These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A video-feedback parenting intervention to prevent enduring behaviour problems in at-risk children aged 12-36 months: the Healthy Start, Happy Start RCT.
    Author: O'Farrelly C, Barker B, Watt H, Babalis D, Bakermans-Kranenburg M, Byford S, Ganguli P, Grimås E, Iles J, Mattock H, McGinley J, Phillips C, Ryan R, Scott S, Smith J, Stein A, Stevens E, van IJzendoorn M, Warwick J, Ramchandani P.
    Journal: Health Technol Assess; 2021 May; 25(29):1-84. PubMed ID: 34018919.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Behaviour problems emerge early in childhood and place children at risk for later psychopathology. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a parenting intervention to prevent enduring behaviour problems in young children. DESIGN: A pragmatic, assessor-blinded, multisite, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Health visiting services in six NHS trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 300 at-risk children aged 12-36 months and their parents/caregivers. INTERVENTIONS: Families were allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio to six sessions of Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline (VIPP-SD) plus usual care or usual care alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms, which is a structured interview of behaviour symptoms. Secondary outcomes included caregiver-reported total problems on the Child Behaviour Checklist and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. The intervention effect was estimated using linear regression. Health and social care service use was recorded using the Child and Adolescent Service Use Schedule and cost-effectiveness was explored using the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms. RESULTS: In total, 300 families were randomised: 151 to VIPP-SD plus usual care and 149 to usual care alone. Follow-up data were available for 286 (VIPP-SD, n = 140; usual care, n = 146) participants and 282 (VIPP-SD, n = 140; usual care, n = 142) participants at 5 and 24 months, respectively. At the post-treatment (primary outcome) follow-up, a group difference of 2.03 on Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 4.01; p = 0.04) indicated a positive treatment effect on behaviour problems (Cohen's d = 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.40). The effect was strongest for children's conduct [1.61, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 2.78; p = 0.007 (d = 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.51)] versus attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms [0.29, 95% confidence interval -1.06 to 1.65; p = 0.67 (d = 0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.17 to 0.27)]. The Child Behaviour Checklist [3.24, 95% confidence interval -0.06 to 6.54; p = 0.05 (d = 0.15, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.31)] and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire [0.93, 95% confidence interval -0.03 to 1.9; p = 0.06 (d = 0.18, 95% confidence interval -0.01 to 0.36)] demonstrated similar positive treatment effects to those found for the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms. At 24 months, the group difference on the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms was 1.73 [95% confidence interval -0.24 to 3.71; p = 0.08 (d = 0.17, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.37)]; the effect remained strongest for conduct [1.07, 95% confidence interval -0.06 to 2.20; p = 0.06 (d = 0.20, 95% confidence interval -0.01 to 0.42)] versus attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms [0.62, 95% confidence interval -0.60 to 1.84; p = 0.32 (d = 0.10, 95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.30)], with little evidence of an effect on the Child Behaviour Checklist and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. The primary economic analysis showed better outcomes in the VIPP-SD group at 24 months, but also higher costs than the usual-care group (adjusted mean difference £1450, 95% confidence interval £619 to £2281). No treatment- or trial-related adverse events were reported. The probability of VIPP-SD being cost-effective compared with usual care at the 24-month follow-up increased as willingness to pay for improvements on the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms increased, with VIPP-SD having the higher probability of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay values above £800 per 1-point improvement on the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms. LIMITATIONS: The proportion of participants with graduate-level qualifications was higher than among the general public. CONCLUSIONS: VIPP-SD is effective in reducing behaviour problems in young children when delivered by health visiting teams. Most of the effect of VIPP-SD appears to be retained over 24 months. However, we can be less certain about its value for money. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN58327365. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Behaviour problems in young children are common and are linked to mental and physical health problems, and educational and social difficulties. An important factor that influences the development of behaviour problems is the quality of care that children receive from their caregivers. This study aimed to test if a six-session parenting programme [called Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline (VIPP-SD)] reduced behaviour problems in children aged 1 or 2 years who were showing early signs of behaviour problems (e.g. restlessness, impulsivity, tantrums and aggression). VIPP-SD supports caregivers in responding to their child’s communication and behaviour. A total of 300 families participated. All families continued to access usual health-care services (e.g. health visitors and general practitioners), but half of the families were randomly allocated to also receive the VIPP-SD programme. We visited all families when the study started, and at 5 and 24 months to see if the children whose families received VIPP-SD showed fewer behaviour problems. We measured the children’s behaviour by completing interviews and questionnaires with their caregivers. We also analysed whether or not VIPP-SD was good value for money compared with existing services. We did this by comparing the cost of all of the standard health and community services that families accessed during their time in the study, taking account of the impact that VIPP-SD had on children’s behaviour. The children in the VIPP-SD group had lower levels of behaviour problems following the programme than children whose parents did not receive the programme. On average, VIPP-SD children scored 2 points lower on the main measure of behaviour; an example difference would be tantrums being rated as mild rather than severe. By the 2-year visit, the VIPP-SD children continued to show lower levels of behaviour problems. It is less clear whether or not VIPP-SD is good value for money, as this depends on how much money policy-makers are willing to invest for reductions in behaviour problems. Overall, there is strong evidence that the VIPP-SD programme is effective in reducing behaviour problems in the short term. Most of this benefit appears to be maintained for the following 2 years. However, we are less certain about the long-term effect and the VIPP-SD’s value for money.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]