Implementation of Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in Hong Kong: Predictors of programme completion and clinical outcomes

This study examined the effectiveness of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in a government child health service delivery context with Chinese parents in Hong Kong. Specifically, the study sought to identify pre-intervention variables that might predict programme outcomes such as, level of clinical improvement and programme completion. Participants were 661 parents of pre-school and primary aged children participating in a group version of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program. There were significant decreases in disruptive child behaviours, levels of parenting stress, general stress and anxiety and an increase in parenting sense of competence. Greater change in reports of child behaviour problems was related to lower levels of family income, new immigrant family status, and higher pre-intervention levels of parenting stress. The present study provides a profile of parents who are most likely to benefit from parent training programmes.

Efficacy of a cognitive and behavioural psychotherapy applied by primary care psychologists in patients with mixed anxiety-depressive disorder: a research protocol

Background: In contrast with the recommendations of clinical practice guidelines, the most common treatment for anxiety and depressive disorders in primary care is pharmacological. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of a cognitive-behavioural psychological intervention, delivered by primary care psychologists in patients with mixed anxiety-depressive disorder compared to usual care. Methods/Design: This is an open-label, multicentre, randomized, and controlled study with two parallel groups. A random sample of 246 patients will be recruited with mild-to-moderate mixed anxiety-depressive disorder, from the target population on the lists of 41 primary care doctors. Patients will be randomly assigned to the intervention group, who will receive standardised cognitive-behavioural therapy delivered by psychologists together with usual care, or to a control group, who will receive usual care alone. The cognitive-behavioural therapy intervention is composed of eight individual 60-minute face-to face sessions conducted in eight consecutive weeks. A follow-up session will be conducted over the telephone, for reinforcement or referral as appropriate, 6 months after the intervention, as required. The primary outcome variable will be the change in scores on the Short Form-36 General Health Survey. We will also measure the change in the frequency and intensity of anxiety symptoms (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) and depression (Beck Depression Inventory) at baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months later. Additionally, we will collect information on the use of drugs and health care services. Discussion: The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of a primary care-based cognitive-behavioural psychological intervention in patients with mixed anxiety-depressive disorder. The international scientific evidence has demonstrated the need for psychologists in primary care. However, given the differences between health policies and health services, it is important to test the effect of these psychological interventions in our geographical setting.

Behavioural and cognitive behavioural training interventions for assisting foster carers in the management of difficult behaviour.

Background The provision of training for foster carers is now seen as an important factor contributing to the successful outcome of foster care placements. Since the late 1960s, foster carer training programs have proliferated, and few of the many published and unpublished training curricula have been systematically evaluated. The advent of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and the research evidence demonstrating its effectiveness as a psychotherapeutic treatment of choice for a range of emotional and behavioural problems, has prompted the development of CBT-based training programmes. CBT approaches to foster care training derive from a ’skill-based’ training format that also seeks to identify and correct problematic thinking patterns that are associated with dysfunctional behaviour by changing and/or challenging maladaptive thoughts and beliefs. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural training interventions in improving a) looked-after children’s behavioural/relationship problems, b) foster carers’ psychological well-being and functioning, c) foster family functioning, d) foster agency outcomes. Search methods We searched databases including: CENTRAL (Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2006), MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2006), EMBASE (January 1980 to September 2006), CINAHL (January 1982 to September 2006), PsycINFO (January 1872 to September 2006), ASSIA (January 1987 to September 2006), LILACS (up to September 2006), ERIC (January 1965 to September 2006), Sociological Abstracts (January 1963 to September 2006), and the National Research Register 2006 (Issue 3).We contacted experts in the field concerning current research. Selection criteria Random or quasi randomised studies comparing behavioural or cognitive-behavioural-base Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Main results Six trials involving 463 foster carers were included. Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural training interventions evaluated to date appear to have very little effect on outcomes relating to looked-after children, assessed in relation to psychological functioning, extent of behavioural problems and interpersonal functioning. Results relating to foster carer(s) outcomes also show no evidence of effectiveness in measures of behavioural management skills, attitudes and psychological functioning. Analysis pertaining to fostering agency outcomes did not show any significant results. However, caution is needed in interpreting these findings as their confidence intervals are wide. Authors’ conclusions There is currently little evidence about the efficacy of behavioural or cognitive-behavioural training intervention for foster carers. The need for further research in this area is highlighted.

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.

Systemic psychotherapy as an intervention for post-traumatic stress responses: an introduction, theoretical rationale and overview of developments in an emerging field of interest

The purpose of this article is to critically examine the literature to provide a rationale for including systemic family therapy (SFT) in the psycho-social treatment of people suffering the impact of post-traumatic stress (PTS). Attention is drawn to the relatively underdeveloped academic literature on PTS and the family. The impact of PTS is conceptualized within a psycho-social framework and the current evidence base for psycho-social interventions for PTS responses is described, highlighting the opportunity and need to undergird this area of daily practice. The impact of PTS on the family at multiple levels is identified, emphasizing its recursive nature. The case for SFT is articulated and a range of models of family intervention for PTS briefly reviewed, concluding with an emphasis on Walsh's key processes in family resilience as a framework for practice.

Intervention infirmière brève auprès de familles dont un proche présente un délirium suite à une chirurgie cardiaque.

Rapport de stage présenté à la Faculté des sciences infirmières en vue de l’obtention du grade de Maître ès sciences (M.Sc.) option expertise-conseil en soins infirmiers

Intervention familiale visant à faciliter le processus entourant la décision de non-réanimation de leur enfant atteint d'une condition médicale complexe

Travail dirigé présenté à la Faculté des sciences infirmières en vue de l’obtention du grade de Maîtrise ès sciences (M. Sc.) en sciences infirmières, option expertise-conseil

Family interventions in psychosis: a scale to measure therapist adherence

The efficacy of family interventions in psychosis is well documented. UK and USA schizophrenia treatment guidelines advocate the practice of family interventions within routine clinical services. However, less attention has been paid to the study of treatment fidelity and the tools used in its assessment. This study reports the inter-rater reliability of a new scale: Family Intervention in Psychosis-Adherence Scale (FIPAS). This measure is designed to assess therapist adherence to the Kuipers et al. (2002) family intervention in psychosis treatment manual. Reliability ratings were based on a sample of thirteen audiotapes drawn from a randomized controlled trial of family intervention. The results indicated that the majority of items of the FIPAS had acceptable levels of inter-rater reliability. The findings are discussed in terms of their implications for the training and monitoring of the effectiveness of practitioners for family interventions in psychosis.