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.

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.

Pediatric invasive long-term ventilation-A 10-year review.

INTRODUCTION: The number of children with complex physical and developmental pathologies, including chronic respiratory insufficiency, surviving and growing beyond early childhood continues to rise. No study has examined the clinical pathway of children on invasive long-term mechanical ventilation (LTMV) in an Irish setting. Our data over a 10-year period were reviewed to see if our demographics and outcomes are in line with global trends. METHODS: Children's Health Ireland (CHI) at Crumlin, Dublin is Ireland's largest tertiary pediatric hospital. A retrospective review analyzed data from children in our center commenced on LTMV via a tracheostomy over 10 years (2009-2018). This data was subdivided into two epochs for statistical analysis of longitudinal trends. RESULTS: Forty-six children were commenced on LTMV from 2009 to 2018. Many had complex medical diagnoses with associated comorbidities. Far less children, 30.4% (n = 14) commenced LTMV in the latter half of the 10-year period, they also fared better in all aspects of their treatment course. Focusing solely on children who have needed LTMV over this timeframe we have been able to isolate trends specific to this cohort. Less patients commenced LTMV on a year-on-year basis, and for those that require tracheostomy and LTMV, their journey to decannulation tends to be shorter. CONCLUSION: Over the period reviewed, less patients over time necessitated LTMV, and those patients are being weaned and decannulated with ever more success. This has implications in terms of predicting numbers transitioning to adult services and allocation of hospital and community care resources.

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.

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.

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).

Time-limited home-care reablement services for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults.

BACKGROUND: Reablement, also known as restorative care, is one possible approach to home-care services for older adults at risk of functional decline. Unlike traditional home-care services, reablement is frequently time-limited (usually six to 12 weeks) and aims to maximise independence by offering an intensive multidisciplinary, person-centred and goal-directed intervention. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of time-limited home-care reablement services (up to 12 weeks) for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults (aged 65 years or more) when compared to usual home-care or wait-list control group. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases with no language restrictions during April to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (OvidSP); Embase (OvidSP); PsycINFO (OvidSP); ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); SIGLE (OpenGrey); AgeLine and Social Care Online. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews as well as contacting authors in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised or quasi-randomised trials of time-limited reablement services for older adults (aged 65 years or more) delivered in their home; and incorporated a usual home-care or wait-list control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered quality of the evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies, comparing reablement with usual home-care services with 811 participants, met our eligibility criteria for inclusion; we also identified three potentially eligible studies, but findings were not yet available. One included study was conducted in Western Australia with 750 participants (mean age 82.29 years). The second study was conducted in Norway (61 participants; mean age 79 years).We are very uncertain as to the effects of reablement compared with usual care as the evidence was of very low quality for all of the outcomes reported. The main findings were as follows.Functional status: very low quality evidence suggested that reablement may be slightly more effective than usual care in improving function at nine to 12 months (lower scores reflect greater independence; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.06; 2 studies with 249 participants).Adverse events: reablement may make little or no difference to mortality at 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29; 2 studies with 811 participants) or rates of unplanned hospital admission at 24 months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1 study with 750 participants).The very low quality evidence also means we are uncertain whether reablement may influence quality of life (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.02; 2 trials with 249 participants) or living arrangements (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.34; 1 study with 750 participants) at time points up to 12 months. People receiving reablement may be slightly less likely to have been approved for a higher level of personal care than people receiving usual care over the 24 months' follow-up (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 1 trial, 750 participants). Similarly, although there may be a small reduction in total aggregated home and healthcare costs over the 24-month follow-up (reablement: AUD 19,888; usual care: AUD 22,757; 1 trial with 750 participants), we are uncertain about the size and importance of these effects as the results were based on very low quality evidence.Neither study reported user satisfaction with the service. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of reablement as the evidence was of very low quality according to our GRADE ratings. Therefore, the effectiveness of reablement services cannot be supported or refuted until more robust evidence becomes available. There is an urgent need for high quality trials across different health and social care systems due to the increasingly high profile of reablement services in policy and practice in several countries.

Understanding the implementation and effectiveness of a group-based early parenting intervention: a process evaluation protocol.

BACKGROUND: Group-based early parenting interventions delivered through community-based services may be a potentially effective means of promoting infant and family health and wellbeing. Process evaluations of these complex interventions provide vital information on how they work, as well as the conditions which shape and influence outcomes. This information is critical to decision makers and service providers who wish to embed prevention and early interventions in usual care settings. In this paper, a process evaluation protocol for an early years parenting intervention, the Parent and Infant (PIN) program, is described. This program combines a range of developmentally-appropriate supports, delivered in a single intervention process, for parents and infants (0-2 years) and aimed at enhancing parental competence, strengthening parent-infant relationships and improving infant wellbeing and adjustment. METHODS: The process evaluation is embedded within a controlled trial and accompanying cost-effectiveness evaluation. Building from extant frameworks and evaluation methods, this paper presents a systematic approach to the process evaluation of the PIN program and its underlying change principles, the implementation of the program, the context of implementation and the change mechanisms which influence and shape parent and infant outcomes. We will use a multi-method strategy, including semi-structured interviews and group discussions with key stakeholders, documentary analysis and survey methodology. DISCUSSION: The integration of innovations into existing early years systems and services is a challenging multifaceted undertaking. This process evaluation will make an important contribution to knowledge about the implementation of such programs, while also providing an example of how theory-based research can be embedded within the evaluation of community-based interventions. We discuss the strengths of the research, such as the adoption of a collaborative approach to data collection, while we also identify potential challenges, including capturing and assessing complex aspects of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17488830 (Date of registration: 27/11/15). This trial was retrospectively registered.

INSPIRE (INvestigating Social and PractIcal suppoRts at the End of life): Pilot randomised trial of a community social and practical support intervention for adults with life-limiting illness.

BACKGROUND: For most people, home is the preferred place of care and death. Despite the development of specialist palliative care and primary care models of community based service delivery, people who are dying, and their families/carers, can experience isolation, feel excluded from social circles and distanced from their communities. Loneliness and social isolation can have a detrimental impact on both health and quality of life. Internationally, models of social and practical support at the end of life are gaining momentum as a result of the Compassionate Communities movement. These models have not yet been subjected to rigorous evaluation. The aims of the study described in this protocol are: (1) to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of The Good Neighbour Partnership (GNP), a new volunteer-led model of social and practical care/support for community dwelling adults in Ireland who are living with advanced life-limiting illness; and (2) to pilot the method for a Phase III Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). DESIGN: The INSPIRE study will be conducted within the Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for the Evaluation of Complex Interventions (Phases 0-2) and includes an exploratory two-arm delayed intervention randomised controlled trial. Eighty patients and/or their carers will be randomly allocated to one of two groups: (I) Intervention: GNP in addition to standard care or (II) Control: Standard Care. Recipients of the GNP will be asked for their views on participating in both the study and the intervention. Quantitative and qualitative data will be gathered from both groups over eight weeks through face-to-face interviews which will be conducted before, during and after the intervention. The primary outcome is the effect of the intervention on social and practical need. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, loneliness, social support, social capital, unscheduled health service utilisation, caregiver burden, adverse impacts, and satisfaction with intervention. Volunteers engaged in the GNP will also be assessed in terms of their death anxiety, death self efficacy, self-reported knowledge and confidence with eleven skills considered necessary to be effective GNP volunteers. DISCUSSION: The INSPIRE study addresses an important knowledge gap, providing evidence on the efficacy, utility and acceptability of a unique model of social and practical support for people living at home, with advanced life-limiting illness. The findings will be important in informing the development (and evaluation) of similar service models and policy elsewhere both nationally and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18400594 18(th) February 2015.

WA40†The good neighbour partnership: why do we need it? who is going to do it? how on earth are we going to evaluate it?

: This one-hour symposium considers Milford Care Centre's Compassionate Communities Good Neighbour Partnership and it's evaluation by an international team, led by Maynooth University and funded by the All Ireland Institute of Hospice and Palliative Care, The Irish Cancer Society, The Irish Hospice Foundation and Milford Care Centre. The symposium will be divided into three sections: 1. The Good Neighbour Partnership: Why do we need it? In this section we will describe the findings from a recent scoping study to determine the social and practical needs of community dwelling adults (and their families) living with advanced life limiting illness at home. We will consider the rationale for specialist palliative care services, working with community groups, to lead the development of a volunteer-based social model of care to address unmet need. 2. The Good Neighbour Partnership: How do we recruit and train volunteers? We will share our process and experience of recruiting and training 15 Compassionate Communities Volunteers to assess unmet social and practical need, and to mobile the person's circle of community to meet those needs. An understanding of the motivating factors of volunteers will be shared. 3. The Good Neighbour Partnership: How on earth are we going to evaluate it? Here we describe the INSPIRE study - Investigating Social and Practical Supports at the End of life. An exploratory delayed intervention randomised controlled trial (framed by the MRC Framework for Complex Interventions) to assess the feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of the Good Neighbour Partnership.

Reducing child conduct disordered behaviour and improving parent mental health in disadvantaged families: a 12-month follow-up and cost analysis of a parenting intervention.

The effectiveness of the Incredible Years Basic parent programme (IYBP) in reducing child conduct problems and improving parent competencies and mental health was examined in a 12-month follow-up. Pre- to post-intervention service use and related costs were also analysed. A total of 103 families and their children (aged 32-88 months), who previously participated in a randomised controlled trial of the IYBP, took part in a 12-month follow-up assessment. Child and parent behaviour and well-being were measured using psychometric and observational measures. An intention-to-treat analysis was carried out using a one-way repeated measures ANOVA. Pairwise comparisons were subsequently conducted to determine whether treatment outcomes were sustained 1 year post-baseline assessment. Results indicate that post-intervention improvements in child conduct problems, parenting behaviour and parental mental health were maintained. Service use and associated costs continued to decline. The results indicate that parent-focused interventions, implemented in the early years, can result in improvements in child and parent behaviour and well-being 12 months later. A reduced reliance on formal services is also indicated.

Cochrane review: behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting programmes for early-onset conduct problems in children aged 3 to 12 years (Review).

BACKGROUND: Early-onset child conduct problems are common and costly. A large number of studies and some previous reviews have focused on behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions, but methodological limitations are commonplace and evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these programmes has been unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting programmes for improving child conduct problems, parental mental health and parenting skills. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases between 23 and 31 January 2011: CENTRAL (2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to current), EMBASE (1980 to current), CINAHL (1982 to current), PsycINFO (1872 to current), Social Science Citation Index (1956 to current), ASSIA (1987 to current), ERIC (1966 to current), Sociological Abstracts (1963 to current), Academic Search Premier (1970 to current), Econlit (1969 to current), PEDE (1980 to current), Dissertations and Theses Abstracts (1980 to present), NHS EED (searched 31 January 2011), HEED (searched 31 January 2011), DARE (searched 31 January 2011), HTA (searched 31 January 2011), mRCT (searched 29 January 2011). We searched the following parent training websites on 31 January 2011: Triple P Library, Incredible Years Library and Parent Management Training. We also searched the reference lists of studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies if: (1) they involved randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials of behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions for parents of children aged 3 to 12 years with conduct problems, and (2) incorporated an intervention group versus a waiting list, no treatment or standard treatment control group. We only included studies that used at least one standardised instrument to measure child conduct problems. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias in the trials and the methodological quality of health economic studies. Two authors also independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 13 trials (10 RCTs and three quasi-randomised trials), as well as two economic evaluations based on two of the trials. Overall, there were 1078 participants (646 in the intervention group; 432 in the control group). The results indicate that parent training produced a statistically significant reduction in child conduct problems, whether assessed by parents (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.34) or independently assessed (SMD -0.44; 95% CI -0.77 to -0.11). The intervention led to statistically significant improvements in parental mental health (SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.52 to -0.20) and positive parenting skills, based on both parent reports (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.16) and independent reports (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.29). Parent training also produced a statistically significant reduction in negative or harsh parenting practices according to both parent reports (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -0.96 to -0.59) and independent assessments (SMD -0.42; 95% CI -0.67 to -0.16). Moreover, the intervention demonstrated evidence of cost-effectiveness. When compared to a waiting list control group, there was a cost of approximately $2500 (GBP 1712; EUR 2217) per family to bring the average child with clinical levels of conduct problems into the non-clinical range. These costs of programme delivery are modest when compared with the long-term health, social, educational and legal costs associated with childhood conduct problems. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions are effective and cost-effective for improving child conduct problems, parental mental health and parenting skills in the short term. The cost of programme delivery was modest when compared with the long-term health, social, educational and legal costs associated with childhood conduct problems. Further research is needed on the long-term assessment of outcomes.

Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting programmes for early-onset conduct problems in children aged 3 to 12 years.

BACKGROUND: Early-onset child conduct problems are common and costly. A large number of studies and some previous reviews have focused on behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions, but methodological limitations are commonplace and evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these programmes has been unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting programmes for improving child conduct problems, parental mental health and parenting skills. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases between 23 and 31 January 2011: CENTRAL (2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to current), EMBASE (1980 to current), CINAHL (1982 to current), PsycINFO (1872 to current), Social Science Citation Index (1956 to current), ASSIA (1987 to current), ERIC (1966 to current), Sociological Abstracts (1963 to current), Academic Search Premier (1970 to current), Econlit (1969 to current), PEDE (1980 to current), Dissertations and Theses Abstracts (1980 to present), NHS EED (searched 31 January 2011), HEED (searched 31 January 2011), DARE (searched 31 January 2011), HTA (searched 31 January 2011), mRCT (searched 29 January 2011). We searched the following parent training websites on 31 January 2011: Triple P Library, Incredible Years Library and Parent Management Training. We also searched the reference lists of studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies if: (1) they involved randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials of behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions for parents of children aged 3 to 12 years with conduct problems, and (2) incorporated an intervention group versus a waiting list, no treatment or standard treatment control group. We only included studies that used at least one standardised instrument to measure child conduct problems. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias in the trials and the methodological quality of health economic studies. Two authors also independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 13 trials (10 RCTs and three quasi-randomised trials), as well as two economic evaluations based on two of the trials. Overall, there were 1078 participants (646 in the intervention group; 432 in the control group). The results indicate that parent training produced a statistically significant reduction in child conduct problems, whether assessed by parents (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.34) or independently assessed (SMD -0.44; 95% CI -0.77 to -0.11). The intervention led to statistically significant improvements in parental mental health (SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.52 to -0.20) and positive parenting skills, based on both parent reports (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.16) and independent reports (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.29). Parent training also produced a statistically significant reduction in negative or harsh parenting practices according to both parent reports (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -0.96 to -0.59) and independent assessments (SMD -0.42; 95% CI -0.67 to -0.16). Moreover, the intervention demonstrated evidence of cost-effectiveness. When compared to a waiting list control group, there was a cost of approximately $2500 (GBP 1712; EUR 2217) per family to bring the average child with clinical levels of conduct problems into the non-clinical range. These costs of programme delivery are modest when compared with the long-term health, social, educational and legal costs associated with childhood conduct problems. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions are effective and cost-effective for improving child conduct problems, parental mental health and parenting skills in the short term. The cost of programme delivery was modest when compared with the long-term health, social, educational and legal costs associated with childhood conduct problems. Further research is needed on the long-term assessment of outcomes.

A parenting intervention for childhood behavioral problems: a randomized controlled trial in disadvantaged community-based settings.

OBJECTIVE: A community-based randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in urban areas characterized by high levels of disadvantage to test the effectiveness of the Incredible Years BASIC parent training program (IYBP) for children with behavioral problems. Potential moderators of intervention effects on child behavioral outcomes were also explored. METHOD: Families were included if the child (aged 32-88 months) scored above a clinical cutoff on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI). Participants (n = 149) were randomly allocated on a 2:1 ratio to an intervention group (n = 103) or a waiting-list control group (n = 46). Child behavior, parenting skills, and parent well-being were assessed at baseline and 6 months later using parent-report and independent observations. An intention-to-treat analysis of covariance was used to examine postintervention differences between groups. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in child disordered behavior favored the intervention group on the ECBI Intensity (effect size = 0.7, p < .001) and Problem subscales (effect size = 0.75, p < .001). Intervention effects on child hyperactive-inattentive behaviors and social competence, as well as parent competencies and well-being, were also found. Moderator analyses showed that the effects of the IYBP intervention on the primary child outcomes were not moderated by child or family demographic characteristics or risk factors. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the IYBP in alleviating problem behavior among children and in improving well-being among families living in disadvantaged areas. The findings also highlight the importance of parental intervention in early childhood for parents and children most in need of support.

The Incredible Years parenting program in Ireland: a qualitative analysis of the experience of disadvantaged parents.

Controlled trials demonstrate that parenting programs work, but less is known about the processes of change, contextual factors or intervention characteristics that influence trial outcomes. This qualitative study assessed the experiences of Irish parents involved in a randomized controlled trial of the Incredible Years BASIC parenting program, with a view to understanding how and why the program works, or does not work, within disadvantaged settings. Data from 33 parents of young children (aged 3-7 years) with conduct problems were collected by semi-structured interviews and analysed using constructivist grounded theory. Emerging themes indicated that parents perceived the program to have produced positive changes through learning key parenting skills (e.g. positive attention, empathy and problem-solving skills) and through enhanced parental mood/confidence, derived primarily from gaining non-judgmental support from the group. Parents also experienced cultural, personal and environmental challenges in learning the new skills, including discomfort with praise and positive attention, conflict with their partner and parenting within an antisocial environment. Parents dropped out of the course for largely circumstantial reasons. These findings should help to inform the future implementation of this well-known parenting program both in Ireland and elsewhere.