Effects of the incredible years parenting program on children's interpersonal conflict: An integrative data analysis.

Behavioral parenting programs, such as Incredible Years (IY), reduce conduct problems in children. However, conduct problems encompass many different behaviors, and little is known about the effects of parenting programs on specific aspects of children's conduct problems, such as children's relationships with others. The aim of this study was to examine, for the first time, the effects of the IY parenting program on children's levels of conflict with their parents, siblings, and peers. We used individual participant-level data pooled across 12 randomized trials in Europe, comprising a total of 1,409 families: child aged 1-11 years (M = 5.53 years, SD = 1.56) and 61% male, 60% low-income families, and 30% from an ethnic minority. Multilevel models were used to explore the effects of IY on children's conflict with parents, siblings, and peers. The IY program reduced children's conflict with their parents (ß = -.21), but there were no main effects of the program on conflict with siblings or peers. Moderation analyses showed that IY reduced conflict in sibling relationships for the 22% of families with the most severe sibling conflict at baseline. This suggests that high-quality behavioral parenting programs, such as IY, can effectively reduce children's conflict within the home (i.e., with parents and siblings), especially when initial levels of sibling conflict are high, but do not have broader benefits on children's interpersonal conflict outside of the home (i.e., with peers). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Family Talk versus usual services in improving child and family psychosocial functioning in families with parental mental illness: a randomised controlled trial and cost analysis.

Background: Parental mental illness (PMI) is common and places children at high risk of developing psychological disorders. Family Talk (FT) is a well-known, whole-family, 7-session intervention designed to reduce the risk of transgenerational psychopathology. However, very few larger-scale evaluations of FT (across only a limited number of settings) have been conducted to date while there have been no cost analyses. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and costs of delivering FT in improving child and family psychosocial functioning in families with PMI within routine mental health settings. Methods: A total of 83 families with PMI, with children aged 5-18 years, were randomly assigned on a 2:1 ratio to receive either the FT intervention (n=55 families) or usual services (n=28 families) across 10 adult, child and primary care mental health sites in Ireland. Parental disorders included anxiety/depression (57%), Bipolar Disorder (20%), Borderline Personality Disorder (12%), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (8%) and psychosis (2%). Detailed assessments with parents were conducted at baseline and 6-month follow up. Results: FT led to significant improvements in family functioning and child behaviour at 6-month follow up when compared to usual services, with medium effect sizes indicated. Parent participants with lower mental health literacy at baseline also showed significant post-intervention improvements. Those parents with less severe mental illness at baseline, and families with more partner and economic supports, reported additional significant post-intervention improvements in child depression/anxiety and parental mental health symptoms. The cost of FT amounted to €761.50 per family, although this decreased to €415.31 when recurring costs only were included. Conclusion: The findings from this study, which was conducted within the context of a national programme to introduce family-focused practice in Ireland, demonstrate that FT is a low-cost intervention that improved child and family psychosocial functioning across different mental health disorders within routine adult, child and primary care mental health services. The findings contribute to the growing evidence base for FT, and provide a robust basis to inform practice and policy development for families with parental mental illness both in Ireland and elsewhere. Clinical trial registration: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13365858, identifier ISRCTN13365858.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a universal, preventative-focused, parent and infant programme.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed whether a relatively newly developed Parent and Infant (PIN) parenting support programme was cost-effective when compared to services as usual (SAU). METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of the PIN programme versus SAU was assessed from an Irish health and social care perspective over a 24-month timeframe and within the context of a non-randomised, controlled before-and-after trial. In total, 163 parent-infant dyads were included in the study (86 intervention, 77 control). The primary outcome measure for the economic evaluation was the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC). RESULTS: The average cost of the PIN programme was €647 per dyad. The mean (SE) cost (including programme costs) was €7,027 (SE €1,345) compared to €4,811 (SE €593) in the control arm, generating a (non-significant) mean cost difference of €2,216 (bootstrap 95% CI -€665 to €5,096; p = 0.14). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness of the PIN service was €614 per PSOC unit gained (bootstrap 95% CI €54 to €1,481). The probability that the PIN programme was cost-effective, was 87% at a willingness-to-pay of €1,000 per one unit change in the PSOC. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the PIN programme was cost-effective at a relatively low willingness-to-pay threshold when compared to SAU. This study addresses a significant knowledge gap in the field of early intervention by providing important real world evidence on the implementation costs and cost-effectiveness of a universal early years parenting programme. The challenges involved in assessing the cost-effectiveness of preventative interventions for very young children and their parents are also discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17488830 (Date of registration: 27/11/15). This trial was retrospectively registered.

Supporting family carers in general practice: a scoping review of clinical guidelines and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of family carers are providing informal care in community settings. This creates a number of challenges because family carers are at risk of poor physical and psychological health outcomes, with consequences both for themselves and those for whom they provide care. General Practitioners (GPs), who play a central role in community-based care, are ideally positioned to identify, assess, and signpost carers to supports. However, there is a significant gap in the literature in respect of appropriate guidance and resources to support them in this role. METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken to examine clinical guidelines and recommendations for GPs to support them in their role with family carers. This involved a multidisciplinary team, in line with Arksey & O'Malley's framework, and entailed searches of ten peer-reviewed databases and grey literature between September-November 2020. RESULTS: The searches yielded a total of 4,651 English language papers, 35 of which met the criteria for inclusion after removing duplicates, screening titles and abstracts, and performing full-text readings. Ten papers focused on resources/guidelines for GPs, twenty were research papers, three were review papers, one was a framework of quality markers for carer support, and one was an editorial. Data synthesis indicated that nine (90%) of the guidelines included some elements relating to the identification, assessment, and/or signposting of carers. Key strategies for identifying carers suggest that a whole practice approach is optimal, incorporating a role for the GP, practice staff, and for the use of appropriate supporting documentation. Important knowledge gaps were highlighted in respect of appropriate clinical assessment and evidence-based signposting pathways. CONCLUSION: Our review addresses a significant gap in the literature by providing an important synthesis of current available evidence on clinical guidelines for GPs in supporting family carers, including strategies for identification, options for assessment and potential referral/signposting routes. However, there is a need for greater transparency of the existing evidence base as well as much more research to evaluate the effectiveness and increase the routine utilisation, of clinical guidelines in primary care.

Supporting family carers in Ireland: the role of the general practitioner.

BACKGROUND: Ireland has over half a million family carers who provide care to a family member or loved one. Internationally, it is recognised that general practitioners (GPs) have a critical role to play in the identification and support of family carers, but, to date, no guidelines exist in Ireland to support GPs in this role. AIMS: The aim of this study was to examine how carers are currently supported (or not) by healthcare professionals in Ireland, with a particular focus on the role of the GP. METHODS: A mixed method design was used, involving a national online survey (N = 132) of family carers in Ireland and one-to-one interviews with 10 stakeholders (4 GPs; 6 carers). The quantitative data were analysed using a series of descriptive and inferential statistics; the interview data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-one per cent of the carer sample reported experiencing psychological distress, more than two-thirds of whom (69%) reported 'rarely' or 'never' being asked about their own health and wellbeing. Sixty-one per cent also felt misunderstood in terms of the challenges they face in their caring role. Three key themes were identified from the interview data including (1) GP role ambiguity; (2) navigating informal processes and (3) changing needs along the care trajectory. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest important gaps in terms of the role of GPs vis-à-vis their support of family carers. GPs themselves indicated that they need both greater clarity regarding their role with family carers and more training and resources in this regard. A requirement for more streamlined communication and information provision was also highlighted by both GPs and carers. Carers reported a need for more information on the role of GPs in supporting carers as well as more support in addressing, in particular, the psychological complexities of carer identity and help seeking.

Does Social and Economic Disadvantage Predict Lower Engagement with Parenting Interventions? An Integrative Analysis Using Individual Participant Data.

There is a social gradient to the determinants of health; low socioeconomic status (SES) has been linked to reduced educational attainment and employment prospects, which in turn affect physical and mental wellbeing. One goal of preventive interventions, such as parenting programs, is to reduce these health inequalities by supporting families with difficulties that are often patterned by SES. Despite these intentions, a recent individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of the Incredible Years (IY) parenting program found no evidence for differential benefit by socioeconomic disadvantage (Gardner et al. in Public Health Resesearch 5, 1-144, 2017). However, it did not examine whether this was influenced by engagement in the intervention. Using intervention arm data from this pooled dataset (13 trials; N = 1078), we examined whether there was an SES gradient to intervention attendance (an indicator of engagement). We ran mixed-effects Poisson regression models to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for program attendance for each of five (binary) markers of SES: low income; unemployment; low education status; teen parent; and lone parent status. The multilevel structure of the data allowed for comparison of within-trial and between-trial effects, including tests for contextual effects. We found evidence that low SES was associated with reduced attendance at parenting programs-an 8-19% reduction depending on the SES marker. However, there was no evidence that this association is impacted by differences in SES composition between trials or by the attendance levels of higher-SES families. The findings underscore the importance of developing and prioritizing strategies that enable engagement in parenting interventions and encourage program attendance by low-SES families.

Barriers and facilitators in the delivery of a proportionate universal parenting program model (E-SEE Steps) in community family services.

BACKGROUND: A proportionate universal (PU) approach to early years' service provision has been advocated to improve children's health and development and to reduce health inequality, by ensuring that services provide timely and high-quality parenting support commensurate with need. Process-oriented research is critical to examine the factors that contribute to, or hinder, the effective delivery/implementation of such a model in community-based family services. This study aimed to assess the delivery, acceptability and feasibility of a new PU parenting intervention model (called E-SEE Steps), using the Incredible Years® (IY) parent program, when delivered by trained health/family service staff in three "steps"-one universal step (the IY Babies Book), and two targeted steps (group-based IY Infant and Toddler programs). METHODS: An embedded mixed-methods process evaluation within a pragmatic parallel two-arm, assessor blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted in community services in four local authorities in England. The process evaluation used qualitative data gathered via interviews and focus groups with intervention arm parents who were offered the targeted steps (n = 29), practitioners (n = 50), service managers (n = 7) and IY program mentors (n = 3). This was supplemented by quantitative data collected using group leader pre-training (n = 50) and post-delivery (n = 39) questionnaires, and research notes of service design decisions. RESULTS: The E-SEE Steps model was acceptable to most parents, particularly when it was accompanied by engagement strategies that supported attendance, such as providing childcare. Practitioners also highlighted the positive development opportunities provided by the IY training and supervision. However, participant views did not support the provision of the IY Babies book as a standalone universal component, and there were barriers to eligible parents-particularly those with low mood-taking up the targeted programs. Service providers struggled to align the PU model with their commissioned service contracts and with their staff capacity to engage appropriate parents, including tackling common barriers to attendance. CONCLUSIONS: Despite general enthusiasm and support for delivering high-quality parenting programs in community services in the England, several barriers exist to successfully delivering IY in a proportionate universal model within current services/systems.

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 challenges of assessing sample representativeness within community-based evaluations of parenting programmes delivered in England and Ireland.

The findings from evaluations of parenting programmes can help inform policy and practice decisions, including how best to allocate scarce resources designed to support families. However, studies often fail to consider the extent to which the findings can be generalised to other settings or populations. One, yet unexplored solution, is to compare study findings and large-scale data sets including publicly available population data. The aims of this study were to assess the feasibility of assessing sample representativeness using publicly available data and to identify the challenges involved in considering the generalisability of study findings. Sociodemographic data from two community-based evaluations of parenting programmes conducted in England and Ireland between 2015 and 2018 were used in the study (N = 395 parent-infant dyads). The results indicated some differences between the trial samples and the wider population. However, it is difficult to reach definitive conclusions about these findings due to the limitations associated with using the comparative data sets. Our study revealed three key challenges, including: (1) how best to define and conceptualise representativeness; (2) the availability of comparative data sets; and (3) the quality of the available data. Our study suggests that there is a need for up-to-date, good-quality comparative data sets to allow for the assessment of representativeness. Further work is required to identify parameters for making claims about representativeness, specifically regarding the acceptable level of difference between the target population and the study sample. This is the first study to explore the feasibility of using publicly available population data in two jurisdictions, for the purpose of making judgements about the representativeness of the findings from parent programmes. It is hoped that our results will encourage further investigation around the reporting of trial external validity to enable effective decision-making at policy and practice level.

The Family Talk Programme in Ireland: A Qualitative Analysis of the Experiences of Families With Parental Mental Illness.

Background: Parental mental illness is common, costly, can lead to children developing mental disorders and impaired lifetime outcomes, and places a substantial burden on caregiving partners. Family Talk (FT) is a widely implemented, 7-session, whole-family programme, with promising evidence of effectiveness in targeting the intergenerational transmission of mental illness. However, to date, very little qualitative research of family experiences of FT has been undertaken. The objectives of this study were to: (1) investigate the experiences of families attending FT; and (2) explore the key facilitators and barriers to engagement in mainstream mental health settings. Methods: This study was nested within a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of Family Talk [N = 86 families (139 parents, 221 children)] implemented in 15 adult, child and primary care mental health sites in Ireland. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 45 participants, including 23 parents with mental illness (PMI), 7 partners and 15 children/young people aged 9 to 18 years. Interview data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using constructivist grounded theory. Results: Over two thirds of families across sites reported substantial benefits from participation in FT, including reduced stigma, giving children and partners a voice, increased service-user confidence, and improved family communication/relationships. Key facilitators identified by families included: programme delivery by a competent, non-judgmental clinician; the whole-family approach; and family readiness to engage. Barriers to engagement included stigma, family crises/relapse, service constraints, impact of COVID-19, and a need for further child, family and follow-up sessions/supports. Conclusion: This study is the first qualitative analysis of family experiences of FT to be conducted within the context of an RCT and national programme to introduce family-focused practise for families with PMI. The findings illustrate that FT is beneficial across cultural/policy contexts, different mental disorders and can be implemented across adult and child mental health settings, including children with existing mental health challenges. Key barriers and facilitators to implementation were identified by families, all of which should help to inform the future implementation of FT, and other similar interventions, both in Ireland and elsewhere.

A Family-Focused Intervention for Parental Mental Illness: A Practitioner Perspective.

Background: Parental mental illness (PMI) is common and can lead to children developing mental disorders. Family Talk (FT) is a well-known and widely implemented intervention designed to reduce the risk of transgenerational psychopathology. However, given the research to practise "gap," very little qualitative research, to date, has investigated practitioner experiences in implementing FT. This study aimed to explore the practitioner-perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation and sustainability of FT within mainstream mental health settings. Methods: This qualitative study was nested within a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of Family Talk [N = 86 families (139 parents, 221 children)] within 15 adult (AMHS), child (CAMHS), primary care mental health, and child protection sites in Ireland. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were undertaken with a purposive sample of clinicians (n = 31) and managers (n = 10), based on their experiences of implementing FT. Interview data were transcribed verbatim, analysed using constructivist grounded theory, and informed by Fixsen's implementation science framework. Results: Service providers highlighted a number of benefits for approximately two thirds of families across different diagnoses and mental health settings (AMHS/CAMHS/primary care). Sites varied in their capacity to embed FT, with key enablers identified as acquiring managerial and organisational support, building clinician skill, and establishing interagency collaboration. Implementation challenges included: recruitment difficulties, stresses in working with multiply-disadvantaged families, disruption in delivery due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, and sustainability concerns (e.g., perceived fit of FT with organisational remit/capacity, systemic and cultural barriers to change). Conclusion: This study is only the second qualitative study ever conducted to explore practitioner experiences in implementing FT, and the first conducted within the context of an RCT and national research programme to introduce family-focused practise (FFP) for families living with PMI. The findings illuminate the successes and complexities of implementing FFP in a country without a "think family" infrastructure, whilst highlighting a number of important generalisable lessons for the implementation of FT, and other similar interventions, elsewhere.

Covid-19 and Families With Parental Mental Illness: Crisis and Opportunity.

The COVID-19 emergency has affected us all, but not equally. Families where parents have mental illness (PMI) are potentially at increased risk, but little is known about how they or their support services managed under lockdown/restrictions. We harnessed our existing partnerships with adult and child mental health services in the Republic of Ireland (RoI) and Northern Ireland (NI) to investigate the qualitative experiences of service users and families in coping during the first COVID-19 lockdown (March-May 2020), and how services were supporting them. Semi-structured phone/online interviews were conducted with 22 clinicians/managers (12 from RoI; 10 from NI) who provided information from their caseloads (~155 families with PMI). Sixteen family members (10 from RoI, 6 from NI) were also interviewed. Data were analysed using standard thematic analysis. Sixty percent of families reported improved mental health, primarily due to respite from daily stresses and the "normalisation" of mental distress in the general population. Approximately 30%, typically with more severe/enduring mental illness, reported additional challenges, and mental distress including: unmanageable child behaviours; fear of relapse/hospitalisation; financial difficulties; absence of child care; and a lack of routines. Service provision varied considerably across regions. The experiences within this case study highlight unique opportunities to address the multiple stresses of pre-emergency daily living. We also highlight how mental health services and governments might become more "pandemic ready" to more effectively support vulnerable families, including addressing service overload issues, optimising the use of digital technologies, and providing in-person contact and social supports where required.

Family Talk versus usual services in improving child and family psychosocial functioning in families with parental mental illness (PRIMERA-Promoting Research and Innovation in Mental hEalth seRvices for fAmilies and children): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Parental mental illness is common and can lead to dependent children incurring a high risk of developing mental disorders, physical illness, and impaired educational and occupational outcomes. Family Talk is one of the better known interventions designed to prevent the intergenerational transmission of mental illness. However, its evidence base is small, with few robust independent randomised controlled trials, and no associated process or cost evaluations. The PRIMERA (Promoting Research and Innovation in Mental hEalth seRvices for fAmilies and children) research programme involves a mixed method evaluation of Family Talk which is being delivered in mental health settings in Ireland to improve child and family psychosocial functioning in families with parental mental illness. METHODS: The study comprises a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT), with nested economic and process evaluations, to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness and implementation mechanisms of Family Talk compared to usual services. The study is being conducted in 15 adult and child mental health settings in Ireland. Families with a parent with mental illness, and children aged 5-18 years (n = 144 families) will be randomised to either the 7-session Family Talk programme (n = 96) or to standard care (n = 48) using a 2:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcomes are child psychosocial functioning and family functioning. Secondary outcomes are as follows: understanding and experience of parental mental illness, parental mental health, child and parental resilience, partner wellbeing and service utilisation. Blind assessments will take place at pre-intervention and at 6- and 12-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: Given the prevalence and burden of intergenerational mental illness, it is imperative that prevention through evidence-based interventions becomes a public health priority. The current study will provide an important contribution to the international evidence base for Family Talk whilst also helping to identify key implementation lessons in the scaling up of Family Talk, and other similar interventions, within routine mental health settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN13365858 . Registered 5th February 2019.

"Putting Meat on the Bones": Understanding the Implementation of a Community-Based Early Intervention and Prevention Programme-Contextual, Person, and Programme Influences.

The adoption and effective delivery of evidence-based interventions within "real-world" community-based, primary health care service settings are of crucial importance. In this paper, we explore the successes and challenges of implementing a new complex, group-based, early parenting intervention called the Parent and Infant (PIN) programme. This study involved a systematic analysis of the processes and factors that influence the implementation of the PIN programme; the analysis was guided and informed by the Implementation Outcome Framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. A documentary review, alongside a series of one-to-one interviews and small group discussions with a range of stakeholders (n = 44), and 7 focus groups (n = 24) were used as data sources. Factors that promoted programme adoption, acceptability, and implementation feasibility included programme characteristics and stakeholder attitudes, as well as organisational and systems factors (e.g. leadership and collaboration). Key challenges to implementation success included engagement and adoption barriers. This research provides a useful and important example of real-world, theory-driven implementation research which helped to identify interrelated processes, factors, and contexts which shape and influence the implementation of early intervention and prevention programmes, removed for blind review.

Parent and facilitator experiences of an intensive parent and infant programme delivered in routine community settings.

AIM: The aims of this study were to (1) assess the initial experiences of parenthood amongst mainly disadvantaged mothers; (2) explore their views on the extent to which they felt they had benefitted (or not) from participating in a newly developed, intensive mother and baby support programme in the community; and (3) explore the perspectives of those who delivered the programme (i.e., facilitators), most of whom were Public Health Nurses (PHNs). BACKGROUND: Positive parent-child interactions and appropriate levels of infant stimulation are essential to promoting a child's well-being and laying a foundation in the early years for positive developmental outcomes. It is important, therefore, to examine participants' experiences of community-based, family-focused, early prevention and intervention programmes. METHODS: This study was undertaken as part of a larger evaluation of a newly developed parent and infant (PIN) programme which was delivered in two disadvantaged areas in Ireland. One-to-one interviews were conducted with both mothers (n = 22) and facilitators (n = 8) (including three PHNs) plus six focus groups with an additional sub-group of facilitators (n = 17). FINDINGS: The collective findings suggest that mothers found the programme helpful in promoting a greater understanding of their infants' behaviour and needs, and in alleviating stress and concerns associated with motherhood. Mothers described feeling more knowledgeable about the importance of regular and appropriate infant interaction to encourage learning and development. Facilitators, specifically PHNs, also reported a greater awareness of the value of infant socioemotional development for their clinical practice and observed greater positive communication between mothers and infants. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that a community-based, intensive mother and baby programme can help to promote parental competence and enhance infant learning and development. Additional benefits in terms of early intervention and positive changes to public health nursing practice are also discussed.

Co-occurring change in children's conduct problems and maternal depression: Latent class individual participant data meta-analysis of the Incredible Years parenting program.

Children vary in the extent to which they benefit from parenting programs for conduct problems. How does parental mental health change if children benefit less or more? We assessed whether changes in conduct problems and maternal depressive symptoms co-occur following participation in the Incredible Years parenting program. We integrated individual participant data from 10 randomized trials (N = 1280; children aged 2-10 years) and distinguished latent classes based on families' baseline and post-test conduct problems and maternal depressive symptoms, using repeated measures latent class analysis (RMLCA) and latent transition analysis (LTA). Classes differed mainly in severity of conduct problems and depression (RMLCA; 4 classes). Conduct problems reduced in all classes. Depressive symptoms did not change in most classes, except in a class of families where conduct problems and depression were particularly severe. Incredible Years led to a greater likelihood of families with particularly severe conduct problems and depression moving to a class with mild problems (LTA; 3 classes). Our findings suggest that for the majority of families, children's conduct problems reduce, but maternal depressive symptoms do not, suggesting relative independence, with the exception of families with severe depression and severe conduct problems where changes for the better do co-occur.

Equity effects of parenting interventions for child conduct problems: a pan-European individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Childhood conduct problems are a costly public health problem and are five times more common in socially disadvantaged groups than they are in advantaged groups. Untreated, conduct problems have a poor prognosis, with increasing gaps between socioeconomic groups, and high rates of subsequent criminality. Incredible Years is a high quality parenting programme for reducing conduct problems and is widely disseminated in Europe. Many trials have shown Incredible Years to be effective but the potential effects of parenting interventions on social inequality are unknown. Some behavioural interventions (eg, smoking cessation programmes), although beneficial overall, can widen inequality gaps. Because single trials and aggregate-level meta-analyses are ill equipped for examining differential intervention (moderator) effects, we pooled individual-level trial data to assess the effects of Incredible Years on social equity. METHODS: We did a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis by searching CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, Medline, and PsycINFO, for studies published from inception to March 15, 2019. We also searched the Incredible Years website library and consulted with experts, including the European Incredible Years mentors' network. We included data from all completed randomised trials of the Incredible Years parenting intervention in Europe that included children aged 1-12 years, including unpublished trials, without restriction on publication year or outcome measures. We included prevention (selective or universal) and treatment or indicated prevention trials (for children diagnosed or above the clinical cutoff for conduct problems). We excluded trials or conditions within trials that were not randomised, included additional non-parenting material (eg, child-focused interventions), or were abbreviated, non-standard versions of the usual Incredible Years intervention of 12-14 weekly sessions. We requested individual participant data from the study authors. The primary outcome was child conduct problems, assessed using the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory Intensity (ECBI-I) scale. Moderators were analysed using multilevel modelling with multiple imputation. FINDINGS: Of 15 European trials of Incredible Years parenting programmes (n=1696 children), individual participant data were unavailable for one trial and one trial did not assess the primary outcome. Children were aged 2-10 years (median 5·1), 492 (30%) of 1651 children were from an ethnic minority and 931 (58%) of 1614 were from low-income families. Families who received the Incredible Years intervention reported an overall reduction in child conduct problems (13·5 points on the ECBI-I scale, 95% CI 10·9-16·1). There were no differential effects by family disadvantage (indicated by poverty, lone parenthood, teenage parenthood, household joblessness, or low education), or ethnic minority status. INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence for differential effects by social disadvantage, suggesting that Incredible Years is unlikely to widen socioeconomic inequalities in conduct problems. Furthermore, the programme might be an important tool for reducing social disparities and improving poor long-term outcomes in disadvantaged families because follow-up studies indicate that benefits persist. Clinicians and commissioners can be reassured that the programme is similarly effective for families from different backgrounds. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Mothers' well-being, parenting attitudes, and home environment: Cumulative risk and parity in early motherhood.

BACKGROUND: This study explores mothers' wellbeing, experiences, and attitudes and the impact of cumulative demographic and antenatal risks and parity on parenting outcomes. A secondary aim was to assess mother and infant service utilisation. METHOD: This study involved an assessment of the baseline characteristics of a sample of mothers (N = 190; Mean age = 31.6 years, SD = 5.4) with young infants (average age = 10.13 weeks, SD = 0.8) living in disadvantaged communities in Ireland. RESULTS: Mothers with more risk factors (e.g., lone and/or teenage parenthood, socioeconomic disadvantage, and low social support) reported significantly higher levels of depression and lower parental self-efficacy. Observations of the home environment indicated that at-risk parents engaged in less cognitive stimulation and lower levels of emotional support for their child. The impact of these risk factors differed for primiparous and multiparous mothers. CONCLUSIONS: At-risk mothers are more susceptible to mental health difficulties and poorer parenting outcomes during the transition to parenthood. This study also provides important comparative insights into experiences of primiparous and multiparous parents. These findings have important implications for practitioners and policy makers, particularly the provision of universal and proportionate supports to prevent and/or interrupt poor parent-child relationships and negative developmental outcomes.

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.

INTRODUCTION: Behavioural and mental disorders have become a public health crisis and by 2020 may surpass physical illness as a major cause of disability. Early prevention is key. Two Incredible Years (IY) parent programmes that aim to enhance child well-being and development, IY Infant and IY Toddler, will be delivered and evaluated in a proportionate universal intervention model called Enhancing Social-Emotional Health and Wellbeing in the Early Years (E-SEE) Steps. The main research question is: Does E-SEE Steps enhance child social emotional well-being at 20 months when compared with services as usual? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: E-SEE Steps will be delivered in community settings by Early Years Children's Services and/or Public Health staff across local authorities. Parents of children aged 8 weeks or less, identified by health visitors, children's centre staff or self-referral, are eligible for participation in the trial. The randomisation allocation ratio is 5:1 (intervention to control). All intervention parents will receive an Incredible Years Infant book (universal level), and may be offered the Infant and/or Toddler group-based programme/s-based on parent depression scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire or child social emotional well-being scores on the Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social Emotional, Second Edition (ASQ:SE-2). Control group parents will receive services as usual. A process and economic evaluation are included. The primary outcome for the study is social emotional well-being, assessed at 20 months, using the ASQ:SE-2. Intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses will be conducted. Clustering and hierarchical effects will be accounted for using linear mixed models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approvals have been obtained from the University of York Education Ethics Committee (ref: FC15/03, 10 August 2015) and UK NHS REC 5 (ref: 15/WA/0178, 22 May 2015. The current protocol is Version 9, 26 February 2018. The sponsor of the trial is the University of York. Dissemination of findings will be via peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and public events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11079129; Pre-results.