A cognitive behavioral based group intervention for children with a chronic illness and their parents: a multicentre randomized controlled trial

The effectiveness of the serious game "Broodles" for siblings of children with intellectual disabilities and/or visual impairment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Siblings of children with disabilities also need support. However, there are only a few evidence-based interventions for these siblings. The current study aims to assess the effectiveness of a newly developed serious game for young siblings of children with intellectual disability (ID) and/or visual impairment (VI). This serious game is hypothesized to improve sibling's quality of life, adjustment to their brother's or sister's disability, and multiple aspects of psychosocial well-being.

METHODS

The intervention consists of a serious game called "Broodles" (in Dutch: "Broedels") that helps children to recognize and deal with thoughts, feelings, and difficult situations. The game consists of eight 20-minute levels that all have the same structure with eight game elements. Each level addresses a domain of sibling quality of life and combines animations, mini-documentaries, fun mini-games, and multiple-choice questions. In addition to the game, siblings make a worksheet after playing each level. In order to support the child, the parents or caregivers receive a short brochure with information and tips. The effectiveness of the intervention will be investigated among a sample of 154 children aged 6-9 years and their parents or caregivers, using a two-arm parallel RCT design. The experimental group will play the serious game "Broodles" over a period of 4 weeks, whereas the control group will be placed on a waiting list. Assessments will take place at three time points: pre-test (week 1), post-test (week 5), and follow-up (weeks 12-14). At each timepoint, children and parents will complete several questionnaires on quality of life and different aspects of psychosocial well-being. In addition, children will make drawings to assess the sibling relationship. Next to that, parents and children will answer closed and open-ended questions about the sibling adjustment to their brother or sister's disability. Finally, parents and children will evaluate the serious game through closed and open-ended questions.

DISCUSSION

This study contributes to the knowledge about sibling interventions and serious games. Additionally, if the serious game is proven to be effective, it will be a readily available, easily accessible, and free of charge intervention for siblings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05376007, registered prospectively on April 21, 2022.

Daily life participation in childhood chronic disease: a qualitative study on the child's and parent's perspective

OBJECTIVE

To understand how a child with a stable chronic disease and his/her parents shape his/her daily life participation, we assessed: (1) the parents' goals regarding the child's daily life participation, (2) parental strategies regarding the child's participation and () how children and their parents interrelate when their goals regarding participation are not aligned.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study design using a general inductive approach. Families of children 8-19 years with a stable chronic disease (cystic fibrosis, autoimmune disease or postcancer treatment) were recruited from the PROactive study. Simultaneous in-depth interviews were conducted separately with the child and parent(s). Analyses included constant comparison, coding and categorisation.

RESULTS

Thirty-one of the 57 invited families (54%) participated. We found that parents predominantly focus on securing their child's well-being, using participation as a means to achieve well-being. Moreover, parents used different strategies to either support participation consistent with the child's healthy peers or support participation with a focus on physical well-being. The degree of friction between parents and their child was based on the level of agreement on who takes the lead regarding the child's participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Interestingly, parents described participation as primarily a means to achieve the child's well-being, whereas children described participation as more of a goal in itself. Understanding the child's and parent's perspective can help children, parents and healthcare professionals start a dialogue on participation and establish mutual goals. This may help parents and children find ways to interrelate while allowing the child to develop his/her autonomy.

Usability, Acceptability, Feasibility, and Effectiveness of a Gamified Mobile Health Intervention (Triumf) for Pediatric Patients: Qualitative Study

Background

Mental disorders are notably prevalent in children with chronic illnesses, whereas a lack of access to psychological support might lead to potential mental health problems or disruptions in treatment. Digitally delivered psychological interventions have shown promising results as a supportive treatment measure for improving health outcomes during chronic illness.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the usability, acceptability, and feasibility of providing psychological and treatment support in a clinical setting via a mobile game environment. In addition, the study aimed to evaluate the preliminary effectiveness of the mobile health game.

Methods

Patients aged 7 to 14 years with less than a year from their diagnosis were eligible to participate in the study. In total, 15 patients were invited to participate by their doctor. A total of 9 patients (age range: 7-12 years; mean age 9.1 years) completed the 60-day-long study in which the Triumf mobile health game was delivered as a digital intervention. In an engaging game environment, patients were offered psychological and treatment support, cognitive challenges, and disease-specific information. The fully digital intervention was followed by a qualitative interview conducted by a trained psychologist. The results of the interview were analyzed in conjunction with patient specific in-game qualitative data. Ethical approval was obtained to conduct the study.

Results

Patients positively perceived the game, resulting in high usability and acceptability evaluations. Participants unanimously described the game as easy to use and engaging in terms of gamified activities, while also providing beneficial and trustworthy information. Furthermore, the overall positive evaluation was emphasized by an observed tendency to carry on gaming post study culmination (67%, 10/15). Psychological support and mini games were the most often used components of the game, simultaneously the participants also highlighted the education module as one of the most preferred. On average, the patients sought and received psychological support or education on 66.6 occasions during the 60-day intervention. Participants spent the most time collecting items from the city environment (on average 15.6 days, SD 8.1), indicative of exploratory behavior, based on the quantitative in-game collected data. During the intervention period, we observed a statistically significant decrease in general health problems (P=.003) and saw a trend toward a decrease in depression and anxiety symptoms.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that a game environment could be a promising medium for delivering comprehensive supportive care to pediatric patients with cancer alongside standard treatment, with potential application across a variety of chronic conditions. Importantly, the results indicate that the study protocol was feasible with modifications to randomized controlled trials, and the game could be considered applicable in a clinical context. By giving an empirical evaluation of delivering psychological support via the game environment, our work stands to inform future mobile health interventions.

Psychological interventions for parents of children and adolescents with chronic illness

BACKGROUND

Psychological therapies for parents of children and adolescents with chronic illness aim to improve parenting behavior and mental health, child functioning (behavior/disability, mental health, and medical symptoms), and family functioning.This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review (2012) which was first updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of psychological therapies for parents of children and adolescents with a chronic illness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trials registries for studies published up to July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions for parents of children and adolescents with a chronic illness. In this update we included studies with more than 20 participants per arm. In this update, we included interventions that combined psychological and pharmacological treatments. We included comparison groups that received either non-psychological treatment (e.g. psychoeducation), treatment as usual (e.g. standard medical care without added psychological therapy), or wait-list.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted study characteristics and outcomes post-treatment and at first available follow-up. Primary outcomes were parenting behavior and parent mental health. Secondary outcomes were child behavior/disability, child mental health, child medical symptoms, and family functioning. We pooled data using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and a random-effects model, and evaluated outcomes by medical condition and by therapy type. We assessed risk of bias per Cochrane guidance and quality of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We added 21 new studies. We removed 23 studies from the previous update that no longer met our inclusion criteria. There are now 44 RCTs, including 4697 participants post-treatment. Studies included children with asthma (4), cancer (7), chronic pain (13), diabetes (15), inflammatory bowel disease (2), skin diseases (1), and traumatic brain injury (3). Therapy types included cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT; 21), family therapy (4), motivational interviewing (3), multisystemic therapy (4), and problem-solving therapy (PST; 12). We rated risk of bias as low or unclear for most domains, except selective reporting bias, which we rated high for 19 studies due to incomplete outcome reporting. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. We downgraded evidence due to high heterogeneity, imprecision, and publication bias.Evaluation of parent outcomes by medical conditionPsychological therapies may improve parenting behavior (e.g. maladaptive or solicitous behaviors; lower scores are better) in children with cancer post-treatment and follow-up (SMD -0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.43 to -0.13; participants = 664; studies = 3; SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.05; participants = 625; studies = 3; I2 = 0%, respectively, low-quality evidence), chronic pain post-treatment and follow-up (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.10; participants = 755; studies = 6; SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.20; participants = 678; studies = 5, respectively, moderate-quality evidence), diabetes post-treatment (SMD -1.39, 95% CI -2.41 to -0.38; participants = 338; studies = 5, very low-quality evidence), and traumatic brain injury post-treatment (SMD -0.74, 95% CI -1.25 to -0.22; participants = 254; studies = 3, very low-quality evidence). For the remaining analyses data were insufficient to evaluate the effect of treatment.Psychological therapies may improve parent mental health (e.g. depression, anxiety, lower scores are better) in children with cancer post-treatment and follow-up (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.08; participants = 836, studies = 6, high-quality evidence; SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.08; participants = 667; studies = 4, moderate-quality evidence, respectively), and chronic pain post-treatment and follow-up (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.06; participants = 490; studies = 3; SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.02; participants = 482; studies = 3, respectively, low-quality evidence). Parent mental health did not improve in studies of children with diabetes post-treatment (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.42; participants = 211; studies = 3, very low-quality evidence). For the remaining analyses, data were insufficient to evaluate the effect of treatment on parent mental health.Evaluation of parent outcomes by psychological therapy typeCBT may improve parenting behavior post-treatment (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.21; participants = 1040; studies = 9, low-quality evidence), and follow-up (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.11; participants = 743; studies = 6, moderate-quality evidence). We did not find evidence for a beneficial effect for CBT on parent mental health at post-treatment or follow-up (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.03; participants = 811; studies = 8; SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.20; participants = 592; studies = 5; respectively, very low-quality evidence). PST may improve parenting behavior post-treatment and follow-up (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.13; participants = 947; studies = 7, low-quality evidence; SMD -0.54, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.14; participants = 852; studies = 6, very low-quality evidence, respectively), and parent mental health post-treatment and follow-up (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.15; participants = 891; studies = 6; SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.07; participants = 800; studies = 5, respectively, moderate-quality evidence). For the remaining analyses, data were insufficient to evaluate the effect of treatment on parent outcomes.Adverse eventsWe could not evaluate treatment safety because most studies (32) did not report on whether adverse events occurred during the study period. In six studies, the authors reported that no adverse events occurred. The remaining six studies reported adverse events and none were attributed to psychological therapy. We rated the quality of evidence for adverse events as moderate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychological therapy may improve parenting behavior among parents of children with cancer, chronic pain, diabetes, and traumatic brain injury. We also found beneficial effects of psychological therapy may also improve parent mental health among parents of children with cancer and chronic pain. CBT and PST may improve parenting behavior. PST may also improve parent mental health. However, the quality of evidence is generally low and there are insufficient data to evaluate most outcomes. Our findings could change as new studies are conducted.

Online cognitive-behavioral based group interventions for adolescents with chronic illness and parents: study protocol of two multicenter randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Adolescents with chronic illness (CI) and parents of a child with CI are at risk for psychosocial problems. Psychosocial group interventions may prevent these problems. With the use of cognitive-behavioral therapy, active coping strategies can be learned. Offering an intervention online eliminates logistic barriers (travel time and distance) and improves accessibility for participants. Aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of two cognitive-behavioral based online group interventions, one for adolescents and one for parents: Op Koers Online. The approach is generic, which makes it easier for patients with rare illnesses to participate.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study conducts two separate multicenter randomized controlled trials. Participants are adolescents (12 to 18 years of age) with CI and parents of children (0 to 18 years of age) with CI. Participants are randomly allocated to the intervention group or the waitlist control group. Outcomes are measured with standardized questionnaires at baseline, after 8 (adolescents) or 6 (parents) weeks of treatment, and at 6- and 12-month follow-up period. Primary outcomes are psychosocial functioning (emotional and behavioral problems) and disease-related coping skills. Secondary outcomes for adolescents are self-esteem and quality of life. Secondary outcomes for parents are impact of the illness on family functioning, parental distress, social involvement and illness cognitions. The analyses will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed with linear mixed model analyses using SPSS.

DISCUSSION

These randomized controlled trials evaluate the effectiveness of two online group interventions improving psychosocial functioning in adolescents with CI and parents of children with CI. If proven effective, the intervention will be optimized and implemented in clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN ISRCTN83623452 . Registered 30 November 2017. Retrospectively registered.

The importance of family support in pediatrics and its impact on healthcare satisfaction

AIMS

To evaluate predictors of healthcare satisfaction for parents whose children received hospital-based healthcare services at the Children's hospital at Landspitali University Hospital.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, data on perceived family support, family quality of life, expressive family functioning, coping strategies and healthcare satisfaction were collected from 159 mothers and 60 fathers (N = 177 families) of children and adolescents from 2011 to 2012.

RESULTS

Logistic regression analysis revealed that, for mothers, 38.8% of the variance in satisfaction with healthcare services was predicted by perceived family support and their coping strategies, while for fathers, 59.9% of the variance of their satisfaction with healthcare service was predicted by perceived family support, family quality of life and whether the child had been hospitalised before.

DISCUSSION

Perceived family support was the one factor that was found to predict both the mothers' and the fathers' satisfaction with healthcare services. Knowing which factors predict satisfaction with health care among parents of hospitalised children with different chronic illnesses and health issues can inform the delivery of effective family-focused interventions and evidence-based practice to families.

Psychometric performance of the Quality of Life in Short Stature Youth (QoLISSY) questionnaire in the Netherlands

The European Quality of Life in Short Stature Youth (QoLISSY) questionnaire is a disease-specific instrument assessing quality of life (QoL) in children with short stature from the child and parent perspectives. In order to use the QoLISSY in Dutch samples, a translation process and psychometric testing is needed. Children diagnosed with short stature (8 to 18 years) and their parents were recruited from a Dutch growth clinic. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's α and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Pearsons' correlations with the generic KIDSCREEN and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed to test validity. Scales showed good internal consistency with α ranging from 0.80 to 0.94 (child report) and from 0.85 to 0.95 (parent report). Test-retest reliability (ICC) ranged from 0.15 to 0.91 (child report) and from 0.14 to 0.83 (parent report). Correlations with the KIDSCREEN in the mean range indicated criterion validity. The models' goodness of fit was confirmed by CFA results in the Dutch and in comparison with the European sample.

CONCLUSION

The Dutch QoLISSY is a psychometrically reliable and valid short stature-specific QoL measure. It is now available for use in clinical research and practice to evaluate well-being and possible effects of growth hormone treatment and psychological interventions in the Netherlands.

Psychological interventions for parents of children and adolescents with chronic illness

BACKGROUND

Psychological therapies have been developed for parents of children and adolescents with a chronic illness. Such therapies include interventions directed at the parent only or at parent and child/adolescent, and are designed to improve parent, child, and family outcomes. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 8, 2012, (Psychological interventions for parents of children and adolescents with chronic illness).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of psychological therapies that include parents of children and adolescents with chronic illnesses including painful conditions, cancer, diabetes mellitus, asthma, traumatic brain injury (TBI), inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), skin diseases, or gynaecological disorders. We also aimed to evaluate the adverse events related to implementation of psychological therapies for this population. Secondly, we aimed to evaluate the risk of bias of included studies and the quality of outcomes using the GRADE assessment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions that included parents of children and adolescents with a chronic illness. Databases were searched to July 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included studies were RCTs of psychological interventions that delivered treatment to parents of children and adolescents with a chronic illness compared to an active control, waiting list, or treatment as usual control group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study characteristics and outcomes were extracted from included studies. We analysed data using two categories. First, we analysed data by each individual medical condition collapsing across all treatment classes at two time points. Second, we analysed data by each individual treatment class; cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), family therapy (FT), problem solving therapy (PST) and multisystemic therapy (MST) collapsing across all medical conditions. For both sets of analyses we looked immediately post-treatment and at the first available follow-up. We assessed treatment effectiveness for two primary outcomes: parent behaviour and parent mental health. Five secondary outcomes were extracted; child behaviour/disability, child mental health, child symptoms, family functioning, and adverse events. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies were added in this update, giving a total of 47 RCTs. The total number of participants included in the data analyses was 2985, 804 of whom were added to the analyses in the update. The mean age of the children was 14.6 years. Of the 47 RCTs, the studies focused on the following paediatric conditions: n = 14 painful conditions, n = 13 diabetes, n =10 cancer, n = 5 asthma, n = 4 TBI, and n = 1 atopic eczema. We did not identify any studies treating parents of children with gynaecological disorders or IBD. Risk of bias assessments of included studies were predominantly unclear. Evidence quality, assessed using the GRADE criteria, was judged to be of low or very low quality.Analyses of separate medical conditions, across all treatment types, revealed two beneficial effects of psychological therapies for our primary outcomes. First, psychological therapies led to improved adaptive parenting behaviour in parents of children with cancer post-treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.36 to -0.04, Z = 2.44, p = 0.01). In addition, therapies also improved parent mental health at follow-up in this group (SMD = -0.18, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.04, Z = 2.58, p = 0.01). We did not find any effect of therapies for parent behaviour for parents of children with a painful condition post-treatment or at follow-up, or for parent mental health for parents of children with cancer, diabetes, asthma, or TBI post-treatment. For all other primary outcomes, no analysis could be conducted due to lack of data.Across all medical conditions, three effects were found for the primary outcomes of psychological therapies. PST had a beneficial effect on parent adaptive behaviour (SMD = -0.25, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.11, Z = 3.59, p < 0.01) and parent mental health (SMD= -0.24, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.05, Z = 2.50, p = 0.01) immediately post-treatment and this effect was maintained at follow-up for parent mental health (SMD= -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.04, Z = 2.55, p = 0.01). The remaining analysis for PST on parent behaviour found no effect. No effects were found for CBT post-treatment or at follow-up for either parent outcome. For FT, only one analysis could be run on parent mental health and no effect was found. Due to lack of data, the remaining analyses of primary outcomes could not be run. For MST, no parent outcomes could be analysed due to lack of data.Secondary outcome analyses are presented in the Results section. Five studies reported that there were no adverse events during the trial. The remaining 42 studies did not report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update includes 13 additional studies, although our conclusions have not changed from the original version. There is little evidence for the efficacy of psychological therapies that include parents on most outcome domains of functioning, for a large number of common chronic illnesses in children. However, psychological therapies are efficacious for some outcomes. CBT that includes parents is beneficial for reducing children's primary symptoms, and PST that includes parents improved parent adaptive behaviour and parent mental health. There is evidence that the beneficial effects can be maintained at follow-up for diabetes-related symptoms in children, and for the mental health of parents of children with cancer and parents who received PST.

The Child Illness and Resilience Program (CHiRP): a study protocol of a stepped care intervention to improve the resilience and wellbeing of families living with childhood chronic illness

Background

Families of children living with chronic illness are more vulnerable to mental health problems, however this can be ameliorated by a family’s resilience. The Child Illness and Resilience Program (CHiRP) will develop and evaluate a parent-focussed family intervention designed to increase the resilience and wellbeing of families living with childhood chronic illness.

Methods/Design

The study will be conducted in an Australian regional paediatric hospital and will use a stepped care intervention that increases in intensity according to parental distress. All parents of children discharged from the hospital will receive a family resilience and wellbeing factsheet (Step 1). Parents of children attending selected outpatient clinics will receive a family resilience and wellbeing activity booklet (Step 2). Parents who receive the booklet and report psychological distress at three-month follow-up will be randomised to participate in a family resilience information support group or waitlist control (Step 3). The Step 3 control group will provide data to compare the relative effectiveness of the booklet intervention alone versus the booklet combined with the group intervention for distressed parents. These participants will then receive the information support group intervention. All parents in Step 2 and 3 will complete baseline, post-intervention and six month follow up assessments. The primary outcomes of the study will be changes in scores between baseline and follow-up assessments on measures of constructs of family resilience, including parental wellbeing, family functioning, family beliefs and perceived social support. Qualitative feedback regarding the utility and acceptability of the different intervention components will also be collected.

Discussion

It is hypothesised that participation in the CHiRP intervention will be associated with positive changes in the key outcome measures. If effective, CHiRP will provide an opportunity for the health sector to deliver a standardised stepped care mental health promotion intervention to families living with childhood chronic illness.

Trial registration

Australian clinical Trials Registry ACTRN 12613000844741

Universal Trial Number (UTN): 1111-1142-8829

Efficacy of psychosocial group intervention for children with chronic illness and their parents

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of a cognitive-behavioral group intervention for children with chronic illnesses and to test the effect of an added parent component.

METHODS

Children (n = 194) and their parents participated in a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing a child-only intervention and a parent-child intervention to a wait-list control group. Primary outcomes were parent- and self-reported internalizing and externalizing problems; secondary outcomes were child disease-related coping skills (information seeking, relaxation, social competence, medical compliance, and positive thinking). Assessments took place at baseline and at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Intention-to-treat mixed-model analyses were performed to test the difference in change in outcomes.

RESULTS

The intervention had a positive effect on changes in parent-reported internalizing problems, child-reported externalizing problems, information seeking, social competence, and positive thinking. The additional effect of parental involvement was observed on parent-reported internalizing problems, child-reported externalizing problems, information seeking, and social competence. Illness severity and illness type did not moderate the effects. There were no intervention effects on child-reported internalizing problems, parent-reported externalizing problems, relaxation, or medical compliance. Of the families in the wait-list control group, 74% sought alternative psychological support during the intervention period.

CONCLUSIONS

This RCT supports the efficacy of a protocol-based group intervention for children with chronic illnesses and their parents. Adding a parental component to the intervention contributed to the persistence of the effects. Future research should focus on moderating and mediating effects of the intervention.

Family-centred care for hospitalised children aged 0-12 years

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane systematic review of family-centred care published in 2007 (Shields 2007). Family-centred care (FCC) is a widely used model in paediatrics, is thought to be the best way to provide care to children in hospital and is ubiquitous as a way of delivering care. When a child is admitted, the whole family is affected. In giving care, nurses, doctors and others must consider the impact of the child's admission on all family members. However, the effectiveness of family-centred care as a model of care has not been measured systematically.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of family-centred models of care for hospitalised children aged from birth (unlike the previous version of the review, this update excludes premature neonates) to 12 years, when compared to standard models of care, on child, family and health service outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

In the original review, we searched up until 2004. For this update, we searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL,The Cochrane Library, Issue 12 2011); MEDLINE (Ovid SP); EMBASE (Ovid SP); PsycINFO (Ovid SP); CINAHL (EBSCO Host); and Sociological Abstracts (CSA). We did not search three that were included in the original review: Social Work Abstracts, the Australian Medical Index and ERIC. We searched EMBASE in this update only and searched from 2004 onwards. There was no limitation by language. We performed literature searches in May and June 2009 and updated them again in December 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including cluster randomised trials in which family-centred care models are compared with standard models of care for hospitalised children (0 to 12 years, but excluding premature neonates). Studies had to meet criteria for family-centredness. In order to assess the degree of family-centredness, we used a modified rating scale based on a validated instrument, (same instrument used in the initial review), however, we decreased the family-centredness score for inclusion from 80% to 50% in this update. We also changed several other selection criteria in this update: eligible study designs are now limited to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only; single interventions not reflecting a FCC model of care have been excluded; and the selection criterion whereby studies with inadequate or unclear blinding of outcome assessment were excluded from the review has been removed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors undertook searches, and four authors independently assessed studies against the review criteria, while two were assigned to extract data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies found since 2004 were originally viewed as possible inclusions, but when the family-centred score assessment was tested, only one met the minimum score of family-centredness and was included in this review. This was an unpublished RCT involving 288 children post-tonsillectomy in a care-by-parent unit (CBPU) compared with standard inpatient care.The study used a range of behavioural, economic and physical measures. It showed that children in the CBPU were significantly less likely to receive inadequate care compared with standard inpatient admission, and there were no significant differences for their behavioural outcomes or other physical outcomes. Parents were significantly more satisfied with CBPU care than standard care, assessed both before discharge and at 7 days after discharge. Costs were lower for CPBU care compared with standard inpatient care. No other outcomes were reported. The study was rated as being at low to unclear risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update of a review has found limited, moderate-quality evidence that suggests some benefit of a family-centred care intervention for children's clinical care, parental satisfaction, and costs, but this is based on a small dataset and needs confirmation in larger RCTs. There is no evidence of harms. Overall, there continues to be little high-quality quantitative research available about the effects of family-centred care. Further rigorous research on the use of family-centred care as a model for care delivery to children and families in hospitals is needed. This research should implement well-developed family-centred care interventions, ideally in randomised trials. It should investigate diverse participant groups and clinical settings, and should assess a wide range of outcomes for children, parents, staff and health services.

Psychological interventions for parents of children and adolescents with chronic illness

BACKGROUND

Psychological therapies have been developed for parents of children and adolescents with a chronic illness. Such therapies include parent only or parent and child/adolescent, and are designed to treat parent behaviour, parent mental health, child behaviour/disability, child mental health, child symptoms and/or family functioning. No comprehensive, meta-analytic reviews have been published in this area.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of psychological therapies that include coping strategies for parents of children/adolescents with chronic illnesses (painful conditions, cancer, diabetes mellitus, asthma, traumatic brain injury, inflammatory bowel diseases, skin diseases or gynaecological disorders). The therapy will aim to improve parent behaviour, parent mental health, child behaviour/disability, child mental health, child symptoms and family functioning.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions that included parents of children and adolescents with a chronic illness. The initial search was from inception of these databases to June 2011 and we conducted a follow-up search from June 2011 to March 2012. We identified additional studies from the reference list of retrieved papers and from discussion with investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included studies were RCTs of psychological interventions that delivered treatment to parents of children and adolescents (under 19 years of age) with a chronic illness compared to active control, wait list control or treatment as usual. We excluded studies if the parent component was a coaching intervention, the aim of the intervention was health prevention/promotion, the comparator was a pharmacological treatment, the child/adolescent had an illness not listed above or the study included children with more than one type of chronic illness. Further to this, we excluded studies when the sample size of either comparator group was fewer than 10 at post-treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We included 35 RCTs involving a total of 2723 primary trial participants. Two review authors extracted data from 26 studies. We analysed data using two categories. First, we analysed data by each medical condition across all treatment classes at two time points (immediately post-treatment and the first available follow-up). Second, we analysed data by each treatment class (cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), family therapy (FT), problem solving therapy (PST) and multisystemic therapy (MST)) across all medical conditions at two time points (immediately post-treatment and the first available follow-up). We assessed treatment effectiveness on six possible outcomes: parent behaviour, parent mental health, child behaviour/disability, child mental health, child symptoms and family functioning.

MAIN RESULTS

Across all treatment types, psychological therapies that included parents significantly improved child symptoms for painful conditions immediately post-treatment. Across all medical conditions, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) significantly improved child symptoms and problem solving therapy significantly improved parent behaviour and parent mental health immediately post-treatment. There were no other effects at post-treatment or follow-up. The risk of bias of included studies is described.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence on the effectiveness of psychological therapies that include parents in most outcome domains of functioning, for a large number of common chronic illnesses in children. There is good evidence for the effectiveness of including parents in psychological therapies that reduce pain in children with painful conditions. There is also good evidence for the effectiveness of CBT that includes parents for improving the primary symptom complaints when available data were included from chronic illness conditions. Finally, there is good evidence for the effectiveness of problem solving therapy delivered to parents on improving parent problem solving skills and parent mental health. All effects are immediately post-treatment. There are no significant findings for any treatment effects in any condition at follow-up.