Primary Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect: Identification of High Risk Adolescents Prior to Parenthood

The purpose of the study was to develop a valid and reliable instrument designed to assess the parenting and child rearing attitudes of adolescents, Responses to the instrument would allow for the identification of high risk adolescents, i.e., those adolescents whose attitudes towards parenting and child rearing indicated a high potential for child abuse. A review of the literature identified the following four parenting constructs most commonly associated with abusive parents: Construct A: Inappropriate parental expectations of the child; Construct B: Inability of the parent to be empathically aware of the child\u27s needs; Construct C: Strong parental belief in the value of punishment; Construct D: Role reversal. These constructs served as the basis for the development of the item domain. The sample used in this study consisted of 2,628 adolescents attending schools located in Utah and Idaho. Employing a Likert format, three Prototypes of the instrument were developed and field tested. Substantial content validity was acquired through the judgments made by a panel of experts in child abuse, test construction, and attitudinal measurement. Construct validity of the instrument was established through the results obtained from factor analysis, interitem correlations, and item-construct correlations. The data generated from the factor analysis indicated 32 items had the highest positive factor loadings (\u3e= .20) in each of the four identified constructs. The range of item-construct correlations for the 32 items (.53 to .75) indicated adequate to high degrees of relationship between the item scores and total construct scores. The data obtained relative to the internal consistency of the items indicated adequate level s of reliability for each construct (Construct A, .70; Construct B, .75; Construct C, .81; Construct D, .82). The test-retest reliability coefficient of the instrument showed an adequate level of stability over a one week period of time (.76). Raw scores, converted into factor scores, indicated approximately 3% of the adolescents who responded to the instrument scored -2 and -3 standard deviations away from the mean. The results of the multi-variant analysis of variance indicated that abused adolescents scored significantly lower (p

Understanding barriers to involving community midwives in identifying research participants; experience of the first Steps randomised controlled trial

- Objective: To explore barriers to the involvement of community midwives in identifying women in early pregnancy as potential participants in the XX, a randomised controlled trial of a new intervention to provide health and parenting support to potentially vulnerable women. - Design: Descriptive qualitative investigation using semi-structured audio-recoded interviews. - Setting: Community midwifery offices. - Participants: Volunteer sample of 13 community midwives. - Measurement: Themes derived from content analysis. - Findings: Understanding of their role in the research process was unclear to many midwives. Confusion arose about the difference between potential participant identification and trial recruitment. There were concerns about the eligibility criteria and it was suggested that there was insufficient time during booking appointments, and sometimes insufficient information, to determine potential eligibility. Midwives had concerns about some aspects of the intervention, which incorporated routine midwifery care, and had expectations that women may not like a group programme. This may have led some not to mention the trial. They were, however positive about the programme's potential for beneficial impacts on mothers and infants. - Key conclusions: Dedicated research midwives may be the best option if research studies need to identify potential participants early in pregnancy, so that they can communicate with all their colleagues. - Implications for practice: If community midwives are asked to be involved in time-critical research they are likely to need additional local resources and support

The effectiveness, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for maltreated children and adolescents: an evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Child maltreatment is a substantial social problem that affects large numbers of children and young people in the UK, resulting in a range of significant short- and long-term psychosocial problems. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of interventions addressing the adverse consequences of child maltreatment. STUDY DESIGN: For effectiveness, we included any controlled study. Other study designs were considered for economic decision modelling. For acceptability, we included any study that asked participants for their views. PARTICIPANTS: Children and young people up to 24 years 11 months, who had experienced maltreatment before the age of 17 years 11 months. INTERVENTIONS: Any psychosocial intervention provided in any setting aiming to address the consequences of maltreatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Psychological distress [particularly post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety, and self-harm], behaviour, social functioning, quality of life and acceptability. METHODS: Young Persons and Professional Advisory Groups guided the project, which was conducted in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration and NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance. Departures from the published protocol were recorded and explained. Meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analyses of available data were undertaken where possible. RESULTS: We identified 198 effectiveness studies (including 62 randomised trials); six economic evaluations (five using trial data and one decision-analytic model); and 73 studies investigating treatment acceptability. Pooled data on cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for sexual abuse suggested post-treatment reductions in PTSD [standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.44 (95% CI -4.43 to -1.53)], depression [mean difference -2.83 (95% CI -4.53 to -1.13)] and anxiety [SMD -0.23 (95% CI -0.03 to -0.42)]. No differences were observed for post-treatment sexualised behaviour, externalising behaviour, behaviour management skills of parents, or parental support to the child. Findings from attachment-focused interventions suggested improvements in secure attachment [odds ratio 0.14 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.70)] and reductions in disorganised behaviour [SMD 0.23 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.42)], but no differences in avoidant attachment or externalising behaviour. Few studies addressed the role of caregivers, or the impact of the therapist-child relationship. Economic evaluations suffered methodological limitations and provided conflicting results. As a result, decision-analytic modelling was not possible, but cost-effectiveness analysis using effectiveness data from meta-analyses was undertaken for the most promising intervention: CBT for sexual abuse. Analyses of the cost-effectiveness of CBT were limited by the lack of cost data beyond the cost of CBT itself. CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to draw firm conclusions about which interventions are effective for children with different maltreatment profiles, which are of no benefit or are harmful, and which factors encourage people to seek therapy, accept the offer of therapy and actively engage with therapy. Little is known about the cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions. LIMITATIONS: Studies were largely conducted outside the UK. The heterogeneity of outcomes and measures seriously impacted on the ability to conduct meta-analyses. FUTURE WORK: Studies are needed that assess the effectiveness of interventions within a UK context, which address the wider effects of maltreatment, as well as specific clinical outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003889. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Aboriginal Children and Their Caregivers Living with Low Income: Outcomes from a Two-Generation Preschool Program

The development of preschool children of Aboriginal heritage is jeopardized by the inter-generational transmission of risk that has created, and continues to create, social disadvantage. Early intervention programs are intended to mitigate the impact of social disadvantage. Yet, evidence of the effectiveness of these programs for children of Aboriginal heritage is limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a two-generation, multi-cultural preschool program on 45 children of Aboriginal heritage and their caregivers. We used a single-group, pretest (program intake)/posttest (program exit) design with follow-up when the children were 7 years old. We used an observational measure of child receptive language (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–III) and caregiver-reported measures of child development (Nipissing District Developmental Screen), risk for child maltreatment (Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory; AAPI), parenting stress (Parenting Stress Index; PSI), self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale; RSE), and life skills (Community Life Skills scale; CLS). Using paired t-tests we found statistically significant increases in child receptive language scores between intake and exit, and repeated-measures ANOVA showed that these improvements were maintained up to age 7 years. For caregivers, Pearson’s correlations demonstrated that risk for child maltreatment, parenting stress, self-esteem, and life skills were stable over time. Results of this study suggest that children of Aboriginal heritage can benefit from participation in a two-generation, multi-cultural preschool program. Their caregivers may have received greater benefit if issues of intergenerational transmission of the negative influences of residential schools were addressed as part of programming

Randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation of nurse-led group support for young mothers during pregnancy and the first year postpartum versus usual care

Background Child maltreatment is a significant public health problem. Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) is a new intervention for young, expectant mothers implemented successfully in pilot studies. This study was designed to determine the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of gFNP in reducing risk factors for maltreatment with a potentially vulnerable population. Methods A multi-site randomized controlled parallel-arm trial and prospective economic evaluation was conducted, with allocation via remote randomization (minimization by site, maternal age group) to gFNP or usual care. Participants were expectant mothers aged <20 with at least one live birth, or 20–24 with no live births and with low educational qualifications. Data from maternal interviews at baseline and when infants were two, six and 12 months, and video recording at 12 months, were collected by researchers blind to allocation. Cost information came from weekly logs completed by gFNP family nurses and other service delivery data reported by participants. Primary outcomes measured at 12 months were parenting attitudes (Adult- Adolescent Parenting Index, AAPI-2) and maternal sensitivity (CARE index). The economic evaluation was conducted from a UK NHS and personal social services perspective with cost-effectiveness expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Main analyses were intention to treat with additional complier average causal effects (CACE) analyses. Results Between August 2013 and September 2014, 492 names of potential participants were received of whom 319 were eligible and 166 agreed to take part, 99 randomly assigned to receive gFNP and 67 to usual care. There were no between-arms differences in AAPI-2 total (7·5/10 in both, SE 0.1), difference adjusted for baseline, site and maternal age-group 0·06 (95% CI -0·15 to 0·28, p=0·59) or CARE Index (intervention 4·0 (SE 0·3); control 4·7(SE 0·4); difference adjusted for site and maternal age-group -0·68; 95% CI -1·62 to 0·16, p=0·25) scores. The probability that gFNP is cost-effective based on the QALY measure did not exceed 3%. Conclusions The trial did not support gFNP as a means of reducing the risk of child maltreatment in this population but slow recruitment adversely affected group size and consequently delivery of the intervention

Parent-infant psychotherapy for improving parental and infant mental health

Background: Parent-infant psychotherapy (PIP) is a dyadic intervention that works with parent and infant together, with the aim of improving the parent-infant relationship and promoting infant attachment and optimal infant development. PIP aims to achieve this by targeting the mother’s view of her infant, which may be affected by her own experiences, and linking them to her current relationship to her child, in order to improve the parent-infant relationship directly. / Objectives: 1. To assess the effectiveness of PIP in improving parental and infant mental health and the parent-infant relationship. / 2. To identify the programme components that appear to be associated with more effective outcomes and factors that modify intervention effectiveness (e.g. programme duration, programme focus). / Search methods: We searched the following electronic databases on 13 January 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BIOSIS Citation Index, Science Citation Index, ERIC, and Sociological Abstracts. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, checked reference lists, and contacted study authors and other experts. / Selection criteria: Two review authors assessed study eligibility independently. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (quasi-RCT) that compared a PIP programme directed at parents with infants aged 24 months or less at study entry, with a control condition (i.e. waiting-list, no treatment or treatment-as-usual), and used at least one standardised measure of parental or infant functioning. We also included studies that only used a second treatment group. / Data collection and analysis: We adhered to the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. We standardised the treatment effect for each outcome in each study by dividing the mean difference (MD) in post-intervention scores between the intervention and control groups by the pooled standard deviation. We presented standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data. We undertook meta-analysis using a random-effects model. / Main results: We included eight studies comprising 846 randomised participants, of which four studies involved comparisons of PIP with control groups only. Four studies involved comparisons with another treatment group (i.e. another PIP, video-interaction guidance, psychoeducation, counselling or cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)), two of these studies included a control group in addition to an alternative treatment group. Samples included women with postpartum depression, anxious or insecure attachment, maltreated, and prison populations. We assessed potential bias (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, and other bias). Four studies were at low risk of bias in four or more domains. Four studies were at high risk of bias for allocation concealment, and no study blinded participants or personnel to the intervention. Five studies did not provide adequate information for assessment of risk of bias in at least one domain (rated as unclear). / Six studies contributed data to the PIP versus control comparisons producing 19 meta-analyses of outcomes measured at post-intervention or follow-up, or both, for the primary outcomes of parental depression (both dichotomous and continuous data); measures of parent-child interaction (i.e. maternal sensitivity, child involvement and parent engagement; infant attachment category (secure, avoidant, disorganised, resistant); attachment change (insecure to secure, stable secure, secure to insecure, stable insecure); infant behaviour and secondary outcomes (e.g. infant cognitive development). The results favoured neither PIP nor control for incidence of parental depression (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.04, 3 studies, 278 participants, low quality evidence) or parent-reported levels of depression (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.02, 4 studies, 356 participants, low quality evidence). There were improvements favouring PIP in the proportion of infants securely attached at post-intervention (RR 8.93, 95% CI 1.25 to 63.70, 2 studies, 168 participants, very low quality evidence); a reduction in the number of infants with an avoidant attachment style at post-intervention (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.95, 2 studies, 168 participants, low quality evidence); fewer infants with disorganised attachment at post-intervention (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.58, 2 studies, 168 participants, low quality evidence); and an increase in the proportion of infants moving from insecure to secure attachment at post-intervention (RR 11.45, 95% CI 3.11 to 42.08, 2 studies, 168 participants, low quality evidence). There were no differences between PIP and control in any of the meta-analyses for the remaining primary outcomes (i.e. adverse effects), or secondary outcomes. / Four studies contributed data at post-intervention or follow-up to the PIP versus alternative treatment analyses producing 15 meta-analyses measuring parent mental health (depression); parent-infant interaction (maternal sensitivity); infant attachment category (secure, avoidant, resistant, disorganised) and attachment change (insecure to secure, stable secure, secure to insecure, stable insecure); infant behaviour and infant cognitive development. None of the remaining meta-analyses of PIP versus alternative treatment for primary outcomes (i.e. adverse effects), or secondary outcomes showed differences in outcome or any adverse changes. / We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) approach to rate the overall quality of the evidence. For all comparisons, we rated the evidence as low or very low quality for parental depression and secure or disorganised infant attachment. Where we downgraded the evidence, it was because there was risk of bias in the study design or execution of the trial. The included studies also involved relatively few participants and wide CI values (imprecision), and, in some cases, we detected clinical and statistical heterogeneity (inconsistency). Lower quality evidence resulted in lower confidence in the estimate of effect for those outcomes. / Authors' conclusions: Although the findings of the current review suggest that PIP is a promising model in terms of improving infant attachment security in high-risk families, there were no significant differences compared with no treatment or treatment-as-usual for other parent-based or relationship-based outcomes, and no evidence that PIP is more effective than other methods of working with parents and infants. Further rigorous research is needed to establish the impact of PIP on potentially important mediating factors such as parental mental health, reflective functioning, and parent-infant interaction

Brain Research to Ameliorate Impaired Neurodevelopment - Home-based Intervention Trial (BRAIN-HIT)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This randomized controlled trial aims to evaluate the effects of an early developmental intervention program on the development of young children in low- and low-middle-income countries who are at risk for neurodevelopmental disability because of birth asphyxia. A group of children without perinatal complications are evaluated in the same protocol to compare the effects of early developmental intervention in healthy infants in the same communities. Birth asphyxia is the leading specific cause of neonatal mortality in low- and low-middle-income countries and is also the main cause of neonatal and long-term morbidity including mental retardation, cerebral palsy, and other neurodevelopmental disorders. Mortality and morbidity from birth asphyxia disproportionately affect more infants in low- and low-middle-income countries, particularly those from the lowest socioeconomic groups. There is evidence that relatively inexpensive programs of early developmental intervention, delivered during home visit by parent trainers, are capable of improving neurodevelopment in infants following brain insult due to birth asphyxia.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This trial is a block-randomized controlled trial that has enrolled 174 children with birth asphyxia and 257 without perinatal complications, comparing early developmental intervention plus health and safety counseling to the control intervention receiving health and safety counseling only, in sites in India, Pakistan, and Zambia. The interventions are delivered in home visits every two weeks by parent trainers from 2 weeks after birth until age 36 months. The primary outcome of the trial is cognitive development, and secondary outcomes include social-emotional and motor development. Child, parent, and family characteristics and number of home visits completed are evaluated as moderating factors.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The trial is supervised by a trial steering committee, and an independent data monitoring committee monitors the trial. Findings from this trial have the potential to inform about strategies for reducing neurodevelopmental disabilities in at-risk young children in low and middle income countries.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00639184</p

Results of the First Steps study: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) programme compared with usual care in improving outcomes for high-risk mothers and their children and preventing abuse

Background: Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) is a home-based nurse home-visiting programme to support vulnerable parents. Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) has similar aims and materials and was demonstrated to be feasible in implementation evaluations. Objectives: To determine whether or not gFNP, compared with usual care, could reduce risk factors for maltreatment in a vulnerable group and be cost-effective. Design: A multisite randomised controlled parallel-group trial and prospective economic evaluation, with eligible women allocated (minimised by site and maternal age group) to gFNP or usual care. Setting: Community locations in the UK. Participants: Expectant mothers aged < 20 years with one or more previous live births, or expectant mothers aged 20–24 years with no previous live births and with low educational qualifications (defined as General Certificate of Education at grade C or higher in neither mathematics nor English language or, if they had both, no more than four General Certificates of Education at grade C or higher). Intervention: Forty-four sessions of gFNP (14 during pregnancy and 30 in the first 12 months after birth) were offered to groups of between 8 and 12 women with similar expected delivery dates (the difference between the earliest and latest expected delivery date ranged from 8 to 10 weeks depending on the group) by two family nurses (FNs), one of whom had notified her intention to practise as a midwife. Main outcome measures: Parenting was assessed by a self-report measure of parenting opinions, the Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory Version 2 (AAPI-2), and an objective measure of maternal sensitivity, the CARE-Index. Cost-effectiveness was primarily expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Data sources: Interviews with participants at baseline and when infants were aged 2, 6 and 12 months. Cost information from nurse weekly logs and other service delivery data. Results: In total, 166 women were enrolled (99 to the intervention group and 67 to the control group). Adjusting for site and maternal age group, the intention-to-treat analysis found no effect of gFNP on either of the primary outcomes. AAPI-2 total was 7.5/10 [standard error (SE) 0.1] in both arms [difference also adjusted for baseline 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.15 to 0.28; p = 0.50]. CARE-Index maternal sensitivity mean: intervention 4.0 (SE 0.3); control 4.7 (SE 0.4) (difference –0.76, 95% CI –1.67 to 0.13; p = 0.21). The sensitivity analyses supported the primary analyses. The probability that the gFNP intervention was cost-effective based on the QALY measure did not exceed 3%. However, in terms of change in AAPI-2 score (baseline to 12 months), the probability that gFNP was cost-effective reached 25.1%. A separate discrete choice experiment highlighted the value placed by both pregnant women and members of the general population on non-health outcomes that were not included in the QALY metric. Limitations: Slow recruitment resulted in smaller than ideal group sizes. In some cases, few or no sessions took place owing to low initial group size, and small groups may have contributed to attrition from the intervention. Exposure to gFNP sessions was below maximum for most group members, with only 58 of the 97 intervention participants receiving any sessions; FNs were experienced with FNP but were mainly new to delivering gFNP. Conclusions: The trial does not support the delivery of gFNP as a means of reducing the risk of child abuse or neglect in this population. Future work: A randomised controlled trial with modified eligibility to enable first-time mothers aged < 20 years to be included, and a modified recruitment strategy to enable faster identification of potential participants from antenatal medical records