A pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of adding a structured home visiting intervention to improve outcomes for high-risk families attending the Incredible Years Parent Programme: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Family-centred interventions for Indigenous early childhood well-being by primary healthcare services

BACKGROUND

Primary healthcare, particularly Indigenous-led services, are well placed to deliver services that reflect the needs of Indigenous children and their families. Important characteristics identified by families for primary health care include services that support families, accommodate sociocultural needs, recognise extended family child-rearing practices, and Indigenous ways of knowing and doing business. Indigenous family-centred care interventions have been developed and implemented within primary healthcare services to plan, implement, and support the care of children, immediate and extended family and the home environment. The delivery of family-centred interventions can be through environmental, communication, educational, counselling, and family support approaches.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of family-centred interventions delivered by primary healthcare services in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the USA on a range of physical, psychosocial, and behavioural outcomes of Indigenous children (aged from conception to less than five years), parents, and families.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 22 September 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, quasi-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series of family-centred care interventions that included Indigenous children aged less than five years from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the USA. Interventions were included if they met the assessment criteria for family-centred interventions and were delivered in primary health care. Comparison interventions could include usual maternal and child health care or one form of family-centred intervention versus another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. overall health and well-being, 2. psychological health and emotional behaviour of children, 3. physical health and developmental health outcomes of children, 4. family health-enhancing lifestyle or behaviour outcomes, 5. psychological health of parent/carer. 6. adverse events or harms. Our secondary outcomes were 7. parenting knowledge and awareness, 8. family evaluation of care, 9. service access and utilisation, 10. family-centredness of consultation processes, and 11. economic costs and outcomes associated with the interventions. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for our primary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs and two cluster-RCTs that investigated the effect of family-centred care interventions delivered by primary healthcare services for Indigenous early child well-being. There were 1270 mother-child dyads and 1924 children aged less than five years recruited. Seven studies were from the USA, two from New Zealand, one from Canada, and one delivered in both Australia and New Zealand. The focus of interventions varied and included three studies focused on early childhood caries; three on childhood obesity; two on child behavioural problems; and one each on negative parenting patterns, child acute respiratory illness, and sudden unexpected death in infancy. Family-centred education was the most common type of intervention delivered. Three studies compared family-centred care to usual care and seven studies provided some 'minimal' intervention to families such as education in the form of pamphlets or newsletters. One study provided a minimal intervention during the child's first 24 months and then the family-centred care intervention for one year. No studies had low or unclear risk of bias across all domains. All studies had a high risk of bias for the blinding of participants and personnel domain. Family-centred care may improve overall health and well-being of Indigenous children and their families, but the evidence was very uncertain. The pooled effect estimate from 11 studies suggests that family-centred care improved the overall health and well-being of Indigenous children and their families compared no family-centred care (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.24; 2386 participants). We are very uncertain whether family-centred care compared to no family-centred care improves the psychological health and emotional behaviour of children as measured by the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA) (Competence domain) (mean difference (MD) 0.04, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.11; 2 studies, 384 participants). We assessed the evidence as being very uncertain about the effect of family-centred care on physical health and developmental health outcomes of children. Pooled data from eight trials on physical health and developmental outcomes found there was little to no difference between the intervention and the control groups (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.26; 1961 participants). The evidence is also very unclear whether family-centred care improved family-enhancing lifestyle and behaviours outcomes. Nine studies measured family health-enhancing lifestyle and behaviours and pooled analysis found there was little to no difference between groups (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.39; 1969 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence of little to no difference for the psychological health of parents and carers when they participated in family-centred care compared to any control group (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.22; 5 studies, 975 parents/carers). Two studies stated that there were no adverse events as a result of the intervention. No additional data were provided. No studies reported from the health service providers perspective or on outcomes for family's evaluation of care or family-centredness of consultation processes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence to suggest that family-centred care delivered by primary healthcare services improves the overall health and well-being of Indigenous children, parents, and families. However, due to lack of data, there was not enough evidence to determine whether specific outcomes such as child health and development improved as a result of family-centred interventions. Seven of the 11 studies delivered family-centred education interventions. Seven studies were from the USA and centred on two particular trials, the 'Healthy Children, Strong Families' and 'Family Spirit' trials. As the evidence is very low certainty for all outcomes, further high-quality trials are needed to provide robust evidence for the use of family-centred care interventions for Indigenous children aged less than five years.

Efficacy of a Home Visiting Enhancement for High-Risk Families Attending Parent Management Programs: A Randomized Superiority Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Antisocial behavior and adult criminality often have origins in childhood and are best addressed early in the child's life using evidence-based parenting programs. However, families with additional risk factors do not always make sufficient changes while attending such programs; these families may benefit from additional support.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of adding a 10-session, structured home parent support (HPS) intervention to enhance outcomes for high-risk families attending the Incredible Years Parent (IYP) program.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A randomized clinical superiority trial of 126 parents of children aged 3 to 7 years with conduct problems compared the IYP program plus HPS with treatment as usual of the IYP program alone. Child behavior measures were collected before and after treatment and at the 6-month follow-up. Recruitment from 19 IYP groups began February 13, 2013, and follow-up data collection was completed June 4, 2015. All data were analyzed using an intention-to-treat design with last observation carried forward. Statistical analysis took place from May 20, 2015, to March 31, 2016.

INTERVENTION

Parents were randomly assigned to receive IYP program plus HPS or IYP alone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the posttreatment change in Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory Total Problem Scale (ECBI-P) score. Secondary outcomes included maintenance of change on the ECBI-P score, ECBI Intensity Scale score, and Social Competence Scale score at the 6-month follow-up; percentage of child behavior scores in the clinical range after treatment; retention; and attendance.

RESULTS

A total of 126 parents (112 women and 14 men; mean [SD] age, 34.7 [8.4] years) were included; 63 parents were randomly assigned to each intervention group. Analysis of variance using intention to treat showed no significant difference between groups after treatment (P = .62). At follow-up, there was a medium effect (d = 0.63) showing a significant benefit from IYP plus HPS of 3.6 (95% CI, 0.8-6.5) on the ECBI-P score (F1,124 = 6.3; P = .01). Families receiving the IYP plus HPS intervention had significantly fewer children with child behavior scores in the clinical range after treatment (9 of 51 [17.6%]) compared with families receiving the IYP program alone (18 of 45 [40.0%]), and this status was maintained at follow-up. The HPS intervention had better retention than the IYP program (dropout, 7 [5.6%] vs 16 [12.7%]) as well as better attendance.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this trial, the IYP plus HPS intervention significantly improved outcomes for the most vulnerable families at 6 months. This study demonstrated that the HPS intervention is an effective addition to the IYP program to improve engagement and implementation of IYP program strategies and enhance child behavior outcomes for the most vulnerable families.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12612000878875.

Individual-, family-, and school-level interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours in young people

BACKGROUND

Engagement in multiple risk behaviours can have adverse consequences for health during childhood, during adolescence, and later in life, yet little is known about the impact of different types of interventions that target multiple risk behaviours in children and young people, or the differential impact of universal versus targeted approaches. Findings from systematic reviews have been mixed, and effects of these interventions have not been quantitatively estimated.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of interventions implemented up to 18 years of age for the primary or secondary prevention of multiple risk behaviours among young people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 11 databases (Australian Education Index; British Education Index; Campbell Library; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; Embase; Education Resource Information Center (ERIC); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences; MEDLINE; PsycINFO; and Sociological Abstracts) on three occasions (2012, 2015, and 14 November 2016)). We conducted handsearches of reference lists, contacted experts in the field, conducted citation searches, and searched websites of relevant organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster RCTs, which aimed to address at least two risk behaviours. Participants were children and young people up to 18 years of age and/or parents, guardians, or carers, as long as the intervention aimed to address involvement in multiple risk behaviours among children and young people up to 18 years of age. However, studies could include outcome data on children > 18 years of age at the time of follow-up. Specifically,we included studies with outcomes collected from those eight to 25 years of age. Further, we included only studies with a combined intervention and follow-up period of six months or longer. We excluded interventions aimed at individuals with clinically diagnosed disorders along with clinical interventions. We categorised interventions according to whether they were conducted at the individual level; the family level; or the school level.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified a total of 34,680 titles, screened 27,691 articles and assessed 424 full-text articles for eligibility. Two or more review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.We pooled data in meta-analyses using a random-effects (DerSimonian and Laird) model in RevMan 5.3. For each outcome, we included subgroups related to study type (individual, family, or school level, and universal or targeted approach) and examined effectiveness at up to 12 months' follow-up and over the longer term (> 12 months). We assessed the quality and certainty of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the review a total of 70 eligible studies, of which a substantial proportion were universal school-based studies (n = 28; 40%). Most studies were conducted in the USA (n = 55; 79%). On average, studies aimed to prevent four of the primary behaviours. Behaviours that were most frequently addressed included alcohol use (n = 55), drug use (n = 53), and/or antisocial behaviour (n = 53), followed by tobacco use (n = 42). No studies aimed to prevent self-harm or gambling alongside other behaviours.Evidence suggests that for multiple risk behaviours, universal school-based interventions were beneficial in relation to tobacco use (odds ratio (OR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.97; n = 9 studies; 15,354 participants) and alcohol use (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.92; n = 8 studies; 8751 participants; both moderate-quality evidence) compared to a comparator, and that such interventions may be effective in preventing illicit drug use (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; n = 5 studies; 11,058 participants; low-quality evidence) and engagement in any antisocial behaviour (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; n = 13 studies; 20,756 participants; very low-quality evidence) at up to 12 months' follow-up, although there was evidence of moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I² = 49% to 69%). Moderate-quality evidence also showed that multiple risk behaviour universal school-based interventions improved the odds of physical activity (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.50; I² = 0%; n = 4 studies; 6441 participants). We considered observed effects to be of public health importance when applied at the population level. Evidence was less certain for the effects of such multiple risk behaviour interventions for cannabis use (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01; P = 0.06; n = 5 studies; 4140 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), sexual risk behaviours (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.12; P = 0.22; n = 6 studies; 12,633 participants; I² = 77%; low-quality evidence), and unhealthy diet (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.06; P = 0.13; n = 3 studies; 6441 participants; I² = 49%; moderate-quality evidence). It is important to note that some evidence supported the positive effects of universal school-level interventions on three or more risk behaviours.For most outcomes of individual- and family-level targeted and universal interventions, moderate- or low-quality evidence suggests little or no effect, although caution is warranted in interpretation because few of these studies were available for comparison (n ≤ 4 studies for each outcome).Seven studies reported adverse effects, which involved evidence suggestive of increased involvement in a risk behaviour among participants receiving the intervention compared to participants given control interventions.We judged the quality of evidence to be moderate or low for most outcomes, primarily owing to concerns around selection, performance, and detection bias and heterogeneity between studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence is strongest for universal school-based interventions that target multiple- risk behaviours, demonstrating that they may be effective in preventing engagement in tobacco use, alcohol use, illicit drug use, and antisocial behaviour, and in improving physical activity among young people, but not in preventing other risk behaviours. Results of this review do not provide strong evidence of benefit for family- or individual-level interventions across the risk behaviours studied. However, poor reporting and concerns around the quality of evidence highlight the need for high-quality multiple- risk behaviour intervention studies to further strengthen the evidence base in this field.

A community-based parent-support programme to prevent child maltreatment: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial

The prevention of child abuse and neglect is a global public health priority due to its serious, long-lasting effects on personal, social, and economic outcomes. The Children At Risk Model (ChARM) is a wraparound-inspired intervention that coordinates evidence-based parenting- and home-visiting programmes, along with community-based supports, in order to address the multiple and complex needs of families at risk of child abuse or neglect. The study comprises a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial, with embedded economic and process evaluations. The study is being conducted in two child-welfare agencies within socially disadvantaged settings in Ireland. Families with children aged 3-11 years who are at risk of maltreatment (n = 50) will be randomised to either the 20-week ChARM programme (n = 25) or to standard care (n = 25) using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcomes are incidences of child maltreatment and child behaviour and wellbeing. Secondary outcomes include quality of parent-child relationships, parental stress, mental health, substance use, recorded incidences of substantiated abuse, and out-of-home placements. Assessments will take place at pre-intervention, and at 6- and 12-month follow-up periods. The study is the first evaluation of a wraparound-inspired intervention, incorporating evidence-based programmes, designed to prevent child abuse and neglect within intact families. The findings offer a unique contribution to the development, implementation and evaluation of effective interventions in the prevention of child abuse and neglect. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN13644600, Date of registration: 3rd June 2015).

A community-based parent-support programme to prevent child maltreatment: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial

The prevention of child abuse and neglect is a global public health priority due to its serious, long-lasting effects on personal, social, and economic outcomes. The Children At Risk Model (ChARM) is a wraparound-inspired intervention that coordinates evidence-based parenting- and home-visiting programmes, along with community-based supports, in order to address the multiple and complex needs of families at risk of child abuse or neglect. The study comprises a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial, with embedded economic and process evaluations. The study is being conducted in two child-welfare agencies within socially disadvantaged settings in Ireland. Families with children aged 3-11 years who are at risk of maltreatment (n = 50) will be randomised to either the 20-week ChARM programme (n = 25) or to standard care (n = 25) using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcomes are incidences of child maltreatment and child behaviour and wellbeing. Secondary outcomes include quality of parent-child relationships, parental stress, mental health, substance use, recorded incidences of substantiated abuse, and out-of-home placements. Assessments will take place at pre-intervention, and at 6- and 12-month follow-up periods. The study is the first evaluation of a wraparound-inspired intervention, incorporating evidence-based programmes, designed to prevent child abuse and neglect within intact families. The findings offer a unique contribution to the development, implementation and evaluation of effective interventions in the prevention of child abuse and neglect. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN13644600, Date of registration: 3 ^rd June 2015).

Enhancing the early home learning environment through a brief group parenting intervention: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

The quality of the home learning environment has a significant influence on children’s language and communication skills during the early years with children from disadvantaged families disproportionately affected. This paper describes the protocol and participant baseline characteristics of a community-based effectiveness study. It evaluates the effects of ‘smalltalk’, a brief group parenting intervention (with or without home coaching) on the quality of the early childhood home learning environment.

Methods/design

The study comprises two cluster randomised controlled superiority trials (one for infants and one for toddlers) designed and conducted in parallel. In 20 local government areas (LGAs) in Victoria, Australia, six locations (clusters) were randomised to one of three conditions: standard care (control); smalltalk group-only program; or smalltalk plus (group program plus home coaching). Programs were delivered to parents experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage through two existing age-based services, the maternal and child health service (infant program, ages 6–12 months), and facilitated playgroups (toddler program, ages 12–36 months). Outcomes were assessed by parent report and direct observation at baseline (0 weeks), post-intervention (12 weeks) and follow-up (32 weeks). Primary outcomes were parent verbal responsivity and home activities with child at 32 weeks. Secondary outcomes included parenting confidence, parent wellbeing and children’s communication, socio-emotional and general development skills. Analyses will use intention-to-treat random effects (“multilevel”) models to account for clustering.

Recruitment and baseline data

Across the 20 LGAs, 986 parents of infants and 1200 parents of toddlers enrolled and completed baseline measures. Eighty four percent of families demonstrated one or more of the targeted risk factors for poor child development (low income; receives government benefits; single, socially isolated or young parent; culturally or linguistically diverse background).

Discussion

This study will provide unique data on the effectiveness of a brief group parenting intervention for enhancing the early home learning environment of young children from disadvantaged families. It will also provide evidence of the extent to which additional one-on-one support is required to achieve change and whether there are greater benefits when delivered in the 1st year of life or later. The program has been designed for scale-up across existing early childhood services if proven effective.

Trial registration

8 September 2011; ACTRN12611000965909.