1
|
Protocol for the Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial of Being a Parent- Enjoying Family Life (BAP-EFL): A peer-led group intervention for parents and caregivers with significant emotional and interpersonal difficulties. Contemp Clin Trials 2023; 124:107014. [PMID: 36410690 DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2022.107014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2022] [Revised: 11/14/2022] [Accepted: 11/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
Group-format parenting interventions are well-established at reducing challenging child behavior and risk for psychopathology. However, there is significantly less evidence about the performance of these interventions for parents with significant emotional and interpersonal difficulties, including personality disorder. This protocol presents the rationale and design of a two-arm parallel group feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial and nested process evaluation of Being a Parent (BaP)- Enjoying Family Life, a novel peer-led intervention. The trial compares BaP-Enjoying Family Life to the well-established Empowering Parents Empowering Communities-Being a Parent (EPEC-Being a Parent) in a sample of parents who experience significant emotional and interpersonal difficulties and who are concerned about their child's, aged 2-11 years, behavior. 72 parents will be recruited and randomised to receive either BaP-Enjoying Family Life or EPEC-Being a Parent group-format interventions. The primary aim of this study is to examine the feasibility and acceptability of BaP-Enjoying Family Life and the proposed trial methods. Secondary clinical outcomes include child behavioral difficulties, parenting, parental reflective function, parent wellbeing, satisfaction and self-efficacy. An observational assessment of parent and index child will also assess changes in the home environment. Outcome measures will be collected pre-intervention, post-intervention and at 6-month follow up. A parallel process evaluation will use qualitative data from interviews to assess parents' experience of the intervention delivery and trial methods. Findings will be evaluated against pre-determined feasibility criteria. The results will be used to determine the planning of a definitive clinical trial. The wider methodological and clinical implications are also discussed.
Collapse
|
2
|
Moran P, Bick D, Biddle L, Borries B, Kandiyali R, Rigby J, Seume P, Sadhnani V, Smith N, Swales M, Turner N. A feasibility randomised controlled trial with an embedded qualitative evaluation of perinatal emotional skills groups for women with borderline personality disorder: protocol for the EASE study. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2022; 8:215. [PMID: 36151584 PMCID: PMC9503265 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-022-01177-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2022] [Accepted: 09/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe mental disorder characterised by emotional instability, impaired interpersonal functioning and an increased risk of suicide. There is no clear evidence about how best to help women with BPD during the perinatal period. Perinatal Emotional Skills Groups (ESGs) consist of 12 group sessions, focussing on core skills in emotion regulation, interpersonal effectiveness, distress tolerance and mindfulness and how these skills can best be utilised during the perinatal period. Prior observational research has shown that perinatal ESGs may help women with BPD. We set out to test the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to investigate the clinical effectiveness of perinatal ESGs. METHODS A two-arm, parallel-group, feasibility randomised controlled trial of Perinatal ESGs in addition to Treatment as Usual (TAU) versus TAU for women aged over 18 years, who are likely to have a diagnosis of BPD and are either pregnant or are within 12 months of having a live birth. We will exclude women who have a co-existing organic, psychotic mental disorder or substance use dependence syndrome; those with cognitive or language difficulties that would preclude them from consenting or participating in study procedures; those judged to pose an acute risk to their baby and those requiring admission to a mother and baby unit. After consenting to participation and completing screening assessments, eligible individuals will be randomly allocated, on a 1:1 ratio, to either ESGs + TAU or to TAU. Randomisation will be stratified according to recruitment centre. Feasibility outcomes will be the proportion of participants: (1) consenting; (2) completing baseline measures and randomised; (3) completing the intervention and (4) completing follow-up assessments. All study participants will complete a battery of self-report measures at 2 and 4 months post-randomisation. A nested qualitative study will examine participants' and therapists' experiences of the trial and the intervention. DISCUSSION Evidence is lacking about how to help women with BPD during the perinatal period. Perinatal ESGs are a promising intervention and if they prove to be an effective adjunct to usual care, a large population of vulnerable women and their children could experience substantial health gains. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN80470632.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Moran
- Centre for Academic Mental Health, Population Health Sciences Department, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Debra Bick
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Lucy Biddle
- Population Health Sciences Department, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Belinda Borries
- Specialist Community Perinatal Mental Health Service, Avon & Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Rebecca Kandiyali
- Centre for Health Economics, Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Janice Rigby
- Channi Kumar Mother and Baby Unit, Bethlem Royal Hospital, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Penny Seume
- Centre for Academic Mental Health, Population Health Sciences Department, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Vaneeta Sadhnani
- Specialist Community Perinatal Mental Health Service, Avon & Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Nadine Smith
- Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Lead, London, UK
| | - Michaela Swales
- North Wales Clinical psychology Programme, Bangor University, Bath, UK
| | - Nicholas Turner
- Population Health Sciences Department, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Radley J, Sivarajah N, Moltrecht B, Klampe ML, Hudson F, Delahay R, Barlow J, Johns LC. A Scoping Review of Interventions Designed to Support Parents With Mental Illness That Would Be Appropriate for Parents With Psychosis. Front Psychiatry 2021; 12:787166. [PMID: 35153857 PMCID: PMC8828543 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.787166] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2021] [Accepted: 12/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
The experience of psychosis can present additional difficulties for parents, over and above the normal challenges of parenting. Although there is evidence about parenting interventions specifically targeted at parents with affective disorders, anxiety, and borderline personality disorder, there is currently limited evidence for parents with psychotic disorders. It is not yet known what, if any, interventions exist for this population, or what kinds of evaluations have been conducted. To address this, we conducted a scoping review to determine (1) what parenting interventions have been developed for parents with psychosis (either specifically for, or accessible by, this client group), (2) what components these interventions contain, and (3) what kinds of evaluations have been conducted. The eligibility criteria were broad; we included any report of an intervention for parents with a mental health diagnosis, in which parents with psychosis were eligible to take part, that had been published within the last 20 years. Two reviewers screened reports and extracted the data from the included reports. Thirty-eight studies of 34 interventions were included. The findings show that most interventions have been designed either for parents with any mental illness or parents with severe mental illness, and only two interventions were trialed with a group of parents with psychosis. After noting clusters of intervention components, five groups were formed focused on: (1) talking about parental mental illness, (2) improving parenting skills, (3) long-term tailored support for the whole family, (4) groups for parents with mental illness, and (5) family therapy. Twenty-three quantitative evaluations and 13 qualitative evaluations had been conducted but only eight interventions have or are being evaluated using a randomized controlled trial (RCT). More RCTs of these interventions are needed, in addition to further analysis of the components that are the most effective in changing outcomes for both the parent and their children, in order to support parents with psychosis and their families.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica Radley
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | | | - Bettina Moltrecht
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Marie-Louise Klampe
- Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Felicity Hudson
- School of Psychological Science, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Rachel Delahay
- Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Jane Barlow
- Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Louise C Johns
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.,Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Day C, Briskman J, Crawford MJ, Foote L, Harris L, Boadu J, McCrone P, McMurran M, Michelson D, Moran P, Mosse L, Scott S, Stahl D, Ramchandani P, Weaver T. An intervention for parents with severe personality difficulties whose children have mental health problems: a feasibility RCT. Health Technol Assess 2020; 24:1-188. [PMID: 32174297 PMCID: PMC7103915 DOI: 10.3310/hta24140] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The children of parents with severe personality difficulties have greater risk of significant mental health problems. Existing care is poorly co-ordinated, with limited effectiveness. A specialised parenting intervention may improve child and parenting outcomes, reduce family morbidity and lower the service costs. OBJECTIVES To develop a specialised parenting intervention for parents affected by severe personality difficulties who have children with mental health problems and to conduct a feasibility trial. DESIGN A pragmatic, mixed-methods design to develop and pilot a specialised parenting intervention, Helping Families Programme-Modified, and to conduct a randomised feasibility trial with process evaluation. Initial cost-effectiveness was assessed using UK NHS/Personal Social Services and societal perspectives, generating quality-adjusted life-years. Researchers collecting quantitative data were masked to participant allocation. SETTING Two NHS mental health trusts and concomitant children's social care services. PARTICIPANTS Parents who met the following criteria: (1) the primary caregiver of the index child, (2) aged 18-65 years, (3) have severe personality difficulties, (4) proficient in English and (5) capable of providing informed consent. Index children who met the following criteria: (1) aged 3-11 years, (2) living with index parent and (3) have significant emotional/behavioural difficulties. Exclusion criteria were (1) having coexisting psychosis, (2) participating in another parenting intervention, (3) receiving inpatient care, (4) having insufficient language/cognitive abilities, (5) having child developmental disorder, (6) care proceedings and (7) index child not residing with index parent. INTERVENTION The Helping Families Programme-Modified - a 16-session intervention using structured, goal-orientated strategies and collaborative therapeutic methods to improve parenting, and child and parent functioning. Usual care - standard care augmented by a single psychoeducational session. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Trial feasibility - rates of recruitment, eligibility, allocation, retention, data completion and experience. Intervention acceptability - rates of acceptance, completion, alliance (Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised) and experience. Outcomes - child (assessed via Concerns About My Child, Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory, Child Behaviour Checklist-Internalising Scale), parenting (assessed via the Arnold-O'Leary Parenting Scale, Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale), parent (assessed via the Symptom Checklist-27), and health economics (assessed via the Client Service Receipt Inventory, EuroQol-5 Dimensions). RESULTS The findings broadly supported trial feasibility using non-diagnostic screening criteria. Parents were mainly referred from one site (75.0%). Site and participant factors delayed recruitment. An estimate of eligible parents was not obtained. Of the 86 parents referred, 60 (69.7%) completed screening and 48 of these (80.0%) were recruited. Participants experienced significant disadvantage and multiple morbidity. The Helping Families Programme-Modified uptake (87.5%) was higher than usual-care uptake (62.5%). Trial retention (66.7%, 95% confidence interval 51.6% to 79.6%) exceeded the a priori rate. Process findings highlighted the impact of random allocation and the negative effects on retention. The Helping Families Programme-Modified was acceptable, with duration of delivery longer than planned, whereas the usual-care condition was less acceptable. At initial follow-up, effects on child and parenting outcomes were detected across both arms, with a potential outcome advantage for the Helping Families Programme-Modified (effect size range 0.0-1.3). For parental quality-adjusted life-years, the Helping Families Programme-Modified dominated usual care, and child quality-adjusted life-years resulted in higher costs and more quality-adjusted life-years. At second follow-up, the Helping Families Programme-Modified was associated with higher costs and more quality-adjusted life-years than usual care. For child quality-adjusted life-years, when controlled for baseline EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, usual care dominated the Helping Families Programme-Modified. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION The Helping Families Programme-Modified is an acceptable specialised parenting intervention. Trial methods using non-diagnostic criteria were largely supported. For future work, a definitive efficacy trial should consider site selection, recruitment methods, intervention efficiency and revised comparator condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14573230. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Crispin Day
- CAMHS Research Unit, Centre for Parent and Child Support, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Michael Rutter Centre, London, UK
| | - Jackie Briskman
- Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Mike J Crawford
- The Centre for Psychiatry, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | | | - Lucy Harris
- CAMHS Research Unit, Centre for Parent and Child Support, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Michael Rutter Centre, London, UK
| | - Janet Boadu
- King's Health Economics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Paul McCrone
- Institute of Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK
| | - Mary McMurran
- Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Paul Moran
- Centre for Academic Mental Health, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Liberty Mosse
- CAMHS Research Unit, Centre for Parent and Child Support, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Michael Rutter Centre, London, UK
| | - Stephen Scott
- Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Daniel Stahl
- Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Paul Ramchandani
- PEDAL Research Centre, The Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Timothy Weaver
- Department of Mental Health, Social Work and Integrative Medicine, School of Health and Education, Middlesex University, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Day C, Briskman J, Crawford MJ, Foote L, Harris L, Boadu J, McCrone P, McMurran M, Michelson D, Moran P, Mosse L, Scott S, Stahl D, Ramchandani P, Weaver T. Randomised feasibility trial of the helping families programme-modified: an intensive parenting intervention for parents affected by severe personality difficulties. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e033637. [PMID: 32034024 PMCID: PMC7045220 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2019] [Revised: 12/18/2019] [Accepted: 01/17/2020] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Specialist parenting intervention could improve coexistent parenting and child mental health difficulties of parents affected by severe personality difficulties. OBJECTIVE Conduct a feasibility trial of Helping Families Programme-Modified (HFP-M), a specialist parenting intervention. DESIGN Pragmatic, mixed-methods trial, 1:1 random allocation, assessing feasibility, intervention acceptability and outcome estimates. SETTINGS Two National Health Service health trusts and local authority children's social care. PARTICIPANTS Parents: (i) primary caregiver, (ii) 18 to 65 years, (iii) severe personality difficulties, (iv) proficient English and (v) capacity for consent. Child: (i) 3 to 11 years, (ii) living with index parent and (iii) significant emotional/behavioural difficulties. INTERVENTION HFP-M: 16-session home-based intervention using parenting and therapeutic engagement strategies. Usual care: standard care augmented by single psychoeducational parenting session. OUTCOMES Primary feasibility outcome: participant retention rate. SECONDARY OUTCOMES (i) rates of recruitment, eligibility and data completion, and (ii) rates of intervention acceptance, completion and alliance (Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised). Primary clinical outcome: child behaviour (Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory). SECONDARY OUTCOMES child mental health (Concerns About My Child, Child Behaviour Checklist-Internalising Scale), parenting (Arnold-O'Leary Parenting Scale, Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale) and parent mental health (Symptom-Checklist-27). Quantitative data were collected blind to allocation. RESULTS Findings broadly supported non-diagnostic selection criterion. Of 48 participants recruited, 32 completed post-intervention measures at mean 42 weeks later. Participant retention exceeded a priori rate (HFP-M=18; Usual care=14; 66.7%, 95% CI 51.6% to 79.6%). HFP-M was acceptable, with delivery longer than planned. Usual care had lower alliance rating. Child and parenting outcome effects detected across trial arms with potential HFP-M advantage (effect size range: 0.0 to 1.3). CONCLUSION HFP-M is an acceptable and potentially effective specialist parenting intervention. A definitive trial is feasible, subject to consideration of recruitment and retention methods, intervention efficiency and comparator condition. Caution is required in interpretation of results due to reduced sample size. No serious adverse events reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN14573230.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Crispin Day
- Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College, London, UK
- Centre for Parent and Child Support, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jackie Briskman
- Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College, London, UK
| | | | | | - Lucy Harris
- Centre for Parent and Child Support, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Janet Boadu
- King's Health Economics, P024 David Goldberg Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Paul McCrone
- King's Health Economics, P024 David Goldberg Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
- Centre for Mental Health, Institute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK
| | - Mary McMurran
- Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Paul Moran
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Centre for Academic Mental Health, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Liberty Mosse
- Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College, London, UK
| | - Stephen Scott
- Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Daniel Stahl
- Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Paul Ramchandani
- Faculty of Education, PEDAL Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tim Weaver
- Department of Mental Health, Middlesex University, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|