Application of cognitive-behavioural family intervention for schizophrenia in multidisciplinary teams : what can the matter be?

Surveyed 45 therapists who had participated in a family intervention for schizophrenia training program to examine the difficulties they had encountered, their recall of the intervention strategies, and the extent that they thought the approach had become integrated in their everyday work. Between 6 mo and 3 yrs after the family training, Ss reported the number of families they had systematically treated, and the difficulties they had encountered. Allowance of time to undertake the intervention, afterhours scheduling, and illness or holidays presented particular difficulties. Only 4% reported that their knowledge of behavioral techniques was a problem, but in a written test most therapists did not display minimum recall of the material of cognitive therapy, social skills training, or behavioral strategies. The study demonstrated significant problems in disseminating cognitive-behavioral approaches to multidisciplinary settings.

The treatment of recurrent abdominal pain in children : a controlled comparison of cognitive-behavioral family intervention and standard pediatric care

This study describes the results of a controlled clinical trial involving 44 7- to 14-year-old children with recurrent abdominal pain who were randomly allocated to either cognitive-behavioral family intervention (CBFI) or standard pediatric care (SPC). Both treatment conditions resulted in significant improvements on measures of pain intensity and pain behavior. However, the children receiving CBFI had a higher rate of complete elimination of pain, lower levels of relapse at 6- and 12-month follow-up, and lower levels of interference with their activities as a result of pain and parents reported a higher level of satisfaction with the treatment than children receiving SPC. After controlling for pretreatment levels of pain, children's active self-coping and mothers' caregiving strategies were significant independent predictors of pain behavior at posttreatment.

What the problem may be with family intervention . . . and with dissemination more generally: A commentary

While the two decades since the study by Kavanagh et al. (1993) has given additional insights into effective dissemination of family interventions, the accompanying papers show that progress remains limited. The effectiveness trial that triggered this series of papers offers a cautionary tale. Despite management support, 30–35 hr of workshop training and training of local supervisors who could act as champions, use of the full intervention was limited. In part, this seemed due to the demanding nature of the intervention and its incompatibility with practitioners’ roles, in part, to limitations in the training, among other factors. While the accompanying papers note these and other barriers to dissemination, they miss a more disturbing finding in the original paper: Practitioners said they were using several aspects in routine care, despite being unable to accurately describe what they were. This finding highlights the risks in taking practitioners’ reports of their practice in files or supervision sessions at face value and potentially has implications for reports of other clinical work. The fidelity of disseminated treatments can only be assured by audits of practice, accompanied by affirming but also corrective feedback.

Adolescent depression and the family : a paradox

Discusses the role of the family in the development, treatment and prevention of adolescent depression. Studies have demonstrated that between 21–32% of adolescents report mild to severe symptoms of depression. The research points out the need for increased attention to adolescent depression because of its high prevalence, the risk factor for the development of other disorders and suicide, recurrence and tendency to endure into adulthood. Many studies have shown a strong relationship between depressive symptomatology and family factors. Therefore, family interventions should play an important role in the prevention and treatment of adolescent depression. However, there exists a paradox in that the research published to date fails to show that family-intervention programs add to the efficacy of treatments provided to the adolescents. Possible explanations for this paradox are discussed.

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that children's decisions to smoke are influenced by family and friends. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions to help family members to strengthen non-smoking attitudes and promote non-smoking by children and other family members. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We also searched unpublished material, and the reference lists of key articles. We performed both free-text Internet searches and targeted searches of appropriate websites, and we hand-searched key journals not available electronically. We also consulted authors and experts in the field. The most recent search was performed in July 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions with children (aged 5-12) or adolescents (aged 13-18) and family members to deter the use of tobacco. The primary outcome was the effect of the intervention on the smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline. Included trials had to report outcomes measured at least six months from the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reviewed all potentially relevant citations and retrieved the full text to determine whether the study was an RCT and matched our inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed them for methodological quality. The studies were too limited in number and quality to undertake a formal meta-analysis, and we present a narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 19 RCTs of family interventions to prevent smoking. We identified five RCTs in Category 1 (minimal risk of bias on all counts); nine in Category 2 (a risk of bias in one or more areas); and five in Category 3 (risks of bias in design and execution such that reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from the study).Considering the fourteen Category 1 and 2 studies together: (1) four of the nine that tested a family intervention against a control group had significant positive effects, but one showed significant negative effects; (2) one of the five RCTs that tested a family intervention against a school intervention had significant positive effects; (3) none of the six that compared the incremental effects of a family plus a school programme to a school programme alone had significant positive effects; (4) the one RCT that tested a family tobacco intervention against a family non-tobacco safety intervention showed no effects; and (5) the one trial that used general risk reduction interventions found the group which received the parent and teen interventions had less smoking than the one that received only the teen intervention (there was no tobacco intervention but tobacco outcomes were measured). For the included trials the amount of implementer training and the fidelity of implementation are related to positive outcomes, but the number of sessions is not. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some well-executed RCTs show family interventions may prevent adolescent smoking, but RCTs which were less well executed had mostly neutral or negative results. There is thus a need for well-designed and executed RCTs in this area.

The impact of chronic childhood illness on family stress : a comparison between autism and cystic fibrosis

Compared the different patterns of stress reported by mothers of children (aged 5–12 yrs) with either a chronic physical illness (cystic fibrosis) or a chronic psychological disorder (autism), and children without a physical or psychological disorder. 24 mothers from each of these 3 groups completed a short form of the Questionnaire on Resources and Stress. Each clinical group exhibited different patterns of stressful response consistent with the nature of the disorder and the requirements of care imposed on the families. Autism contributed significantly more to family stress than did cystic fibrosis. The number of children in the family was not a significant variable. Implications for the development of family intervention programs are discussed

Thai family support (TFS) : working with families of young substance users in primary health care

Living with substance users negatively impacts upon family members in many ways, and distress is common. Despite these deep and wide-ranging impacts, supportive interventions for family members in their own right are rarely available. Thailand has substantial and growing problems with substance use, and there is very little support or family members of drug users, especially in community setting. The Thai Family Support (TFS) program was designed for implementation in primary health care units (PCUs) in Thailand. TFS was based on two approaches with existing empirical support in Western contexts—the 5-step method and CRAFT—with adaptations to a Thai setting that included integration with Buddhist practices. Its aims were to increase well-being of family members, reduce mental distress, improve family relationships between family members, and engage substance users in behaviour change. A small-scale randomised controlled trial on TFS with a Delayed Treatment control was conducted, with assessments at 8 weeks (Post 1) and 20-24 weeks (Post 2). Structured interviews with participants and PCU staff and an examination of five case studies augmented the quantitative results. Mixed Model Analyses were applied to quantitative outcomes, and thematic analysis was used for qualitative data. Thirty-six participants (18 in each of Immediate and Delayed Conditions) were recruited. A significant difference at Baseline between the two conditions was observed on the Thai GHQ-28 and Gender, but it was not possible to statistically control for these effects. There was a significant Time by Condition interaction on the Thai GHQ-28, WHOQOL-BREF-THAI and FAS, reflecting greater improvements in the Immediate condition by Post 1, but with the Delayed condition meeting or exceeding that effect by Post 2. On FES Cohesion and Conflict, there were falls across conditions at Post 2, but only Cohesion also showed a Time by Condition interaction, and that effect was consistent with a delayed impact of treatment. Overall, TFS by PCU staff in the Delayed Condition gave similar results to TFS conducted by the researcher, supporting the viability of its dissemination to standard health services. Qualitative data also confirmed the quantitative results. Most participants reported physiological and psychological improvements even though their substance-using relative did not change their drug use behaviour. After completing TFS, participants reported increased knowledge, group support and sharing feeling, having positive patient-professional relationship, having greater knowledge of substance abuse and social support. In particular, they changed their behaviour towards the substance user, resulting in improvements to family relationships. PCU staff gave similar responses on the efficacy of TFS, and saw it as feasible for routine use, although some implementation challenges were identified. The cultural adaptation and in particular the religious activities, were recognised by participants and PCU staff as an important component of TFS to support psychological health and well-being. Findings from this study showed the impact of substance use on family members and difficulties that they experienced when living with the substance users, resulting distresses and burden that may develop severe mental health disease. Drug use policies should be modified to support family members and response to their needs effectively for early prevention. This study also gave preliminary support for application of the TFS program in rural primary care settings and identified some policies that will be required for it to be disseminated more broadly.

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents (Review)

Background There is evidence that family and friends influence children's decisions to smoke. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions to help families stop children starting smoking. Search methods We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL unpublished material, and key articles' reference lists. We performed free-text internet searches and targeted searches of appropriate websites, and hand-searched key journals not available electronically. We consulted authors and experts in the field. The most recent search was 3 April 2014. There were no date or language limitations. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions with children (aged 5-12) or adolescents (aged 13-18) and families to deter tobacco use. The primary outcome was the effect of the intervention on the smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline. Included trials had to report outcomes measured at least six months from the start of the intervention. Data collection and analysis We reviewed all potentially relevant citations and retrieved the full text to determine whether the study was an RCT and matched our inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted study data for each RCT and assessed them for risk of bias. We pooled risk ratios using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model. Main results Twenty-seven RCTs were included. The interventions were very heterogeneous in the components of the family intervention, the other risk behaviours targeted alongside tobacco, the age of children at baseline and the length of follow-up. Two interventions were tested by two RCTs, one was tested by three RCTs and the remaining 20 distinct interventions were tested only by one RCT. Twenty-three interventions were tested in the USA, two in Europe, one in Australia and one in India. The control conditions fell into two main groups: no intervention or usual care; or school-based interventions provided to all participants. These two groups of studies were considered separately. Most studies had a judgement of 'unclear' for at least one risk of bias criteria, so the quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate. Although there was heterogeneity between studies there was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity in the results. We were unable to extract data from all studies in a format that allowed inclusion in a meta-analysis. There was moderate quality evidence family-based interventions had a positive impact on preventing smoking when compared to a no intervention control. Nine studies (4810 participants) reporting smoking uptake amongst baseline non-smokers could be pooled, but eight studies with about 5000 participants could not be pooled because of insufficient data. The pooled estimate detected a significant reduction in smoking behaviour in the intervention arms (risk ratio [RR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68 to 0.84). Most of these studies used intensive interventions. Estimates for the medium and low intensity subgroups were similar but confidence intervals were wide. Two studies in which some of the 4487 participants already had smoking experience at baseline did not detect evidence of effect (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.17). Eight RCTs compared a combined family plus school intervention to a school intervention only. Of the three studies with data, two RCTS with outcomes for 2301 baseline never smokers detected evidence of an effect (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96) and one study with data for 1096 participants not restricted to never users at baseline also detected a benefit (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94). The other five studies with about 18,500 participants did not report data in a format allowing meta-analysis. One RCT also compared a family intervention to a school 'good behaviour' intervention and did not detect a difference between the two types of programme (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.38, n = 388). No studies identified any adverse effects of intervention. Authors' conclusions There is moderate quality evidence to suggest that family-based interventions can have a positive effect on preventing children and adolescents from starting to smoke. There were more studies of high intensity programmes compared to a control group receiving no intervention, than there were for other compairsons. The evidence is therefore strongest for high intensity programmes used independently of school interventions. Programmes typically addressed family functioning, and were introduced when children were between 11 and 14 years old. Based on this moderate quality evidence a family intervention might reduce uptake or experimentation with smoking by between 16 and 32%. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because effect estimates could not include data from all studies. Our interpretation is that the common feature of the effective high intensity interventions was encouraging authoritative parenting (which is usually defined as showing strong interest in and care for the adolescent, often with rule setting). This is different from authoritarian parenting (do as I say) or neglectful or unsupervised parenting.

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents: Evidence and implications for public health

- P -General population, nonsmoking children (aged 5 to 12) and adolescents (aged 13 to 18) with their parents - I -Interventions with children and family members intended to deter tobacco use. Any components to change parenting behaviour, parental or sibling smoking behaviour, or family communication and interaction. - C -Usual practice, or a program of no family intervention - O -Smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline.

Family-based interventions in preventing children and adolescents from using tobacco: A systematic review and meta-analysis

- Background Tobacco is the main preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Adolescent smoking is increasing in many countries with poorer countries following the earlier experiences of affluent countries. Preventing adolescents starting smoking is crucial to decreasing tobacco-related illness. - Objective To assess effectiveness of family-based interventions alone and combined with school-based interventions to prevent children and adolescents from initiating tobacco use. - Data Sources 14 bibliographic databases and the Internet, journals hand-searched, experts consulted. - Study Eligibility Criteria, Participants, and Interventions Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with children or adolescents and families, interventions to prevent starting tobacco use, follow-up ≥ 6 months. - Study Appraisal/Synthesis methods Abstracts/titles independently assessed and data independently entered by two authors. Risk-of-bias assessed with the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. - Results Twenty-seven RCTs were included. Nine trials of never-smokers compared to a control provided data for meta-analysis. Family intervention trials had significantly fewer students who started smoking. Meta-analysis of twoRCTs of combined family and school interventions compared to school only, showed additional significant benefit. The common feature of effective high intensity interventions was encouraging authoritative parenting. - Limitations Only 14 RCTs provided data for meta-analysis (about 1/3 of participants). Of the 13 RCTs which did not provide data for meta-analysis eight compared a family intervention to no intervention and one found significant effects, and five compared a family + school intervention to a school intervention and none found additional significant effects. - Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings There is moderate quality evidence that family-based interventions prevent children and adolescents starting to smoke.

Predictors of clinical improvement in children with recurrent abdominal pain

Forty-three children with recurrent abdominal pain who had received treatment from a paediatric gastroenterology clinic were reassessed 6 and 12 months after initial presentation. Measures of children's pain included a pain diary (PD) which measured pain intensity, a parent observation record (POR) which assessed pain behaviour and a structured interview to assess the degree to which pain interferes with the child's activities. Pretreatment measures of the child's history of pain, coping strategies in dealing with pain, and their mother's caregiving strategies were examined as predictors of two indices of clinical improvement: the extent of change in pain on the child's pain diary from pre-test to 6 months follow-up, and the degree of interference to the child's activities. All children had shown significant improvement in the level of pain at follow up, with 74.4% being pain free at 12 month follow-up on the PD and 83.7% being pain free on the POR. The amount of change they showed varied, with some showing residual impairment even though they were significantly improved. Regression analyses showed that children with greatest reductions on the child's pain diary at the 6 month follow-up were those with a stress-related mode of onset, whose mothers used more adaptive caregiving strategies, and who received cognitive behavioural family intervention. There was also a non significant trend for younger children to fare better. These data suggest the importance of early diagnosis and routinely assessing parental caregiving behaviour and beliefs about the origins of pain in planning treatment for children with RAP.

A nutrition and physical activity intervention for family child care homes

Background Family child care homes (FCCHs) provide child care to 1.9 million children in the U.S., but many do not meet established child care standards for healthy eating and physical activity. Purpose To determine the effects of a community-based train-the-trainer intervention on FCCHs policies and practices related to healthy eating and physical activity. Design Quasi-experimental design with replication in three independent cohorts of FCCHs. Setting/participants Registered FCCHs from 15 counties across Kansas participated in the Healthy Kansas Kids (HKK) program. Resource and referral agencies (RRAs) in each county recruited and enrolled between five and 15 child care providers in their service delivery area to participate in the program. The number of registered FCCHs participating in HKK in Years 1 (2006-2007); 2 (2007-2008); and 3 (2008-2009) of the program were 85, 64, and 87, respectively. A stratified random sample of registered FCCHs operating in Kansas (n=297) served as a normative comparison group. Interventions Child care trainers from each RRA completed a series of train-the-trainer workshops related to promotion of healthy eating and physical activity. FCCHs were subsequently guided through a four-step iterative process consisting of (1) self-evaluation; (2) goal setting; (3) developing an action plan; and (4) evaluating progress toward meeting goals. FCCHs also received U. S. Department of Agriculture resources related to healthy eating and physical activity. Main outcome measures Nutrition and Physical Activity Self-Assessment for Child Care (NAP SACC) self-assessment instrument (NAP SACC-SA). Analyses of outcome measures were conducted between 2008 and 2010. Results Healthy Kansas Kids FCCHs exhibited significant improvements in healthy eating (Delta=6.9%-7.1%) and physical activity (Delta=15.4%-19.2%) scores (p<0.05). Within each cohort, pre-intervention scores were not significantly different from the state average, whereas post-intervention scores were significantly higher than the state average. Conclusions Community-based train-the-trainer interventions to promote healthy eating and physical activity in FCCHs are feasible, sustainable, and effective.

Randomised clinical trial of a family-based lifestyle intervention for childhood obesity involving parents as the exclusive agents of change

Parent-centred interventions for childhood obesity aim to improve parents' skills and confidence in managing children's dietary and activity patterns, and in promoting a healthy lifestyle in their family. However, few studies assess changes in parenting over the course of treatment. This study describes the evaluation of a lifestyle-specific parenting program (Group Lifestyle Triple P) on multiple child and parent outcomes. One-hundred-and-one families with overweight and obese 4- to 11-year-old children participated in an intervention or waitlist control condition. The 12-week intervention was associated with significant reductions in child BMI z score and weight-related problem behaviour. At the end of the intervention, parents reported increased confidence in managing children's weight-related behaviour, and less frequent use of inconsistent or coercive parenting practices. All short-term intervention effects were maintained at one-year follow-up assessment, with additional improvements in child body size. The results support the efficacy of Group Lifestyle Triple P and suggest that parenting influences treatment outcomes. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of the intervention and to elucidate the mechanisms of change. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd.