Evaluation of a cross-sectoral care intervention for families with psychosocial burden: a study protocol of a controlled trial.
Complex intervention
Cross-sectoral care
Early childhood intervention program
Evaluation
Family
Pediatricians
Prevention
Psychosocial burden
Small children
Supportive services
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Apr 2022
11 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
28
02
2022
accepted:
16
03
2022
entrez:
12
4
2022
pubmed:
13
4
2022
medline:
14
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Family risk factors, e.g. low socioeconomic status or parental mental health disorders, can affect children's health and development. Thus, targeted preventive services for families with psychosocial burden are crucial. The German Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) program is a preventive approach that aims to strengthen parent's resources by supportive services. However, research has revealed that only a proportion of the families considered to have substantial risk factors access the ECI program. To increase pediatricians' skills in identifying risk factors, and to improve the cross-sectoral collaboration between relevant professionals and the referral of families to supportive services, the PATH-intervention (Pediatric Attention To Help) was developed. The PATH-intervention includes interprofessional quality circles and a one-day training program for the pediatricians. This study aims to evaluate this complex cross-sectoral care intervention for families with psychosocial burden. Using a prospective quasi-experimental, controlled (matched-pair), longitudinal mixed-method design, we will compare families under treatment of pediatricians trained in the PATH-intervention with families under treatment of a control group of pediatricians. Participating families are asked to complete online-surveys. As a primary outcome, we will examine the use of supportive services of the ECI by burdened families. Secondary outcomes are the proportion of correctly identified families with psychosocial burden by the pediatricians, as well as information provision and motivation of the families to use the supportive services. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness ratio will be investigated. In the process evaluation, we will qualitatively explore the acceptance of the PATH-intervention of all involved stakeholders and the treatment fidelity of the trained pediatricians. This study will determine whether the PATH-intervention enables the pediatricians to identify and recommend supportive services to burdened families, as well as the families' use of the supportive services of the ECI. Qualitative data will give insight into the acceptance of the intervention from the perspective of all stakeholders and the treatment fidelity. Results of this study could be the starting point for the broader implementation of the PATH-intervention as standard care. German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00023461 (3rd December 2020); WHO UTN: U1111- 260-6575.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Family risk factors, e.g. low socioeconomic status or parental mental health disorders, can affect children's health and development. Thus, targeted preventive services for families with psychosocial burden are crucial. The German Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) program is a preventive approach that aims to strengthen parent's resources by supportive services. However, research has revealed that only a proportion of the families considered to have substantial risk factors access the ECI program. To increase pediatricians' skills in identifying risk factors, and to improve the cross-sectoral collaboration between relevant professionals and the referral of families to supportive services, the PATH-intervention (Pediatric Attention To Help) was developed. The PATH-intervention includes interprofessional quality circles and a one-day training program for the pediatricians. This study aims to evaluate this complex cross-sectoral care intervention for families with psychosocial burden.
METHODS
METHODS
Using a prospective quasi-experimental, controlled (matched-pair), longitudinal mixed-method design, we will compare families under treatment of pediatricians trained in the PATH-intervention with families under treatment of a control group of pediatricians. Participating families are asked to complete online-surveys. As a primary outcome, we will examine the use of supportive services of the ECI by burdened families. Secondary outcomes are the proportion of correctly identified families with psychosocial burden by the pediatricians, as well as information provision and motivation of the families to use the supportive services. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness ratio will be investigated. In the process evaluation, we will qualitatively explore the acceptance of the PATH-intervention of all involved stakeholders and the treatment fidelity of the trained pediatricians.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study will determine whether the PATH-intervention enables the pediatricians to identify and recommend supportive services to burdened families, as well as the families' use of the supportive services of the ECI. Qualitative data will give insight into the acceptance of the intervention from the perspective of all stakeholders and the treatment fidelity. Results of this study could be the starting point for the broader implementation of the PATH-intervention as standard care.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00023461 (3rd December 2020); WHO UTN: U1111- 260-6575.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35410201
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07787-9
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-07787-9
pmc: PMC8996544
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
475Subventions
Organisme : German Innovation Fund
ID : 01VSF19039
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2020 Oct 16;117(42):709-716
pubmed: 33559586
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2016 Oct;59(10):1271-80
pubmed: 27604115
Pediatr Clin North Am. 2014 Oct;61(5):865-71
pubmed: 25242702
Child Abuse Negl. 2006 May;30(5):497-522
pubmed: 16701895
Pediatr Clin North Am. 2014 Oct;61(5):907-21
pubmed: 25242705
BMJ. 2018 Dec 7;363:k4786
pubmed: 30530840
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2016 Oct;59(10):1310-4
pubmed: 27590248
Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Nov;97(2):188-94
pubmed: 25182000
J Affect Disord. 2010 Apr;122(1-2):86-95
pubmed: 19616305
Health Econ. 1997 May-Jun;6(3):243-52
pubmed: 9226142
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2016 Oct;59(10):1315-22
pubmed: 27604112
BMJ. 2000 Sep 16;321(7262):694-6
pubmed: 10987780
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2016 Oct;59(10):1247-54
pubmed: 27580599
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983 Jun;51(3):390-5
pubmed: 6863699
Stat Med. 2014 Oct 15;33(23):4053-72
pubmed: 24825821