFR buffered children from this risk.

Does Parents' Own History of Child Abuse Moderate the Effectiveness of the Promoting First Relationships® Intervention in Child Welfare?

To better understand how and for whom parenting intervention may improve family outcomes in child welfare services, we examined whether parents' own history of child abuse moderated the indirect effects of the Promoting First Relationships® (PFR) intervention on toddlers' secure base behavior via parental sensitivity. Parents ( N = 247) and their toddlers (10-24 months) involved with child protective services were randomized to PFR or a control intervention. Results showed that the PFR group demonstrated greater parental sensitivity at postintervention than the control group, which in turn led to higher levels of toddler secure base behavior at 6-month follow-up. Findings from a moderated mediation model indicated that these intervention effects were only evident for parents who experienced physical abuse in their childhood. Parents' history of sexual or emotional abuse did not significantly moderate outcomes. These results provide evidence for a key mechanism of change in PFR informed by attachment theory and suggest that PFR intervention effects may be stronger in parents at higher risk of the intergenerational transmission of abuse.

Promoting First Relationships®: Randomized Trial of a 10-Week Home Visiting Program With Families Referred to Child Protective Services

We conducted a community-based randomized control trial with intent-to-treat analysis on Promoting First Relationships® (PFR), a 10-week home visiting program. The study included 247 families with 10- to 24-month-old children who had a recent, open child protective services investigation of child maltreatment. Families were randomly assigned to receive either the 10-week home visiting PFR service or a telephone-based, three-call resource and referral (R&R) service. Across postintervention time points, parents in the PFR condition scored higher than families in the R&R condition in parent understanding of toddlers' social emotional needs ( d = .35) and observed parental sensitivity ( d = .20). Children in the PFR condition scored lower than children in the comparison condition on an observational measure of atypical affective communication ( d = .19) and were less likely than children in the comparison group to be placed into foster care through 1-year postintervention (6% vs. 13%, p = .042). No significant differences were found on measures of parenting stress or child social-emotional competence, behavior problems, or secure base behavior. Overall, the results show support for the promise of PFR as an intervention for enhancing parent sensitivity and preventing child removals for families in the child welfare system.