A proportionate, universal parenting programme to enhance social-emotional well-being in infants and toddlers in England : the E-SEE Steps RCT

Background Mental disorders have become a public health crisis. Early prevention is key. Parenting programmes are effective for children aged ≥ 3 years; however, there is a lack of evidence of their effectiveness for children aged ≤ 2 years. Objectives To establish if the model named Enhancing Social–Emotional Health and Well-being in the Early Years (E-SEE) Steps can (1) enhance child social emotional well-being and establish whether or not it is cost-effective at 20 months of age when compared with services as usual; and (2) be delivered as a proportionate universal model with fidelity. Design A pragmatic two-arm randomised controlled trial and economic appraisal, with an embedded process evaluation to examine the outcomes, implementation and cost-effectiveness of the intervention, and intervention uptake, compared with services as usual. The study had an external pilot phase (which was originally planned as an internal pilot). Setting The intervention was delivered in community settings by early years children’s services and/or public health staff in four sites. Participants A total of 341 parents of infants aged ≤ 8 weeks were randomised in a ratio of 5 : 1 (intervention, n = 285; control, n = 56). The target sample was 606 parents. Intervention Two Incredible Years® parenting programmes (i.e. infant and toddler) delivered in a proportionate universal model with three levels [one universal (book) and two targeted group-based parenting programmes]. Main outcome measures Child social and emotional well-being (primary outcome) was assessed using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social and Emotional, 2nd edition, at 2, 9 and 18 months after randomisation. Parent depression (secondary key outcome) was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items. Both questionnaires were eligibility screeners for targeted groups. Results The primary outcome analysis provided no evidence that the E-SEE Steps model was effective in enhancing child social and emotional well-being. The adjusted mean difference was 3.02 on the original Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social and Emotional, 2nd edition, in favour of the control [95% confidence interval –0.03 to 6.08; p = 0.052; N = 321 (intervention, n = 268; control, n = 53)]. Analysis of the key secondary outcome (i.e. parent depression levels as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items) provided weak evidence on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items in favour of the intervention (adjusted mean difference –0.61, 95% confidence interval –1.34 to 0.12; p = 0.1). Other secondary outcomes did not differ between arms. The economic analysis showed that the E-SEE Steps model was associated with higher costs and was marginally more effective (0.031 quality-adjusted life-years gained from E-SEE Steps compared with SAU, 95% confidence interval –0.008 to 0.071) than services as usual, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately £20,062 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with services as usual. Overall take-up of the targeted parenting programmes was low. Sites, although enthusiastic, identified barriers to delivering the intervention. Limitations The target sample size was not met and the study was not powered to explore the effectiveness of each level of intervention. Most parents in the sample were well educated and, therefore, the results are unlikely to be generalisable, particularly to those at greatest risk of poor social and emotional well-being. Conclusions The E-SEE Steps proportionate universal model did not enhance child social and emotional well-being, but generated non-significant improvements in parent health outcomes, resulting in considerable uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. The primary and key secondary outcome gave inconsistent signals. Although, with system changes, increased resources and adaptations to the intervention, the model could be implemented, evidence for positive outcomes from the E-SEE Steps model is poor. Future work The universal-level E-SEE Step data (i.e. the Incredible Years book) from the external pilot will be pooled with the main trial data for further exploration up to follow-up 1, which is the time point at which most change was seen. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN11079129. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL): a new generic self-reported outcome measure for use with people experiencing mental health difficulties†

Outcome measures for mental health services need to adopt a service-user recovery focus. To develop and validate a 10- and 20-item self-report recovery-focused quality of life outcome measure named Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL). Qualitative methods for item development and initial testing, and quantitative methods for item reduction and scale construction were used. Data from >6500 service users were factor analysed and item response theory models employed to inform item selection. The measures were tested for reliability, validity and responsiveness. ReQoL-10 and ReQoL-20 contain positively and negatively worded items covering seven themes: activity, hope, belonging and relationships, self-perception, well-being, autonomy, and physical health. Both versions achieved acceptable internal consistency, test–retest reliability (>0.85), known-group differences, convergence with related measures, and were responsive over time (standardised response mean (SRM) > 0.4). They performed marginally better than the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale and markedly better than the EQ-5D. Both versions are appropriate for measuring service-user recovery-focused quality of life outcomes. M.B. and J.Co. were members of the research group that developed the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE) outcome measures

Play brick therapy to aid the social skills of children and young people with autism spectrum disorder : the I-SOCIALISE cluster RCT

BACKGROUND: Social skills interventions are commonly recommended to help children and young people with autism spectrum disorder develop social skills, but some struggle to engage in these interventions. LEGO ® (LEGO System A/S, Billund, Denmark) based therapy, a group social skills intervention, aims to be more interesting and engaging. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of LEGO ® based therapy on the social and emotional skills of children and young people with autism spectrum disorder in school settings compared with usual support. Secondary objectives included evaluations of cost-effectiveness, acceptability and treatment fidelity. DESIGN: A cluster randomised controlled trial randomly allocating participating schools to either LEGO ® based therapy and usual support or usual support only. SETTING: Mainstream schools in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: Children and young people (aged 7-15 years) with autism spectrum disorder, their parent/guardian, an associated teacher/teaching assistant and a facilitator teacher/teaching assistant (intervention schools only). INTERVENTION: Schools randomised to the intervention arm delivered 12 weekly sessions of LEGO ® based therapy, which promotes collaborative play and encourages social problem-solving in groups of three children and young people with a facilitator (trained teacher or teaching assistant). Participants received usual support from school and community services. Participants in the control arm received usual support only. Research assistants and statisticians were blind to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The social skills subscale of the Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS), completed by the children and young people's unblinded teacher pre randomisation and 20 weeks post randomisation. The SSIS social skills subscale measures social skills including social communication, co-operation, empathy, assertion, responsibility and self-control. Participants completed a number of other pre- and post-randomisation measures of emotional health, quality of life, loneliness, problem behaviours, academic competence, service resource utilisation and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 250 children and young people from 98 schools were randomised: 127 to the intervention arm and 123 to the control arm. Intention-to-treat analysis of the main outcome measure showed a modest positive difference of 3.74 points (95% confidence interval -0.16 to 7.63 points, standardised effect size 0.18; p  = 0.06) in favour of the intervention arm. Statistical significance increased in per-protocol analysis, with a modest positive difference (standardised effect size 0.21; p  = 0.036). Cost-effectiveness of the intervention was found in reduced service use costs and a small increase in quality-adjusted life-years. Intervention fidelity and acceptability were positive. No intervention-related adverse events or effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The primary and pre-planned sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome consistently showed a positive clinical difference, with modest standardised effect sizes of between 0.15 and 0.21. There were positive health economics and qualitative findings, corroborated by the difference between arms for the majority of secondary outcomes, which were not statistically significant but favoured the intervention arm. Post hoc additional analysis was exploratory and was not used in drawing this conclusion. Given the small positive change, LEGO ® based therapy for children and young people with autism spectrum disorder in schools should be considered. LIMITATIONS: The primary outcome measure was completed by an unblinded teacher (rather than by the facilitator). FUTURE WORK: The study team recommends future research into LEGO ® based therapy, particularly in school environments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN64852382. FUNDING: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/49/32) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 12. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information