A video-feedback parenting intervention to prevent enduring behaviour problems in at-risk children aged 12-36 months: the Healthy Start, Happy Start RCT.
BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS
EARLY INTERVENTION
HEALTH VISITING
PARENTING
Journal
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
entrez:
21
5
2021
pubmed:
22
5
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Behaviour problems emerge early in childhood and place children at risk for later psychopathology. To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a parenting intervention to prevent enduring behaviour problems in young children. A pragmatic, assessor-blinded, multisite, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Health visiting services in six NHS trusts in England. A total of 300 at-risk children aged 12-36 months and their parents/caregivers. 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. 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. 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, The proportion of participants with graduate-level qualifications was higher than among the general public. 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. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN58327365. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in 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.
Sections du résumé
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,
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
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.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34018919
doi: 10.3310/hta25290
pmc: PMC8182442
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN58327365']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-84Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 13/04/33
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Feb;4(2):109-119
pubmed: 27914903
Lancet. 2005 Feb 19-25;365(9460):711-22
pubmed: 15721478
Springerplus. 2013 Nov 18;2:614
pubmed: 24303338
Qual Health Res. 2010 Mar;20(3):340-51
pubmed: 20054040
Autism. 2015 Jul;19(5):588-603
pubmed: 24919961
Value Health. 2012 Dec;15(8):1127-36
pubmed: 23244816
Child Dev. 2019 Jan;90(1):20-24
pubmed: 30341949
BMC Public Health. 2011 Oct 14;11:803
pubmed: 21999434
Child Dev. 2019 Jan;90(1):7-19
pubmed: 30216433
PLoS One. 2018 Sep 26;13(9):e0202855
pubmed: 30256794
Attach Hum Dev. 2014;16(4):371-86
pubmed: 24972105
BMJ. 2001 Jul 28;323(7306):191
pubmed: 11473907
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001 Apr;40(4):402-8
pubmed: 11314565
Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-7
pubmed: 16717171
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Aug;46(8):837-49
pubmed: 16033632
J Fam Psychol. 2011 Feb;25(1):86-96
pubmed: 21355649
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019 Jun;17(3):295-313
pubmed: 30945127
Infant Ment Health J. 2014 Nov-Dec;35(6):604-13
pubmed: 25798509
J Fam Psychol. 2006 Jun;20(2):266-274
pubmed: 16756402
Pediatrics. 2015 May;135(5):e1210-9
pubmed: 25847804
Lancet. 2017 Jan 7;389(10064):77-90
pubmed: 27717614
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1994 Jul;35(5):949-60
pubmed: 7962250
Health Econ. 1994 Sep-Oct;3(5):309-19
pubmed: 7827647
Sci Rep. 2015 May 06;5:10053
pubmed: 25944445
Qual Life Res. 2014 Mar;23(2):403-11
pubmed: 23943259
Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Mar;5(3):203-216
pubmed: 29449180
BMJ. 2000 Apr 29;320(7243):1197-200
pubmed: 10784550
Med Decis Making. 1998 Apr-Jun;18(2 Suppl):S68-80
pubmed: 9566468
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2018 Oct;27(10):1295-1304
pubmed: 29442231
Br J Psychiatry. 2014 Jun;204(6):441-7
pubmed: 24676966
BMJ Open. 2018 Dec 4;8(12):e024230
pubmed: 30518588
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2012 Nov;53(11):1099-108
pubmed: 22928674
Econ Hum Biol. 2009 Mar;7(1):1-6
pubmed: 19213617
Stat Med. 2000 Dec 15;19(23):3219-36
pubmed: 11113956
Lancet Psychiatry. 2015 Feb;2(2):133-40
pubmed: 26359749
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2017 Apr;58(4):439-469
pubmed: 27709604
Br J Psychiatry. 1986 Dec;149:760-7
pubmed: 3790875
Qual Life Res. 2019 Sep;28(9):2429-2441
pubmed: 31154585
BMC Psychiatry. 2015 Dec 21;15:316
pubmed: 26691535
Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(12):1199-220
pubmed: 17129075
London J Prim Care (Abingdon). 2017 Aug 10;9(6):86-94
pubmed: 29181091
Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Aug;187:106-8
pubmed: 16055820
Health Econ. 2005 May;14(5):487-96
pubmed: 15497198
Pharmacoecon Open. 2017 Dec;1(4):233-239
pubmed: 29441504
BMJ Open. 2018 Mar 14;8(3):e020066
pubmed: 29540420
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1997 Jul;38(5):581-6
pubmed: 9255702
Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2017 Jul;22(3):483-499
pubmed: 28447470
J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2017 Feb;45(2):345-357
pubmed: 27334707
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006 Dec;74(6):994-1005
pubmed: 17154730
Can J Psychiatry. 2009 Apr;54(4):222-31
pubmed: 19321028
Dev Psychopathol. 2011 Feb;23(1):195-210
pubmed: 21262048
Br J Clin Psychol. 2004 Nov;43(Pt 4):449-57
pubmed: 15530214
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997 Nov;73(5):1052-63
pubmed: 9364760
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 17;12(1):e0169829
pubmed: 28095505
Dev Psychol. 2008 May;44(3):771-86
pubmed: 18473643
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Dec;35(Suppl 1):57-66
pubmed: 29052160
Value Health. 2017 Jan;20(1):18-27
pubmed: 28212961
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Mar;46(3):263-74
pubmed: 15755303
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2013 Feb;52(2):153-162.e4
pubmed: 23357442
Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Aug;31(8):635-41
pubmed: 23832811
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2006 Aug;47(8):801-10
pubmed: 16898994
Dev Psychol. 2008 Jan;44(1):293-300
pubmed: 18194028
Lancet. 2016 Jan 9;387(10014):146-55
pubmed: 26474809
Lancet. 2017 Jan 7;389(10064):91-102
pubmed: 27717615
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2005 Oct;44(10):972-86
pubmed: 16175102
Child Care Health Dev. 2009 Sep;35(5):613-23
pubmed: 19323672
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2013 Sep;22(9):543-52
pubmed: 23463179