Enhancing Social-Emotional Health and Wellbeing in the Early Years (E-SEE): a study protocol of a community-based randomised controlled trial with process and economic evaluations of the incredible years infant and toddler parenting programmes, delivered in a proportionate universal model

Parent-child relationship outcomes of the Incredible Years Parents and Babies Program: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

A warm, sensitive, and responsive relationship to a caregiver is essential for healthy child development.

Objective

This paper examines the effects of the Incredible Years Parents and Babies (IYPB) program on the parent-child relationship at post-intervention when offered as a universal parenting intervention to parents with newborn infants.

Method

We conducted a pragmatic, two-arm, parallel pilot randomized controlled trial; 112 families with newborns were randomized to IYPB intervention (76) or usual care (36). The IYPB program is a group intervention with eight two-hour sessions. In addition to parent-reported questionnaires, we collected a six-minute-long video at post-intervention from 97 families to assess the parent-child relationship, which was then coded with the Coding Interactive Behavior system.

Results

There were no significant intervention effects on either the total score or any of the seven subscales at post-intervention when the children were around 5.5 months old. For parental sensitivity, results were significant at the 10% level, favoring the IYPB group. When examining the lowest-functioning mothers in moderator analyses, we also found no significant differences between the two groups.

Conclusion

In line with parent-report outcomes, we did not find any statistically significant differences between the IYPB program and usual care on parent-child relationship when offered as a universal intervention for a relatively well-functioning group of parents with infants in a setting with a high standard of usual care. However, there was a positive trend for the total score, parental sensitivity and reciprocity with effect sizes in the range of .41-.51. It is possible that a larger sample would have resulted in significant differences for these outcomes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01931917 (registration date August 27, 2013)

A proportionate, universal parenting programme to enhance social-emotional well-being in infants and toddlers in England: the E-SEE Steps RCT

Background

Mental disorders have become a public health crisis. Early prevention is key. Parenting programmes are effective for children aged ≥ 3 years; however, there is a lack of evidence of their effectiveness for children aged ≤ 2 years.

Objectives

To establish if the model named Enhancing Social–Emotional Health and Well-being in the Early Years (E-SEE) Steps can (1) enhance child social emotional well-being and establish whether or not it is cost-effective at 20 months of age when compared with services as usual; and (2) be delivered as a proportionate universal model with fidelity.

Design

A pragmatic two-arm randomised controlled trial and economic appraisal, with an embedded process evaluation to examine the outcomes, implementation and cost-effectiveness of the intervention, and intervention uptake, compared with services as usual. The study had an external pilot phase (which was originally planned as an internal pilot).

Setting

The intervention was delivered in community settings by early years children’s services and/or public health staff in four sites.

Participants

A total of 341 parents of infants aged ≤ 8 weeks were randomised in a ratio of 5 : 1 (intervention, n = 285; control, n = 56). The target sample was 606 parents.

Intervention

Two Incredible Years® parenting programmes (i.e. infant and toddler) delivered in a proportionate universal model with three levels [one universal (book) and two targeted group-based parenting programmes].

Main outcome measures

Child social and emotional well-being (primary outcome) was assessed using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social and Emotional, 2nd edition, at 2, 9 and 18 months after randomisation. Parent depression (secondary key outcome) was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items. Both questionnaires were eligibility screeners for targeted groups.

Results

The primary outcome analysis provided no evidence that the E-SEE Steps model was effective in enhancing child social and emotional well-being. The adjusted mean difference was 3.02 on the original Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social and Emotional, 2nd edition, in favour of the control [95% confidence interval –0.03 to 6.08; p = 0.052; N = 321 (intervention, n = 268; control, n = 53)]. Analysis of the key secondary outcome (i.e. parent depression levels as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items) provided weak evidence on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items in favour of the intervention (adjusted mean difference –0.61, 95% confidence interval –1.34 to 0.12; p = 0.1). Other secondary outcomes did not differ between arms. The economic analysis showed that the E-SEE Steps model was associated with higher costs and was marginally more effective (0.031 quality-adjusted life-years gained from E-SEE Steps compared with SAU, 95% confidence interval –0.008 to 0.071) than services as usual, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately £20,062 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with services as usual. Overall take-up of the targeted parenting programmes was low. Sites, although enthusiastic, identified barriers to delivering the intervention.

Limitations

The target sample size was not met and the study was not powered to explore the effectiveness of each level of intervention. Most parents in the sample were well educated and, therefore, the results are unlikely to be generalisable, particularly to those at greatest risk of poor social and emotional well-being.

Conclusions

The E-SEE Steps proportionate universal model did not enhance child social and emotional well-being, but generated non-significant improvements in parent health outcomes, resulting in considerable uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. The primary and key secondary outcome gave inconsistent signals. Although, with system changes, increased resources and adaptations to the intervention, the model could be implemented, evidence for positive outcomes from the E-SEE Steps model is poor.

Future work

The universal-level E-SEE Step data (i.e. the Incredible Years book) from the external pilot will be pooled with the main trial data for further exploration up to follow-up 1, which is the time point at which most change was seen.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN11079129.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A randomized controlled trial of a proportionate universal parenting program delivery model (E-SEE Steps) to enhance child social-emotional wellbeing

Background

Evidence for parenting programs to improve wellbeing in children under three is inconclusive. We investigated the fidelity, impact, and cost-effectiveness of two parenting programs delivered within a longitudinal proportionate delivery model (‘E-SEE Steps’).

Methods

Eligible parents with a child ≤ 8 weeks were recruited into a parallel two-arm, assessor blinded, randomized controlled, community-based, trial with embedded economic and process evaluations. Post-baseline randomization applied a 5:1 (intervention-to-control) ratio, stratified by primary (child social-emotional wellbeing (ASQ:SE-2)) and key secondary (maternal depression (PHQ-9)) outcome scores, sex, and site. All intervention parents received the Incredible Years^® Baby Book (IY-B), and were offered the targeted Infant (IY-I)/Toddler (IY-T) program if eligible, based on ASQ:SE-2/PHQ-9 scores. Control families received usual services. Fidelity data were analysed descriptively. Primary analysis applied intention to treat. Effectiveness analysis fitted a marginal model to outcome scores. Cost-effectiveness analysis involved Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs).

Results

The target sample (N = 606) was not achieved; 341 mothers were randomized (285:56), 322 (94%) were retained to study end. Of those eligible for the IY-I (n = 101), and IY-T (n = 101) programs, 51 and 21 respectively, attended. Eight (of 14) groups met the 80% self-reported fidelity criteria. No significant differences between arms were found for adjusted mean difference scores; ASQ:SE-2 (3.02, 95% CI: -0.03, 6.08, p = 0.052), PHQ-9 (-0.61; 95% CI: -1.34, 0.12, p = 0.1). E-SEE Steps had higher costs, but improved mothers’ Health-related Quality of Life (0.031 Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gain), ICER of £20,062 per QALY compared to control. Serious adverse events (n = 86) were unrelated to the intervention.

Conclusions

E-SEE Steps was not effective, but was borderline cost-effective. The model was delivered with varying fidelity, with lower-than-expected IY-T uptake. Changes to delivery systems and the individual programs may be needed prior to future evaluation.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN11079129.

The Measurement Properties and Acceptability of a New Parent–Infant Bonding Tool (‘Me and My Baby’) for Use in United Kingdom Universal Healthcare Settings: A Psychometric, Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines acknowledge the importance of the parent–infant relationship for child development but highlight the need for further research to establish reliable tools for assessment, particularly for parents of children under 1 year. This study explores the acceptability and psychometric properties of a co-developed tool, ‘Me and My Baby’ (MaMB).

Study design

A cross-sectional design was applied. The MaMB was administered universally (in two sites) with mothers during routine 6–8-week Health Visitor contacts. The sample comprised 467 mothers (434 MaMB completers and 33 ‘non-completers’). Dimensionality of instrument responses were evaluated via exploratory and confirmatory ordinal factor analyses. Item response modeling was conducted via a Rasch calibration to evaluate how the tool conformed to principles of ‘fundamental measurement’. Tool acceptability was evaluated via completion rates and comparing ‘completers’ and ‘non-completers’ demographic differences on age, parity, ethnicity, and English as an additional language. Free-text comments were summarized. Data sharing agreements and data management were compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation, and University of York data management policies.

Results

High completion rates suggested the MaMB was acceptable. Psychometric analyses showed the response data to be an excellent fit to a unidimensional confirmatory factor analytic model. All items loaded statistically significantly and substantially (>0.4) on a single underlying factor (latent variable). The item response modeling showed that most MaMB items fitted the Rasch model. (Rasch) item reliability was high (0.94) yet the test yielded little information on each respondent, as highlighted by the relatively low ‘person separation index’ of 0.1.

Conclusion and next steps

MaMB reliably measures a single construct, likely to be infant bonding. However, further validation work is needed, preferably with ‘enriched population samples’ to include higher-need/risk families. The MaMB tool may benefit from reduced response categories (from four to three) and some modest item wording amendments. Following further validation and reliability appraisal the MaMB may ultimately be used with fathers/other primary caregivers and be potentially useful in research, universal health settings as part of a referral pathway, and clinical practice, to identify dyads in need of additional support/interventions.

[Theoretical and practical challenges of proportionate universalism: a reviewAnálise dos desafios teóricos e práticos de universalismo proporcional]

OBJECTIVE

In 2010, the principle of proportionate universalism (PU) has been proposed as a solution to reduce health inequalities. It had a great resonance but does not seem to have been widely applied and no guidelines exist on how to implement it. The two specific objectives of this scoping review were: (1) to describe the theoretical context in which PU was established, (2) to describe how researchers apply PU and related methodological issues.

METHODS

We searched for all articles published until 6th of February 2020, mentioning "Proportionate Universalism" or its synonyms "Targeted universalism" OR "Progressive Universalism" as a topic in all Web of Science databases.

RESULTS

This review of 55 articles allowed us a global vision around the question of PU regarding its theoretical foundations and practical implementation. PU principle is rooted in the social theories of universalism and targeting. It proposes to link these two aspects in order to achieve an effective reduction of health inequalities. Regarding practical implementation, PU interventions were rare and led to different interpretations. There are still many methodological and ethical challenges regarding conception and evaluation of PU interventions, including how to apply proportionality, and identification of needs.

CONCLUSION

This review mapped available scientific literature on PU and its related concepts. PU principle originates from social theories. As highlighted by authors who implemented PU interventions, application raises many challenges from design to evaluation. Analysis of PU applications provided in this review answered to some of them but remaining methodological challenges could be addressed in further research.

Preventing Childhood Toxic Stress: Partnering With Families and Communities to Promote Relational Health

By focusing on the safe, stable, and nurturing relationships (SSNRs) that buffer adversity and build resilience, pediatric care is on the cusp of a paradigm shift that could reprioritize clinical activities, rewrite research agendas, and realign our collective advocacy. Driving this transformation are advances in developmental sciences as they inform a deeper understanding of how early life experiences, both nurturing and adverse, are biologically embedded and influence outcomes in health, education, and economic stability across the life span. This revised policy statement on childhood toxic stress acknowledges a spectrum of potential adversities and reaffirms the benefits of an ecobiodevelopmental model for understanding the childhood origins of adult-manifested disease and wellness. It also endorses a paradigm shift toward relational health because SSNRs not only buffer childhood adversity when it occurs but also promote the capacities needed to be resilient in the future. To translate this relational health framework into clinical practice, generative research, and public policy, the entire pediatric community needs to adopt a public health approach that builds relational health by partnering with families and communities. This public health approach to relational health needs to be integrated both vertically (by including primary, secondary, and tertiary preventions) and horizontally (by including public service sectors beyond health care). The American Academy of Pediatrics asserts that SSNRs are biological necessities for all children because they mitigate childhood toxic stress responses and proactively build resilience by fostering the adaptive skills needed to cope with future adversity in a healthy manner.

One-year follow-up of The Incredible Years Parents and Babies Program: A pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

The foundation of a healthy life begins in pregnancy and early adversity can have detrimental long-term consequences for affected children.

Objective

This paper examines the effects of the Incredible Years Parents and Babies program (IYPB) at one-year follow-up when offered as a universal parenting intervention to parents with newborn infants.

Method

We conducted a pragmatic, two-arm, parallel pilot randomized controlled trial; 112 families with newborns were randomized to IYPB intervention (n = 76) or usual care (n = 36). The IYPB program is a group intervention with eight two-hour sessions. Follow-up outcomes collected a year after the intervention ended include parental stress, depression, well-being, reflective function, sense of competence, and child cognitive and socio-emotional development.

Results

There were no intervention effects on any of the primary or secondary parent-reported outcomes at one-year follow-up when the children were 18 months old. When examining the lowest-functioning mothers in moderator analyses, we found that mothers assigned to the IYPB group reported significantly lower scores for the interest and curiosity subscale of the parent reflective function scale than control mothers (β=-1,07 [-2.09,-0.06]).

Conclusion

We found no long-term effects of the IYPB when offered as a universal intervention for a relatively well-functioning group of parents with infants in a setting with a high standard of usual care. The intervention was developed for more vulnerable families in settings with a low level of universal care and the program may be effective for families in those circumstances.

Theoretical and practical challenges of proportionate universalism: a review

OBJECTIVE

In 2010, the principle of proportionate universalism (PU) has been proposed as a solution to reduce health inequalities. It had a great resonance but does not seem to have been widely applied and no guidelines exist on how to implement it.The two specific objectives of this scoping review were: (1) to describe the theoretical context in which PU was established, (2) to describe how researchers apply PU and related methodological issues.

METHODS

We searched for all articles published until 6th of February 2020, mentioning "Proportionate Universalism" or its synonyms "Targeted universalism" OR "Progressive Universalism" as a topic in all Web of Science databases.

RESULTS

This review of 55 articles allowed us a global vision around the question of PU regarding its theoretical foundations and practical implementation. PU principle is rooted in the social theories of universalism and targeting. It proposes to link these two aspects in order to achieve an effective reduction of health inequalities. Regarding practical implementation, PU interventions were rare and led to different interpretations. There are still many methodological and ethical challenges regarding conception and evaluation of PU interventions, including how to apply proportionality, and identification of needs.

CONCLUSION

This review mapped available scientific literature on PU and its related concepts. PU principle originates from social theories. As highlighted by authors who implemented PU interventions, application raises many challenges from design to evaluation. Analysis of PU applications provided in this review answered to some of them but remaining methodological challenges could be addressed in further research.

Promoting Learning from Null or Negative Results in Prevention Science Trials

There can be a tendency for investigators to disregard or explain away null or negative results in prevention science trials. Examples include not publicizing findings, conducting spurious subgroup analyses, or attributing the outcome post hoc to real or perceived weaknesses in trial design or intervention implementation. This is unhelpful for several reasons, not least that it skews the evidence base, contributes to research “waste”, undermines respect for science, and stifles creativity in intervention development. In this paper, we identify possible policy and practice responses when interventions have null (ineffective) or negative (harmful) results, and argue that these are influenced by: the intervention itself (e.g., stage of gestation, perceived importance); trial design, conduct, and results (e.g., pattern of null/negative effects, internal and external validity); context (e.g., wider evidence base, state of policy); and individual perspectives and interests (e.g., stake in the intervention). We advance several strategies to promote more informative null or negative effect trials and enable learning from such results, focusing on changes to culture, process, intervention design, trial design, and environment.