Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32174297›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2020

An intervention for parents with severe personality difficulties whose children have mental health problems: a feasibility RCT.

Crispin Day, Jackie Briskman, Mike J Crawford, Lisa Foote, Lucy Harris, Janet Boadu, Paul McCrone, Mary McMurran, Daniel Michelson, Paul Moran and 5 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.

Crispin DayCAMHS Research Unit, Centre for Parent and Child Support, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Michael Rutter Centre, London, UK.
Jackie BriskmanDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Mike J CrawfordThe Centre for Psychiatry, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Lisa FooteThe McPin Foundation, London, UK.
Lucy HarrisCAMHS Research Unit, Centre for Parent and Child Support, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Michael Rutter Centre, London, UK.
Janet BoaduKing's Health Economics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Paul McCroneInstitute of Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.
Mary McMurranInstitute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Daniel MichelsonSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Paul MoranCentre for Academic Mental Health, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Liberty MosseCAMHS Research Unit, Centre for Parent and Child Support, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Michael Rutter Centre, London, UK.
Stephen ScottDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Daniel StahlDepartment of Biostatistics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Paul RamchandaniPEDAL Research Centre, The Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Timothy WeaverDepartment of Mental Health, Social Work and Integrative Medicine, School of Health and Education, Middlesex University, London, UK.
King's College London · GBSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust · GBCentre for Mental Health · GBImperial College London · GBMcPin Foundation · GBMiddlesex University · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Greenwich · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Sussex · GB

Funding

Department of Health 12/194/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe children of parents with severe personality difficulties have greater risk of significant mental health problems. Existing care is poorly co-ordinated, with limited effectiveness. A specialised parenting intervention may improve child and parenting outcomes, reduce family morbidity and lower the service costs.

objectivesTo develop a specialised parenting intervention for parents affected by severe personality difficulties who have children with mental health problems and to conduct a feasibility trial.

designA pragmatic, mixed-methods design to develop and pilot a specialised parenting intervention, Helping Families Programme-Modified, and to conduct a randomised feasibility trial with process evaluation. Initial cost-effectiveness was assessed using UK NHS/Personal Social Services and societal perspectives, generating quality-adjusted life-years. Researchers collecting quantitative data were masked to participant allocation.

settingTwo NHS mental health trusts and concomitant children's social care services.

participantsParents who met the following criteria: (1) the primary caregiver of the index child, (2) aged 18-65 years, (3) have severe personality difficulties, (4) proficient in English and (5) capable of providing informed consent. Index children who met the following criteria: (1) aged 3-11 years, (2) living with index parent and (3) have significant emotional/behavioural difficulties. Exclusion criteria were (1) having coexisting psychosis, (2) participating in another parenting intervention, (3) receiving inpatient care, (4) having insufficient language/cognitive abilities, (5) having child developmental disorder, (6) care proceedings and (7) index child not residing with index parent.

interventionThe Helping Families Programme-Modified - a 16-session intervention using structured, goal-orientated strategies and collaborative therapeutic methods to improve parenting, and child and parent functioning. Usual care - standard care augmented by a single psychoeducational session.

main outcome measuresTrial feasibility - rates of recruitment, eligibility, allocation, retention, data completion and experience. Intervention acceptability - rates of acceptance, completion, alliance (Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised) and experience. Outcomes - child (assessed via Concerns About My Child, Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory, Child Behaviour Checklist-Internalising Scale), parenting (assessed via the Arnold-O'Leary Parenting Scale, Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale), parent (assessed via the Symptom Checklist-27), and health economics (assessed via the Client Service Receipt Inventory, EuroQol-5 Dimensions).

resultsThe findings broadly supported trial feasibility using non-diagnostic screening criteria. Parents were mainly referred from one site (75.0%). Site and participant factors delayed recruitment. An estimate of eligible parents was not obtained. Of the 86 parents referred, 60 (69.7%) completed screening and 48 of these (80.0%) were recruited. Participants experienced significant disadvantage and multiple morbidity. The Helping Families Programme-Modified uptake (87.5%) was higher than usual-care uptake (62.5%). Trial retention (66.7%, 95% confidence interval 51.6% to 79.6%) exceeded the a priori rate. Process findings highlighted the impact of random allocation and the negative effects on retention. The Helping Families Programme-Modified was acceptable, with duration of delivery longer than planned, whereas the usual-care condition was less acceptable. At initial follow-up, effects on child and parenting outcomes were detected across both arms, with a potential outcome advantage for the Helping Families Programme-Modified (effect size range 0.0-1.3). For parental quality-adjusted life-years, the Helping Families Programme-Modified dominated usual care, and child quality-adjusted life-years resulted in higher costs and more quality-adjusted life-years. At second follow-up, the Helping Families Programme-Modified was associated with higher costs and more quality-adjusted life-years than usual care. For child quality-adjusted life-years, when controlled for baseline EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, usual care dominated the Helping Families Programme-Modified. No serious adverse events were reported.

conclusionThe Helping Families Programme-Modified is an acceptable specialised parenting intervention. Trial methods using non-diagnostic criteria were largely supported. For future work, a definitive efficacy trial should consider site selection, recruitment methods, intervention efficiency and revised comparator condition.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN14573230.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

Mental HealthParentsAdultChildChild, PreschoolFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleParentingPersonality DisordersQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSurveys and QuestionnairesTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCHILD BEHAVIOURCHILD EMOTIONAL PROBLEMSPARENTINGPERSONALITY

Identifiers

PMID32174297
PMCPMC7103915
OpenAlexW3012235783

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.