Solutions Trial: Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) in 10-17-year-olds presenting at police custody: a randomised controlled trial.
Children
Intervention
Offending behaviours
Police custody
Randomised controlled trial
SFBT
Therapy
Young people
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Mar 2024
02 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
23
06
2023
accepted:
02
01
2024
medline:
3
3
2024
pubmed:
3
3
2024
entrez:
2
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Within England, children and young people (CYP) who come into police custody are referred to Liaison and Diversion (L&D) teams. L&D teams have responsibility for liaising with healthcare and other support services while working to divert CYP away from the criminal justice system but have traditionally not provided targeted psychological interventions to CYP. Considering evidence that Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) leads to a reduction in internalising and externalising behaviour problems in CYP, the aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to determine whether there is a difference between services as usual (SAU) plus SFBT offered by trained therapists working within a L&D team, and SAU alone, in reducing offending behaviours in 10-17-year-olds presenting at police custody. Design: two-arm individually RCT with internal pilot and process evaluation. N = approximately 448 CYP aged 10-17 years presenting at one of three police custody suites in the area served by Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust (LSCFT) who are referred to the L&D team. Participants will be recruited and allocated to intervention:control on a 1:1 basis. Interviews will be performed with 30-40 CYP in the intervention arm, 15 CYP in the control arm, up to 20 parents/guardians across both arms, up to 15 practitioners, and up to 10 site staff responsible for screening CYP for the trial. Intervention and control: Those allocated to the intervention will be offered SAU plus SFBT, and control participants will receive SAU only. CYP frequency of offending behaviours assessed through the Self-Report Delinquency Measure (SRDM) at 12 months post-randomisation. criminal offence data (national police database); emotional and behavioural difficulties (self-report and parent/guardian reported); gang affiliation (self-report). Process evaluation: evaluation of acceptability and experiences of the CYP, parents/guardians, site staff and practitioners; fidelity of SFBT delivery. This two-arm individually RCT will evaluate the effectiveness of SFBT in reducing offending behaviours in CYP presenting at police custody suites within the area served by LSCFT. Our process evaluation will assess the fidelity of delivery of SFBT, the factors affecting implementation, the acceptability of SFBT in CYP aged 10-17 years and recruitment and reach. We will also examine systems and structures for future delivery, therefore assessing overall scalability. ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN14195235 . Registered on June 16, 2023.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Within England, children and young people (CYP) who come into police custody are referred to Liaison and Diversion (L&D) teams. L&D teams have responsibility for liaising with healthcare and other support services while working to divert CYP away from the criminal justice system but have traditionally not provided targeted psychological interventions to CYP. Considering evidence that Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) leads to a reduction in internalising and externalising behaviour problems in CYP, the aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to determine whether there is a difference between services as usual (SAU) plus SFBT offered by trained therapists working within a L&D team, and SAU alone, in reducing offending behaviours in 10-17-year-olds presenting at police custody.
METHODS
METHODS
Design: two-arm individually RCT with internal pilot and process evaluation.
PARTICIPANTS
METHODS
N = approximately 448 CYP aged 10-17 years presenting at one of three police custody suites in the area served by Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust (LSCFT) who are referred to the L&D team. Participants will be recruited and allocated to intervention:control on a 1:1 basis. Interviews will be performed with 30-40 CYP in the intervention arm, 15 CYP in the control arm, up to 20 parents/guardians across both arms, up to 15 practitioners, and up to 10 site staff responsible for screening CYP for the trial. Intervention and control: Those allocated to the intervention will be offered SAU plus SFBT, and control participants will receive SAU only.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
METHODS
CYP frequency of offending behaviours assessed through the Self-Report Delinquency Measure (SRDM) at 12 months post-randomisation.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
RESULTS
criminal offence data (national police database); emotional and behavioural difficulties (self-report and parent/guardian reported); gang affiliation (self-report). Process evaluation: evaluation of acceptability and experiences of the CYP, parents/guardians, site staff and practitioners; fidelity of SFBT delivery.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
This two-arm individually RCT will evaluate the effectiveness of SFBT in reducing offending behaviours in CYP presenting at police custody suites within the area served by LSCFT. Our process evaluation will assess the fidelity of delivery of SFBT, the factors affecting implementation, the acceptability of SFBT in CYP aged 10-17 years and recruitment and reach. We will also examine systems and structures for future delivery, therefore assessing overall scalability.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN14195235 . Registered on June 16, 2023.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38431608
doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-07904-5
pii: 10.1186/s13063-024-07904-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
159Subventions
Organisme : Youth Endowment Fund
ID : LGR1-EVAL-112110
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
NHS England. Implementing the five year forward view for mental health. In: NHS England. 2016. Implementing The Five Year Forward View for Mental Health ( england.nhs.uk ). Accessed 03 May 2023.
Youth Endowment Fund. Our vision and mission – Youth Endowment Fund. In: Youth Endowment Fund. 2022. https://youthendowmentfund.org.uk/about-us/our-mission/#:~:text=Our%20mission%3A ,put%20this%20knowledge%20into%20practice. Accessed 27 June 2022.
Bond C, Woods K, Humphrey N, Symes W, Green L. Practitioner Review: The effectiveness of solution focused brief therapy with children and families: a systematic and critical evaluation of the literature from 1990-2010. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12058 .
Kim J, Jordan SS, Franklin C, Froerer A. Is Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Evidence-Based? An Update 10 Years Later. Fam Soc. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1177/1044389419841688 .
Roeden JM, Maaskant MA, Curfs LMG. Processes and effects of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy in people with intellectual disabilities: a controlled study. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12038 .
Neipp M-C, Beyebach M. The Global Outcomes of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy: A Revision. Am J Fam Ther. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2022.2069175 .
Kvarme LG, Helseth S, Sørum R, Luth-Hansen V, Haugland S, Natvig GK. The effect of a solution-focused approach to improve self-efficacy in socially withdrawn school children: a non-randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.05.001 .
Franklin C, Moore K, Hopson L. Effectiveness of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy in a School Setting. Child Sch. 2008; https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/30.1.15 .
Conoley CW, Graham JR, Neu T, Craig MC, O’Pry A, Cardin SA, et al. Solution-Focused Family Therapy With Three Aggressive and Oppositional-Acting Children: An N = 1 Empirical Study. Fam Process. 2003; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00361.x .
Hsu K-S, Eads R, Lee MY, Wen Z. Solution-focused brief therapy for behavior problems in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis of treatment effectiveness and family involvement. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105620 .
Enea V, Dafinoiu I. Motivational/solution-focused intervention for reducing school truancy among adolescents. Behav Cogn Psychother. 2009;9(2):185–98.
Froeschle JG, Smith RL, Ricard R. The Efficacy of a Systematic Substance Abuse Program for Adolescent Females. PSC. 2007; https://doi.org/10.5330/prsc.10.5.a458605px1u57217 .
Macdonald AJ. Solution-focused therapy : theory, research & practice. Sage Publications Ltd.; 2007.
Koehler JA, Lösel F, Akoensi TD, Humphreys DK. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of young offender treatment programs in Europe. J Exp Criminol. 2013;9:19–43.
doi: 10.1007/s11292-012-9159-7
Olsson TM, Långström N, Skoog T, Andrée Löfholm C, Leander L, Brolund A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of noninstitutional psychosocial interventions to prevent juvenile criminal recidivism. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2021;89(6):514.
doi: 10.1037/ccp0000652
pubmed: 34264699
Littell JH, Pigott TD, Nilsen KH, Green SJ, Montgomery OL. Multisystemic Therapy® for social, emotional, and behavioural problems in youth age 10 to 17: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Syst Rev. 2021;17(4):e1158.
doi: 10.1002/cl2.1158
NHS commissioning. NHS commissioning: About liaison and diversion. In: NHS England. 2023. https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/health-just/liaison-and-diversion/about . Accessed 03 May 2023.
Medina A, Beyebach M, García FE. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a solution-focused intervention in child protection services. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106703 .
De Jong PD. Interviewing for solutions. Brooks/Cole: Cengage Learning; 2013.
George E, Iveson C, Ratner H. Problem to Solution: Brief Therapy with Individuals and Families. London: BT Press; 1999.
Goodman R. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1997; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x .
Raby C, Jones F. Identifying risks for male street gang affiliation: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2016.1195005 .
Raby C, Jones FW, Hulbert S, Stout J. Design, development and validity testing of the gang affiliation risk measure (GARM). J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2017.1324578 .
Wechsler D. Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence – Second Edition. Bloomington, United States: Pearson; 2011.
Essau CA, Sasagawa S, Frick PJ. Callous-unemotional traits in a community sample of adolescents. Assessment. 2006; https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106287354 .
Ciucci E, Baroncelli A, Franchi M, Golmaryami FN, Frick PJ. The Association between Callous-Unemotional Traits and Behavioral and Academic Adjustment in Children: Further Validation of the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. J Psychopathol. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9384-z .
NHS England. NHS England and NHS Improvement funding and resource 2019/20: supporting ‘The NHS Long Term Plan’. In: NHS England. 2019. NHS England and NHS Improvement funding and resource 2019/20: supporting ‘The NHS Long Term Plan’ ( england.nhs.uk ). Accessed 15 June 2023.
Disley E, Gkousis E, Hulme S, Morley KI, Pollard J, Saunders CL, Sussex J, Sutherland A. Outcome Evaluation of the National Model for Liaison and Diversion. In: Santa Monica, RAND Corporation, 2021. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1271-1.html . Accessed 03 May 2023.
Smith DJ, McVie S. Theory and method in the Edinburgh study of youth transitions and crime. Br J Criminol. 2003; https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/43.1.169 .
Nock MK, Kazdin AE, Hiripi E, Kessler RC. Prevalence, subtypes, and correlates of DSM-IV conduct disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Psychol Med. 2006; https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291706007082 .
Nock MK, Kazdin AE, Hiripi E, Kessler RC. Lifetime prevalence, correlates, and persistence of oppositional defiant disorder: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2007; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01733.x .
Connelly R, Platt L. Cohort Profile: UK Millennium Cohort Study (MCS). Int J Epidemiol. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu001 .
Borm GF, Fransen J, Lemmens WA. A simple sample size formula for analysis of covariance in randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.02.006 .
Smith DJ, McVie S, Woodward R, Shute J, Flint J, McAra L. The Edinburgh study of youth transitions and crime: Key findings at ages 12and 13. Edinburgh: Centre of Law and Society; 2001.
Hedges L. Distribution Theory for Glass’s Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators. J Educ Stat. 1981;6(2):107–28.
doi: 10.3102/10769986006002107
Tobin J. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrics. 1958;26:24–30.
doi: 10.2307/1907382