21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      An intervention to improve the quality of life in children of parents with serious mental illness: the Young SMILES feasibility RCT

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Quality of life for children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness can be impaired, but evidence-based interventions to improve it are scarce.

          Objective

          Co-production of a child-centred intervention [called Young Simplifying Mental Illness plus Life Enhancement Skills (SMILES)] to improve the health-related quality of life of children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness, and evaluating its acceptability and feasibility for delivery in NHS and community settings.

          Design

          Qualitative and co-production methods informed the development of the intervention (Phase I). A feasibility randomised controlled trial was designed to compare Young SMILES with treatment as usual (Phase II). Semistructured qualitative interviews were used to explore acceptability among children and adolescents living with their parents, who had serious mental illness, and their parents. A mixture of semistructured qualitative interviews and focus group research was used to examine feasibility among Young SMILES facilitators and referrers/non-referrers.

          Setting

          Randomisation was conducted after baseline measures were collected by the study co-ordinator, ensuring that the blinding of the statistician and research team was maintained to reduce detection bias.

          Participants

          Phase I: 14 children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness, seven parents and 31 practitioners from social, educational and health-related sectors. Phase II: 40 children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness, 33 parents, five referrers/non-referrers and 16 Young SMILES facilitators.

          Intervention

          Young SMILES was delivered at two sites: (1) Warrington, supported by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), and (2) Newcastle, supported by the NHS and Barnardo’s. An eight-session weekly group programme was delivered, with four to six children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness per age-appropriate group (6–11 and 12–16 years). At week 4, a five-session parallel weekly programme was offered to the parents/carers. Sessions lasted 2 hours each and focused on improving mental health literacy, child–parent communication and children’s problem-solving skills.

          Main outcome measures

          Phase ll children and parents completed questionnaires at randomisation and then again at 4 and 6 months post randomisation. Quality of life was self-reported by children and proxy-reported by parents using the Paediatric Quality of Life questionnaire and KIDSCREEN. Semistructured interviews with parents ( n = 14) and children ( n = 17) who participated in the Young SMILES groups gathered information about their motivation to sign up to the study, their experiences of participating in the group sessions, and their perceived changes in themselves and their family members following intervention. Further interviews with individual referrers ( n = 5) gathered information about challenges to recruitment and randomisation. Two focus groups ( n = 16) with practitioners who facilitated the intervention explored their views of the format and content of the Young SMILES manual and their suggestions for changes.

          Results

          A total of 35 families were recruited: 20 were randomly allocated to Young SMILES group and 15 to treatment as usual. Of those, 28 families [15/20 (75%) in the intervention group and 13/15 (87%) in the control group] gave follow-up data at the primary end point (4 months post baseline). Participating children had high adherence to the intervention and high completion rates of the questionnaires. Children and adolescents living with their parents, who had serious mental illness, and their parents were mainly very positive and enthusiastic about Young SMILES, both of whom invoked the benefits of peer support and insight into parental difficulties. Although facilitators regarded Young SMILES as a meaningful and distinctive intervention having great potential, referrers identified several barriers to referring families to the study. One harm was reported by a parent, which was dealt with by the research team and the NSPCC in accordance with the standard operating procedures.

          Limitations

          The findings from our feasibility study are not sufficient to recommend a fully powered trial of Young SMILES in the near future. Although it was feasible to randomise children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness of different ages to standardised, time-limited groups in both NHS and non-NHS settings, an intervention like Young SMILES is unlikely to address underlying core components of the vulnerability that children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness express as a population over time.

          Conclusions

          Young SMILES was widely valued as unique in filling a recognised gap in need. Outcome measures in future studies of interventions for children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness are more likely to capture change in individual risk factors for reduced quality of life by considering their unmet need, rather than on an aggregate construct of health-related quality of life overall, which may not reflect these young people’s needs.

          Future work

          A public health approach to intervention might be best. Most children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness remain well most of the time, so, although their absolute risks are low across outcomes (and most will remain resilient most of the time), consistent population estimates find their relative risk to be high compared with unexposed children. A public health approach to intervention needs to be both tailored to the particular needs of children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness and agile to these needs so that it can respond to fluctuations over time.

          Trial registration

          Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36865046.

          Funding

          This project was funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

          Related collections

          Most cited references137

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power

            Sample sizes must be ascertained in qualitative studies like in quantitative studies but not by the same means. The prevailing concept for sample size in qualitative studies is "saturation." Saturation is closely tied to a specific methodology, and the term is inconsistently applied. We propose the concept "information power" to guide adequate sample size for qualitative studies. Information power indicates that the more information the sample holds, relevant for the actual study, the lower amount of participants is needed. We suggest that the size of a sample with sufficient information power depends on (a) the aim of the study, (b) sample specificity, (c) use of established theory, (d) quality of dialogue, and (e) analysis strategy. We present a model where these elements of information and their relevant dimensions are related to information power. Application of this model in the planning and during data collection of a qualitative study is discussed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire.

              To describe the psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), a brief measure of the prosocial behavior and psychopathology of 3-16-year-olds that can be completed by parents, teachers, or youths. A nationwide epidemiological sample of 10,438 British 5-15-year-olds obtained SDQs from 96% of parents, 70% of teachers, and 91% of 11-15-year-olds. Blind to the SDQ findings, all subjects were also assigned DSM-IVdiagnoses based on a clinical review of detailed interview measures. The predicted five-factor structure (emotional, conduct, hyperactivity-inattention, peer, prosocial) was confirmed. Internalizing and externalizing scales were relatively "uncontaminated" by one another. Reliability was generally satisfactory, whether judged by internal consistency (mean Cronbach a: .73), cross-informant correlation (mean: 0.34), or retest stability after 4 to 6 months (mean: 0.62). SDQ scores above the 90th percentile predicted a substantially raised probability of independently diagnosed psychiatric disorders (mean odds ratio: 15.7 for parent scales, 15.2 for teacher scales, 6.2 for youth scales). The reliability and validity of the SDQ make it a useful brief measure of the adjustment and psychopathology of children and adolescents.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Health Technology Assessment
                Health Technol Assess
                National Institute for Health Research
                1366-5278
                2046-4924
                November 2020
                November 2020
                : 24
                : 59
                : 1-136
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Women’s Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
                [2 ]Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
                [3 ]Division of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
                [4 ]Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
                [5 ]Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK
                [6 ]National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, London, UK
                [7 ]Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, St Nicholas Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [8 ]Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [9 ]Manchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [10 ]National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [11 ]School of Social Work, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
                [12 ]Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [13 ]Evidence Based Practice Unit, University College London, London, UK
                [14 ]Anna Freud Centre, London, UK
                [15 ]Department for Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK
                [16 ]Department of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, University of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [17 ]Department of Education and Inclusive Pedagogy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
                [18 ]Division of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                Article
                10.3310/hta24590
                7701992
                33196410
                dd74592f-3af7-4a3f-ac64-a6d458840cc9
                © 2020

                Free to read

                http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/non-commercial-government-licence/non-commercial-government-licence.htm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article