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.

Quality Management and Formalization in Social Service Organizations - A Survey on Home-Based Family Intervention Services

Although the effects of quality management on social work are still widely unexplored, critics suspect that it will lead to a negative standardization of working conditions, whereas supporters of quality management hope for a greater transparency and effectiveness of service delivery. This article reports on a survey of 30 managers, 261 professionals, and 435 families in 30 family intervention service organizations. It uses cluster analysis to explore the relationship between quality management and different forms of work formalization. Results showed that working conditions generally are enabling for professional practice, but differences exist between what is called here a managerialist machine bureaucracy, an atomistic professional organization, and a collegiate professional organization.

How does family intervention improve the outcome of people with schizophrenia?

Background: There is strong evidence of the efficacy of family psychosocial interventions for schizophrenia, but evidence of the role played by the attitudes of relatives in the therapeutic process is lacking. Method: To study the effect of a family intervention on family attitudes and to analyse their mediating role in the therapeutic process 50 patients with schizophrenia and their key relatives undergoing a trial on the efficacy of a family psychosocial intervention were studied by means of the Affective Style Coding System, the Scale of Empathy, and the Relational Control Coding System. Specific statistical methods were used to determine the nature of the relationship of the relatives’ attitudes to the outcome of family intervention. Results: Family psychosocial intervention was associated with a reduction in relatives’ guilt induction and dominance and an improvement in empathy. Empathy and lack of dominance were identified as independent mediators of the effect of family psychosocial intervention. The change in empathy and dominance during the first 9 months of the intervention predicted the outcome in the following 15 months. Conclusion: Relatives’ empathy and lack of dominance are mediators of the beneficial effect of family psychosocial intervention on patient’s outcome.

Are parent-reported outcomes for self-directed or telephone-assisted behavioral family intervention enhanced if parents are observed?

The study examined the effects of conducting observations as part of a broader assessment of families participating in behavior family intervention (BFI). It was designed to investigate whether the observations improve intervention outcomes. Families were randomly assigned to different levels of BFI or a waitlist control condition and subsequently randomly assigned to either observation or no-observation conditions. This study demonstrated significant intervention and observation effects. Mothers in more intensive BFI reported more improvement in their child’s behavior and their own parenting. Observed mothers reported lower intensity of child behavior problems and more effective parenting styles. There was also a trend for less anger among mothers who were observed and evidence of an observation-intervention interaction for parental anger, with observed mothers in more intensive intervention reporting less anger compared to those not observed. Implications for clinical and research intervention contexts are discussed.

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