A cost-effectiveness analysis of a universal, preventative-focused, parent and infant programme

Gráinne E. Crealey,Gráinne Hickey,Sinead McGilloway

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10492-w

2024-02-10

BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:This study assessed whether a relatively newly developed Parent and Infant (PIN) parenting support programme was cost-effective when compared to services as usual (SAU).

health care sciences & services

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Cost-Effectiveness a Parenting Skills Program Implemented in Public PreK Schools in Disadvantaged Urban Communities

Eric P Slade,Amie F Bettencourt,Deborah A Gross

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-023-01287-6

Abstract:Background: Little is known about the cost-effectiveness of parent training programs when offered universally in U.S. elementary schools in disadvantaged urban communities. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a universal school-based implementation study of the Chicago Parent Program (CPP). Methods: CPP was offered universally from 2014 to 2017 to parents of PreK students in 12 Baltimore City Title 1 schools (n = 380; 61.1% Black/African American, 24.1% Hispanic). CPP program implementation and operating costs were estimated using microcosting methods and data drawn from study records. A Complier Average Causal Effects (CACE) framework was used to estimate an Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for CPP's average cost per child per 1% decrease in conduct problem prevalence at follow-up. This ICER was then compared with comparable ICERs for four parenting interventions that have been implemented and evaluated in Europe: Connect, Incredible Years, COPE, and Comet. Results: CPP cost $937.51 per child (95% CI: $902.09 to $971.92). Adjusted CACE estimates indicated that CPP resulted in a 31.4% reduction (95% CI: -39.7% to -23.9%) in conduct problem prevalence at follow-up among children whose parents attended CPP. The mean ICER for CPP was $29.86 per each 1% reduction in prevalence (95% CI: $21.05 to $50.71). CPP's ICER was similar to ICERs for Connect ($25.50) and COPE ($29.72), and less than ICERs for Incredible Years ($50.36) and Comet ($59.69). Conclusion: School-based CPP offered universally to parents of children transitioning to Kindergarten in extremely disadvantaged U.S. urban communities was found to offer relatively good value compared with similar parenting programs that are widely used in Europe.
A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Early Childhood Intervention: Evidence from an Experimental Evaluation of the Incredible Years Parenting Program.

T. Donnelly,P. Kelly,Donal O’neill,S. McGilloway

2010-03-01

Abstract:A number of researchers and policy makers have recently argued that the most effective way of dealing with long-run disadvantage and the intergenerational transmission of poverty is through early childhood intervention and in particular policies aimed at supporting the family. This study was part of a randomised evaluation of the Incredible Years Program, which is aimed at improving the skills and parenting strategies of parents who have children with conduct problems. The results show that the treatment significantly reduced behavioural problems in young children. Furthermore our detailed cost analysis, when combined with a consideration of the potential long-run benefits associated with the programme, suggest that the long-run rate of return to society from this program is likely to be relatively high.

Psychology,Education,Economics
A randomized controlled trial of a proportionate universal parenting program delivery model (E-SEE Steps) to enhance child social-emotional wellbeing

Tracey Bywater,Vashti Berry,Sarah Blower,Matthew Bursnall,Edward Cox,Amanda Mason-Jones,Sinead McGilloway,Kirsty McKendrick,Siobhan Mitchell,Kate Pickett,Gerry Richardson,Kiera Solaiman,M. Dawn Teare,Simon Walker,Karen Whittaker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265200

IF: 3.7

2022-04-04

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background Evidence for parenting programs to improve wellbeing in children under three is inconclusive. We investigated the fidelity, impact, and cost-effectiveness of two parenting programs delivered within a longitudinal proportionate delivery model (‘E-SEE Steps’). Methods Eligible parents with a child ≤ 8 weeks were recruited into a parallel two-arm, assessor blinded, randomized controlled, community-based, trial with embedded economic and process evaluations. Post-baseline randomization applied a 5:1 (intervention-to-control) ratio, stratified by primary (child social-emotional wellbeing (ASQ:SE-2)) and key secondary (maternal depression (PHQ-9)) outcome scores, sex, and site. All intervention parents received the Incredible Years ® Baby Book (IY-B), and were offered the targeted Infant (IY-I)/Toddler (IY-T) program if eligible, based on ASQ:SE-2/PHQ-9 scores. Control families received usual services. Fidelity data were analysed descriptively. Primary analysis applied intention to treat. Effectiveness analysis fitted a marginal model to outcome scores. Cost-effectiveness analysis involved Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs). Results The target sample (N = 606) was not achieved; 341 mothers were randomized (285:56), 322 (94%) were retained to study end. Of those eligible for the IY-I (n = 101), and IY-T (n = 101) programs, 51 and 21 respectively, attended. Eight (of 14) groups met the 80% self-reported fidelity criteria. No significant differences between arms were found for adjusted mean difference scores; ASQ:SE-2 (3.02, 95% CI: -0.03, 6.08, p = 0.052), PHQ-9 (-0.61; 95% CI: -1.34, 0.12, p = 0.1). E-SEE Steps had higher costs, but improved mothers’ Health-related Quality of Life (0.031 Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gain), ICER of £20,062 per QALY compared to control. Serious adverse events (n = 86) were unrelated to the intervention. Conclusions E-SEE Steps was not effective, but was borderline cost-effective. The model was delivered with varying fidelity, with lower-than-expected IY-T uptake. Changes to delivery systems and the individual programs may be needed prior to future evaluation. Trial registration International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN11079129 .

multidisciplinary sciences
A scoping review of costing methodologies used to assess interventions for underserved pregnant people and new parents

Elizabeth K. Darling,Aisha Jansen,Bismah Jameel and Jean-Éric Tarride

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-024-02252-x

2024-08-25

International Journal for Equity in Health

Abstract:Lack of evidence about the long-term economic benefits of interventions targeting underserved perinatal populations can hamper decision making regarding funding. To optimize the quality of future research, we examined what methods and costs have been used to assess the value of interventions targeting pregnant people and/or new parents who have poor access to healthcare.

public, environmental & occupational health
Protocol of a cost-effectiveness analysis of a combined intervention for depression and parenting compared with enhanced standard of care for perinatally depressed, HIV-positive women and their infants in rural South Africa

Carmen Sue Christian,Lungiswa Nkonki,Chris Desmond,Cecilia Hoegfeldt,Samukelisiwe Dube,Tamsen Rochat,Alan Stein

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082977

IF: 3.006

2024-08-03

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction: Poverty, HIV and perinatal depression represent a triple threat to public health in sub-Saharan Africa because of their combined negative effects on parenting and child development. In the resource-constrained context of low-income and middle-income countries, a lay-counsellor-delivered intervention that combines a psychological and parenting intervention could offer the potential to mitigate the consequences of perinatal depression while also optimising scarce resources for healthcare.Measuring the cost-effectiveness of such a novel intervention will help decision-makers to better understand the relative costs and effects associated with replicating the intervention, thereby supporting evidence-based decision-making. This protocol sets out the methodological framework for analysing the cost-effectiveness of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) that compares a combined intervention to enhanced standard of care when treating depressed, HIV-positive pregnant women and their infants in rural South Africa. Methods and analysis: This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) protocol complies with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. A societal perspective will be chosen.The proposed methods will determine the cost and efficiency of implementing the intervention as per the randomised control trial protocol, as well as the cost of replicating the intervention in a non-research setting. The costs will be calculated using an appropriately adjusted version of the Standardised Early Childhood Development Costing Tool.Primary health outcomes will be used in combination with costs to determine the cost per improvement in maternal perinatal depression at 12 months postnatal and the cost per improvement in child cognitive development at 24 months of age. To facilitate priority setting, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for improvements in child cognitive development will be ranked against six other child cognitive-development interventions according to Verguet et al's methodology (2022).A combination of activity-based and ingredient-based costing approaches will be used to identify, measure and value activities and inputs for all alternatives. Outcomes data will be sourced from the RCT team. Ethics and dissemination: The University of Oxford is the sponsor of the CEA. Ethics approval has been obtained from the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC, #REC 5/23/08/17), South Africa and the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee (OxTREC #31-17), UK.Consent for publication is not applicable since no participant data are used in this protocol.We plan to disseminate the CEA results to key policymakers and researchers in the form of a policy brief, meetings and academic papers. Trial registration details: ISRCTN registry #11 284 870 (14/11/2017) and SANCTR DOH-27-102020-9097 (17/11/2017).
A proportionate, universal parenting programme to enhance social-emotional well-being in infants and toddlers in England: the E-SEE Steps RCT

Tracey Bywater,Vashti Berry,Sarah Blower,Matthew Bursnall,Edward Cox,Amanda Mason-Jones,Sinéad McGilloway,Kirsty McKendrick,Siobhan Mitchell,Kate Pickett,Gerry Richardson,Kiera Solaiman,M Dawn Teare,Simon Walker,Karen Whittaker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/bcfv2964

2022-06-01

Public Health Research

Abstract:Background Mental disorders have become a public health crisis. Early prevention is key. Parenting programmes are effective for children aged ≥ 3 years; however, there is a lack of evidence of their effectiveness for children aged ≤ 2 years. Objectives To establish if the model named Enhancing Social–Emotional Health and Well-being in the Early Years (E-SEE) Steps can (1) enhance child social emotional well-being and establish whether or not it is cost-effective at 20 months of age when compared with services as usual; and (2) be delivered as a proportionate universal model with fidelity. Design A pragmatic two-arm randomised controlled trial and economic appraisal, with an embedded process evaluation to examine the outcomes, implementation and cost-effectiveness of the intervention, and intervention uptake, compared with services as usual. The study had an external pilot phase (which was originally planned as an internal pilot). Setting The intervention was delivered in community settings by early years children’s services and/or public health staff in four sites. Participants A total of 341 parents of infants aged ≤ 8 weeks were randomised in a ratio of 5 : 1 (intervention, n = 285; control, n = 56). The target sample was 606 parents. Intervention Two Incredible Years ® parenting programmes (i.e. infant and toddler) delivered in a proportionate universal model with three levels [one universal (book) and two targeted group-based parenting programmes]. Main outcome measures Child social and emotional well-being (primary outcome) was assessed using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social and Emotional, 2nd edition, at 2, 9 and 18 months after randomisation. Parent depression (secondary key outcome) was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items. Both questionnaires were eligibility screeners for targeted groups. Results The primary outcome analysis provided no evidence that the E-SEE Steps model was effective in enhancing child social and emotional well-being. The adjusted mean difference was 3.02 on the original Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social and Emotional, 2nd edition, in favour of the control [95% confidence interval –0.03 to 6.08; p = 0.052; N = 321 (intervention, n = 268; control, n = 53)]. Analysis of the key secondary outcome (i.e. parent depression levels as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items) provided weak evidence on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items in favour of the intervention (adjusted mean difference –0.61, 95% confidence interval –1.34 to 0.12; p = 0.1). Other secondary outcomes did not differ between arms. The economic analysis showed that the E-SEE Steps model was associated with higher costs and was marginally more effective (0.031 quality-adjusted life-years gained from E-SEE Steps compared with SAU, 95% confidence interval –0.008 to 0.071) than services as usual, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately £20,062 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with services as usual. Overall take-up of the targeted parenting programmes was low. Sites, although enthusiastic, identified barriers to delivering the intervention. Limitations The target sample size was not met and the study was not powered to explore the effectiveness of each level of intervention. Most parents in the sample were well educated and, therefore, the results are unlikely to be generalisable, particularly to those at greatest risk of poor social and emotional well-being. Conclusions The E-SEE Steps proportionate universal model did not enhance child social and emotional well-being, but generated non-significant improvements in parent health outcomes, resulting in considerable uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. The primary and key secondary outcome gave inconsistent signals. Although, with system changes, increased resources and adaptations to the intervention, the model could be implemented, evidence for positive outcomes from the E-SEE Steps model is poor. Future work The universal-level E-SEE Step data (i.e. the Incredible Years book) from the external pilot will be pooled with the main trial data for further exploration up to follow-up 1, which is the time point at which most change was seen. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN11079129. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research ; Vol. 10, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Priority setting in early childhood development: an analytical framework for economic evaluation of interventions

Stéphane Verguet,Sarah Bolongaita,Anthony Morgan,Nandita Perumal,Christopher R Sudfeld,Aisha K Yousafzai,Günther Fink

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-008926

Abstract:Background: Early childhood development (ECD) sets the foundation for healthy and successful lives with important ramifications for education, labour market outcomes and other domains of well-being. Even though a large number of interventions that promote ECD have been implemented and evaluated globally, there is currently no standardised framework that allows a comparison of the relative cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Methods: We first reviewed the existing literature to document the main approaches that have been used to assess the relative effectiveness of interventions that promote ECD, including early parenting and at-home psychosocial stimulation interventions. We then present an economic evaluation framework that builds on these reviewed approaches and focuses on the immediate impact of interventions on motor, cognitive, language and socioemotional skills. Last, we apply our framework to compute the relative cost-effectiveness of interventions for which recent effectiveness and costing data were published. For this last part, we relied on a recently published review to obtain effect sizes documented in a consistent manner across interventions. Findings: Our framework enables direct value-for-money comparison of interventions across settings. Cost-effectiveness estimates, expressed in $ per units of improvement in ECD outcomes, vary greatly across interventions. Given that estimated costs vary by orders of magnitude across interventions while impacts are relatively similar, cost-effectiveness rankings are dominated by implementation costs and the interventions with higher value for money are generally those with a lower implementation cost (eg, psychosocial interventions involving limited staff). Conclusions: With increasing attention and investment into ECD programmes, consistent assessments of the relative cost-effectiveness of available interventions are urgently needed. This paper presents a unified analytical framework to address this need and highlights the rather remarkable range in both costs and cost-effectiveness across currently available intervention strategies.
Parents' perspectives of a universal early attachment programme in Scotland

Kelly Stone,Cheryl Burgess

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daw026

2017-12-01

Abstract:The 'A Good Start' programme is a universal early attachment programme for parents and babies aged 8 weeks and over, run by a charitable organization in one Scottish local authority. The programme offers non-stigmatizing support and parents are encouraged to access other community resources on completing it. At a family level, the programme aims are that parents (i) have an increased feeling of well-being; (ii) are more attuned to their babies and (iii) are more aware of services and confident in becoming involved with them. The collaborative research study was undertaken by a small research team between March 2014 and January 2015. It had two strands-a collaborative element which involved developing and supporting the use of the outcomes frameworks together with project staff and direct evaluation work, namely collation of the 'A Good Start Web' outcome measurement tool results and conducting interviews and focus groups with parents, staff and volunteer instructors who delivered the programme. The objectives of the evaluation were to evaluate the extent to which the programme were met, using the 'A Good Start Web' outcome measurement tool, augmented by qualitative data. It was clear from the qualitative evaluation data that most parents who participated in the programme felt that they benefited from it in many ways. Parents valued the opportunity to meet with other parents for peer support, to undertake a practical activity to enhance the bond with their baby which relaxed them both and to reduce their anxiety about caring for an infant.
The Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of a Parenting Intervention Integrated with Primary Health Care on Early Childhood Development: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Huifeng Shi,Xuejun Li,Hai Fang,Jingxu Zhang,Xiaoli Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01126-2

2020-01-01

Prevention Science

Abstract:Developing countries require interventions that can sustainably improve early childhood development (ECD) at scale because hundreds of millions of children are at risk of poor development. This study examined the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a parenting intervention integrated with primary health care in terms of ECD. A cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in 20 urban communities in China, with 82 and 86 children aged 1–2 months enrolled in the intervention and control groups, respectively, and 71 and 69 children, respectively, followed to 14 months of age. All children in both groups received routine primary health care services. Intervention caregivers received a parenting pamphlet and two parenting training sessions during well-child clinic visits; those with children with suspected developmental delay received additional parenting guidance by telephone. Compared with controls, children receiving the intervention had similar developmental outcomes, measured with the Chinese version of the Ages & Stages Questionnaires third edition (ASQ-C), at baseline, but had significantly higher communication (adjusted mean difference = 0.26; 95% CI 0.03, 0.51), fine motor (adjusted mean difference = 0.19; 95% CI 0.01, 0.37), and overall (adjusted mean difference = 0.25; 95% CI 0.10, 0.41) ASQ-C z-scores after 12 months of the intervention. The intervention cost per child was $50.87, and the costs for increasing the communication, fine motor, and overall ASQ-C scores by one SD were $195.65, $267.74, and $203.48, respectively. Our findings indicate that the integration of a parenting intervention with existing primary health care is a cost-effective way to improve ECD.
Evaluation of the COPING parent online universal programme: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

Dawn Adele Owen,Nia Griffith,Judy Hutchings

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013381

IF: 3.006

2017-04-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:TRIAL SPONSOR: Bangor University, Brigantia Building, College Road, Bangor, LL57 2AS, UK INTRODUCTION: The COPING parent online universal programme is a web-based parenting intervention for parents of children aged 3-8 years with an interest in positive parenting. The programme focuses on strengthening parent-child relationships and encouraging positive child behaviour. This trial will evaluate whether the intervention is effective in increasing the use of positive parenting strategies outlined in the programme using parent report and blind observation measures.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pilot randomised controlled trial with intervention and wait-list control conditions. The intervention is a 10-week online parenting programme to promote positive parent-child relations by teaching core social learning theory principles that encourage positive child behaviour, primarily through the use of praise and rewards. Health visitors and school nurses will circulate a recruitment poster to parents of children aged 3-8 years on their current caseloads. Recruitment posters will also be distributed via local primary schools and nurseries. Parents recruited to the trial will be randomised on a 2:1 ratio to intervention or wait-list control conditions (stratified according to child gender and age). The primary outcome measure is positive parenting as measured by a behavioural observation of parent-child interactions using the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System. Secondary outcomes include parent report of child behaviour, and self-reported parental sense of competence, parenting behaviour and parental mental health. Data will be collected at baseline and 3 months later (postintervention) for all participants and 6 months postbaseline for the intervention group only. Analysis of covariance will be the main statistical method used.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has received ethical approval from the NHS Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board Ethics Committee (REC) and the School of Psychology, Bangor University REC (15/WA/0463). Publication of all outcomes will be in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN89370147 (5 May 2016).

medicine, general & internal
Does group-based parent support during the transition to parenthood affect Child socio-emotional problems and health care utilization? A randomized controlled trial

Tea Trillingsgaard,Hanne Nørr Fentz,Marianne Simonsen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116741

IF: 5.379

2024-03-13

Social Science & Medicine

Abstract:As government-funded universal programs for new parents continue to expand, it is critical to investigate their short- and longer-term effects. The level of knowledge, especially on the effect of group-based interventions, is sparse. This study is the second report from a large trial of a widely implemented universal group-based parenting program in Denmark and includes outcomes on child socio-emotional problems and use of health services. A sample of 1701 unborn children from families representative within the area, were randomized to intervention or care as usual beginning November 2014. From these families, 1268 mothers and 999 partners (mean age 29.4 and 31.19, respectively; 6% migration background) filled in the Ages and Stages Questionnaire. Intention-to-treat-analyses showed fewer socio-emotional problems in the intervention group (between-group difference - 2.34, 95% CI [0.40, 4.30], d = - 0.13) as reported by mothers, but not partners, when children were 10 months old. This finding was transitory (no longer significant at 19 months). No effects were found on health care utilization. The previous report from this trial showed no effects on measures of parenting. In total, these findings serve the purpose of adjusting future expectations to the size and type of effect to be gained from a universal parent program in a resourceful setting. We conclude that even if the [PROGRAM] 2 was liked, well implemented, and well attended by the parents, the positive effect on children's socio-emotional problems, was too modest to be the argument that can carry the weight of policy going forward. Public significance statement This study examined the effects of the [PROGRAM], a universal, group-based program to support parents during the transition to parenthood. Results showed a modest transitory preventive effect on children's socio-emotional problems and no effects on health care utilization. These findings adjust down previous expectations to the size and type of effects to be gained from universal group-based parent support in a well-resourced setting.

public, environmental & occupational health,social sciences, biomedical
Evaluation of adapted parent training for challenging behaviour in pre-school children with moderate to severe intellectual developmental disabilities: A randomised controlled trial

Rachel Royston,Michael Absoud,Gareth Ambler,Jacqueline Barnes,Rachael Hunter,Marinos Kyriakopoulos,Tamara Ondruskova,Kate Oulton,Eleni Paliokosta,Monica Panca,Aditya Sharma,Vicky Slonim,Una Summerson,Alastair Sutcliffe,Megan Thomas,Chen Qu,Angela Hassiotis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306182

IF: 3.7

2024-08-13

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Objectives: There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of parenting interventions to improve disruptive behaviour in children with intellectual developmental disabilities. This clinical trial evaluated whether an adapted group parenting intervention for preschool children with intellectual developmental disabilities who display challenging behaviour is superior to treatment as usual in England. Study design: 261 children aged 30-59 months with moderate to severe intellectual developmental disabilities and challenging behaviour were randomised to either the intervention (Stepping Stones Triple P) and treatment as usual or treatment as usual alone. The primary outcome was the parent-rated Child Behaviour Checklist at 52 weeks after randomisation. A health economic evaluation was also completed. Results: We found no significant difference between arms on the primary outcome (mean difference -4.23; 95% CI: -9.99 to 1.53; p = 0.147). However, a subgroup analysis suggests the intervention was effective for participants randomised before the COVID-19 pandemic (mean difference -7.12; 95% CI: -13.44 to -0.81; p = 0.046). Furthermore, a complier average causal effects analysis (mean difference -11.53; 95% CI: -26.97 to 3.91; p = 0.143) suggests the intervention requires participants to receive a sufficient intervention dose. The intervention generated statistically significant cost savings (-£1,057.88; 95% CI -£3,218.6 to -£46.67) but the mean point estimate in Quality Adjusted Life Years was similar in both groups. Conclusion: This study did not find an effect of the intervention on reducing challenging behaviour, but this may have been influenced by problems with engagement. The intervention could be considered by services as an early intervention if families are supported to attend, especially given its low cost.
Potential return on investment of a family-centered early childhood intervention: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Negin Hajizadeh,Elizabeth R Stevens,Melanie Applegate,Keng-Yen Huang,Dimitra Kamboukos,R Scott Braithwaite,Laurie M Brotman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4805-7

IF: 4.5

2017-10-10

BMC Public Health

Abstract:Background: ParentCorps is a family-centered enhancement to pre-kindergarten programming in elementary schools and early education centers. When implemented in high-poverty, urban elementary schools serving primarily Black and Latino children, it has been found to yield benefits in childhood across domains of academic achievement, behavior problems, and obesity. However, its long-term cost-effectiveness is unknown. Methods: We determined the cost-effectiveness of ParentCorps in high-poverty, urban schools using a Markov Model projecting the long-term impact of ParentCorps compared to standard pre-kindergarten programming. We measured costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) resulting from the development of three disease states (i.e., drug abuse, obesity, and diabetes); from the health sequelae of these disease states; from graduation from high school; from interaction with the judiciary system; and opportunity costs of unemployment with a lifetime time horizon. The model was built, and analyses were performed in 2015-2016. Results: ParentCorps was estimated to save $4387 per individual and increase each individual's quality adjusted life expectancy by 0.27 QALYs. These benefits were primarily due to the impact of ParentCorps on childhood obesity and the subsequent predicted prevention of diabetes, and ParentCorps' impact on childhood behavior problems and the subsequent predicted prevention of interaction with the judiciary system and unemployment. Results were robust on sensitivity analyses, with ParentCorps remaining cost saving and health generating under nearly all assumptions, except when schools had very small pre-kindergarten programs. Conclusions: Effective family-centered interventions early in life such as ParentCorps that impact academic, behavioral and health outcomes among children attending high-poverty, urban schools have the potential to result in longer-term health benefits and substantial cost savings.
Universal Digital Programs for Promoting Mental and Relational Health for Parents of Young Children: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Jessica E. Opie,Timothy B. Esler,Elizabeth M. Clancy,Bradley Wright,Felicity Painter,An Vuong,Anna T. Booth,Louise Newman,Ange Johns-Hayden,Mohajer Hameed,Leesa Hooker,Craig Olsson,Jennifer E. McIntosh,Esler, Timothy B.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-023-00457-0

IF: 7.41

2023-11-03

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review

Abstract:Digital parenting programs aim to increase program access, improve psychosocial outcomes for parents and children, and support triage to targeted interventions where required. This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of online parenting programs in improving parenting skills and capabilities, and by consequence, the mental health and well-being of parents and children, and the quality of the parent–child relationship. Studies were included if they were: (1) online, (2) self-delivered, (3) designed for universal general population prevention, (4) evaluated experimental or quasi-experimental designs, and (5) assessed parent and child emotional and/or relational health, from pregnancy to 5 years of age. A systematic search of electronic databases and grey literature identified 22 studies that met inclusion criteria, including 24 independent samples, with 5671 unique parents. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models and Cohen's d effects. Small-to-moderate improvements in parent depression, anxiety, self-efficacy, and social support were observed. No effects on parent stress, satisfaction, or parent–child relationship quality were observed. Meta-regression and sub-group analysis were conducted to identify sensitivity or moderation effects. Collectively, findings suggest any benefits of online parenting programs mostly occur at the time of the intervention, for parent mental health and well-being outcomes, and that enduring effects are unlikely. However, given the cost effectiveness and accessibility of online programs, further research into ways of sustaining effects on parenting outcomes is warranted. Furthermore, given the centrality of the parent–child bond to child development across the lifecourse, additional investment in new digitally facilitated approaches focusing on this bond are likewise warranted.

psychology, clinical
A non-randomized controlled study to assess the impact of the "Appui Parental", an early and intensive support programme for vulnerable families: Study protocol

Frédérick Russet,Virginie Maurice,Marie-Christine Picot,Monique Laurent-Vauclare,Lucie Gamon,Anne Alauzen,Diane Purper-Ouakil,Marie-Joelle Hervé

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2023.11.005

2024-02-03

Abstract:Introduction: Early home visit programmes have been developed to help parents build an adequate relationship with their baby and to prevent child developmental delays and affective disorders. The "Appui Parental" programme is an intervention carried out by nursery nurses to provide intensive parental support to vulnerable families. Before extending this programme, it seemed necessary to evaluate its impact objectively. Objectives: The main aim is to determine the impact of the "Appui Parental" programme on the change in the child's symptoms. The secondary objectives are to evaluate its effects on mother-child interactions, self-assessed parental competence, perception of social support, primary caregiver's anxiety-depression symptoms, alliance with the nursery nurse, frequency of out-of-home placements, and nursery nurses' stress. Method: This non-randomized prospective multicentre study would include 44 families who receive the "Appui Parental" intervention for a one to 20-month-old child (intervention group) and 44 families with the same vulnerability criteria who receive care as usual by the maternal and child protection services (control group). The child, parents, mother-child interaction, nursery nurse-mother alliance, and nursery nurse's stress will be assessed at month one and month 18 after inclusion. Comparisons between groups will be performed. Conclusion: This study should provide the public authorities with objective data on this programme's impact and allow them to pursue its generalization. For professionals, the study should confirm the interest in close early parental support through home visits or should lead to rethinking some aspects of the programme.
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA-feed) for improving breastfeeding initiation and continuation: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Version 3.0)

Joanne Clarke,Stephan U Dombrowski,Eleni Gkini,Pat Hoddinott,Jenny Ingram,Christine MacArthur,Ngawai Moss,Laura Ocansey,Tracy Roberts,Gillian Thomson,Julia Sanders,Alice J Sitch,Clive Stubbs,Beck Taylor,Sarah Tearne,Rebecca Woolley,Kate Jolly

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075460

IF: 3.006

2023-11-15

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction: Breastfeeding has health benefits for infants and mothers, yet the UK has low rates with marked social inequalities. The Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA) feasibility study demonstrated the acceptability of a proactive, assets-based, woman-centred peer support intervention, inclusive of all feeding types, to mothers, peer supporters and maternity services. The ABA-feed study aims to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the ABA-feed intervention compared with usual care in first-time mothers in a full trial. Methods and analysis: A multicentre randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation to explore clinical and cost-effectiveness, and embedded process evaluation to explore differences in implementation between sites. We aim to recruit 2730 primiparous women, regardless of feeding intention. Women will be recruited at 17 sites from antenatal clinics and various remote methods including social media and invitations from midwives and health visitors. Women will be randomised at a ratio of 1.43:1 to receive either ABA-feed intervention or usual care. A train the trainer model will be used to train local Infant Feeding Coordinators to train existing peer supporters to become 'infant feeding helpers' in the ABA-feed intervention. Infant feeding outcomes will be collected at 3 days, and 8, 16 and 24 weeks postbirth. The primary outcome will be any breastfeeding at 8 weeks postbirth. Secondary outcomes will include breastfeeding initiation, any and exclusive breastfeeding, formula feeding practices, anxiety, social support and healthcare utilisation. All analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. Ethics and dissemination: The study protocol has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee. Trial results will be available through open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant meetings and conferences. Trial registration number: ISRCTN17395671.
The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of a Universal Digital Parenting Intervention Designed and Implemented During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From a Rapid-Implementation Randomized Controlled Trial Within a Cohort

Melanie Palmer,Nicholas Beckley-Hoelscher,James Shearer,Katarzyna Kostyrka-Allchorne,Olly Robertson,Marta Koch,Oliver Pearson,Petr Slovak,Crispin Day,Sarah Byford,Kimberley Goldsmith,Polly Waite,Cathy Creswell,Edmund J S Sonuga-Barke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/44079

2023-07-27

Abstract:Background: Children's conduct and emotional problems increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: We tested whether a smartphone parenting support app, Parent Positive, developed specifically for this purpose, reversed these effects in a cost-effective way. Parent Positive includes 3 zones. Parenting Boosters (zone 1) provided content adapted from standard face-to-face parent training programs to tackle 8 specific challenges identified by parents and parenting experts as particularly relevant for parents during the pandemic. The Parenting Exchange (zone 2) was a parent-to-parent and parent-to-expert communication forum. Parenting Resources (zone 3) provided access to existing high-quality web-based resources on a range of additional topics of value to parents (eg, neurodevelopmental problems, diet, and sleep). Methods: Supporting Parents And Kids Through Lockdown Experiences (SPARKLE), a randomized controlled trial, was embedded in the UK-wide COVID-19: Supporting Parents, Adolescents and Children during Epidemics (Co-SPACE) longitudinal study on families' mental health during the pandemic. Parents of children aged 4 to 10 years were randomized 1:1 to Parent Positive or follow-up as usual (FAU) between May 19, 2021, and July 26, 2021. Parent Positive provided advice on common parenting challenges and evidence-based web-based resources and facilitated parent-to-parent and expert-to-parent support. Child conduct and emotional problems and family well-being were measured before randomization (T1) and at 1 (T2) and 2 (T3) months after randomization. Service use, costs, and adverse events were measured, along with app use and satisfaction. The primary outcome was T2 parent-reported child conduct problems, which were analyzed using linear mixed regression models. Results: A total of 320 participants were randomized to Parent Positive, and 326 were randomized to FAU. The primary outcome analysis included 79.3% (512/646) of the participants (dropout: 84/320, 26% on Parent Positive and 50/326, 15% on FAU). There were no statistically significant intervention effects on conduct problems at either T2 (standardized effect=-0.01) or T3 (secondary outcome; standardized effect=-0.09) and no moderation by baseline conduct problems. Significant intervention-related reductions in emotional problems were observed at T2 and T3 (secondary outcomes; standardized effect=-0.13 in both cases). Parent Positive, relative to FAU, was associated with more parental worries at T3 (standardized effect=0.14). Few intervention-attributable adverse events were reported. Parent Positive was cost-effective once 4 outliers with extremely high health care costs were excluded. Conclusions: Parent Positive reduced child emotional problems and was cost-effective compared with FAU once outliers were removed. Although small when considered against targeted therapeutic interventions, the size of these effects was in line with trials of nontargeted universal mental health interventions. This highlights the public health potential of Parent Positive if implemented at the community level. Nevertheless, caution is required before making such an interpretation, and the findings need to be replicated in large-scale, whole-community studies. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04786080; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04786080.
A video-feedback parenting intervention to prevent enduring behaviour problems in at-risk children aged 12-36 months: the Healthy Start, Happy Start RCT

Christine O'Farrelly,Beth Barker,Hilary Watt,Daphne Babalis,Marian Bakermans-Kranenburg,Sarah Byford,Poushali Ganguli,Ellen Grimås,Jane Iles,Holly Mattock,Julia McGinley,Charlotte Phillips,Rachael Ryan,Stephen Scott,Jessica Smith,Alan Stein,Eloise Stevens,Marinus van IJzendoorn,Jane Warwick,Paul Ramchandani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25290

Abstract:Background: Behaviour problems emerge early in childhood and place children at risk for later psychopathology. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a parenting intervention to prevent enduring behaviour problems in young children. Design: A pragmatic, assessor-blinded, multisite, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Setting: Health visiting services in six NHS trusts in England. Participants: A total of 300 at-risk children aged 12-36 months and their parents/caregivers. Interventions: Families were allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio to six sessions of Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline (VIPP-SD) plus usual care or usual care alone. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms, which is a structured interview of behaviour symptoms. Secondary outcomes included caregiver-reported total problems on the Child Behaviour Checklist and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. The intervention effect was estimated using linear regression. Health and social care service use was recorded using the Child and Adolescent Service Use Schedule and cost-effectiveness was explored using the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms. Results: In total, 300 families were randomised: 151 to VIPP-SD plus usual care and 149 to usual care alone. Follow-up data were available for 286 (VIPP-SD, n = 140; usual care, n = 146) participants and 282 (VIPP-SD, n = 140; usual care, n = 142) participants at 5 and 24 months, respectively. At the post-treatment (primary outcome) follow-up, a group difference of 2.03 on Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 4.01; p = 0.04) indicated a positive treatment effect on behaviour problems (Cohen's d = 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.40). The effect was strongest for children's conduct [1.61, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 2.78; p = 0.007 (d = 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.51)] versus attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms [0.29, 95% confidence interval -1.06 to 1.65; p = 0.67 (d = 0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.17 to 0.27)]. The Child Behaviour Checklist [3.24, 95% confidence interval -0.06 to 6.54; p = 0.05 (d = 0.15, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.31)] and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire [0.93, 95% confidence interval -0.03 to 1.9; p = 0.06 (d = 0.18, 95% confidence interval -0.01 to 0.36)] demonstrated similar positive treatment effects to those found for the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms. At 24 months, the group difference on the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms was 1.73 [95% confidence interval -0.24 to 3.71; p = 0.08 (d = 0.17, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.37)]; the effect remained strongest for conduct [1.07, 95% confidence interval -0.06 to 2.20; p = 0.06 (d = 0.20, 95% confidence interval -0.01 to 0.42)] versus attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms [0.62, 95% confidence interval -0.60 to 1.84; p = 0.32 (d = 0.10, 95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.30)], with little evidence of an effect on the Child Behaviour Checklist and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. The primary economic analysis showed better outcomes in the VIPP-SD group at 24 months, but also higher costs than the usual-care group (adjusted mean difference £1450, 95% confidence interval £619 to £2281). No treatment- or trial-related adverse events were reported. The probability of VIPP-SD being cost-effective compared with usual care at the 24-month follow-up increased as willingness to pay for improvements on the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms increased, with VIPP-SD having the higher probability of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay values above £800 per 1-point improvement on the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms. Limitations: The proportion of participants with graduate-level qualifications was higher than among the general public. Conclusions: VIPP-SD is effective in reducing behaviour problems in young children when delivered by health visiting teams. Most of the effect of VIPP-SD appears to be retained over 24 months. However, we can be less certain about its value for money. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN58327365. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
A mixed methods study of early childhood providers' perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of parenting for lifelong Health tip sheets in Ontario, Canada

Mari Dumbaugh,Susan M. Jack,Jenna Ratcliffe,Amanda Sim,Jacinda Burns,Teresa Bennett,Harriet L. MacMillan,Andrea Gonzalez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11468-0

2024-08-31

BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:Universal parenting campaigns are efficient, cost-effective and can eliminate barriers to accessing conventional, face-to-face parenting interventions. The aims of the CHAMPP4KIDS study were to assess Canadian early childhood providers' perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of implementing a universal parenting resource, the Parenting for Lifelong Health tip sheets.

health care sciences & services
Cost-effectiveness of the ‘Stay One Step Ahead’ Home Safety programme for the prevention of injuries among children under 5 years

Matthew Jones,Elizabeth Orton,Michael James Taylor,Clare Timblin,Rachel Clarke,Michael Craig Watson,Mike Hayes,Tina Patel,Carol Coupland,Denise Kendrick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ip-2024-045236

IF: 3.7

2024-08-31

Injury Prevention

Abstract:Background Unintentional injuries are a common cause of morbidity and mortality in the under-5s, but undertaking home safety practices can reduce injury risk. Stay One Step Ahead (SOSA) is an evidence-based standardised home safety programme. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of SOSA versus usual care in Nottingham, UK. Methods Cost-effectiveness analysis from a National Health Service and personal social services perspective. SOSA activity data, injury occurrence and associated short-term healthcare costs were collected within a controlled before-and-after study from 2017 to 2020. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per additional home adopting three key safety practices (working smoke alarm, safe poisons storage and fitted stair gate). Secondary outcomes were ICERs per injury avoided and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Results SOSA costs £30 per child but reduces short-term healthcare expenditure by £42. SOSA increased the number of homes with three key safety practices by 0.02 per child, reduced injuries per child by 0.15 and gained 0.0036 QALYs per child. SOSA was dominant as it was cheaper and more effective than current practice. ICERs were −£590 per additional home deemed safe, −£77 per injury avoided and −£3225 per QALY gained. Focusing on healthcare expenditure alone, SOSA saved £1.39 for every pound spent. Conclusions SOSA is a cost-saving intervention. Commissioners should consider implementing SOSA.

public, environmental & occupational health

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a universal, preventative-focused, parent and infant programme

Cost-Effectiveness a Parenting Skills Program Implemented in Public PreK Schools in Disadvantaged Urban Communities

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Early Childhood Intervention: Evidence from an Experimental Evaluation of the Incredible Years Parenting Program.

A randomized controlled trial of a proportionate universal parenting program delivery model (E-SEE Steps) to enhance child social-emotional wellbeing

A scoping review of costing methodologies used to assess interventions for underserved pregnant people and new parents

Protocol of a cost-effectiveness analysis of a combined intervention for depression and parenting compared with enhanced standard of care for perinatally depressed, HIV-positive women and their infants in rural South Africa

A proportionate, universal parenting programme to enhance social-emotional well-being in infants and toddlers in England: the E-SEE Steps RCT

Priority setting in early childhood development: an analytical framework for economic evaluation of interventions

Parents' perspectives of a universal early attachment programme in Scotland

The Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of a Parenting Intervention Integrated with Primary Health Care on Early Childhood Development: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Evaluation of the COPING parent online universal programme: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

Does group-based parent support during the transition to parenthood affect Child socio-emotional problems and health care utilization? A randomized controlled trial

Evaluation of adapted parent training for challenging behaviour in pre-school children with moderate to severe intellectual developmental disabilities: A randomised controlled trial

Potential return on investment of a family-centered early childhood intervention: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Universal Digital Programs for Promoting Mental and Relational Health for Parents of Young Children: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

A non-randomized controlled study to assess the impact of the "Appui Parental", an early and intensive support programme for vulnerable families: Study protocol

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA-feed) for improving breastfeeding initiation and continuation: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Version 3.0)

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of a Universal Digital Parenting Intervention Designed and Implemented During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From a Rapid-Implementation Randomized Controlled Trial Within a Cohort

A video-feedback parenting intervention to prevent enduring behaviour problems in at-risk children aged 12-36 months: the Healthy Start, Happy Start RCT

A mixed methods study of early childhood providers' perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of parenting for lifelong Health tip sheets in Ontario, Canada

Cost-effectiveness of the ‘Stay One Step Ahead’ Home Safety programme for the prevention of injuries among children under 5 years