Explore the vast range of titles available.

Behavior problems are common among children and place a high disease and financial burden on individuals and society. Parenting interventions are commonly used to prevent such problems, but little is known about their possible longer-term economic benefits. This study modelled the longer-term cost-effectiveness of five parenting interventions delivered in a Swedish context: Comet, Connect, the Incredible Years (IY), COPE, bibliotherapy, and a waitlist control, for the prevention of persistent behavior problems. A decision analytic model was developed and used to forecast the cost per averted disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) by each parenting intervention and the waitlist control, for children aged 5-12 years. Age-specific cohorts were modelled until the age of 18. Educational and health care sector costs related to behavior problems were included. Active interventions were compared to the waitlist control as well as to each other. Intervention costs ranged between US$ 14 (bibliotherapy) to US$ 1,300 (IY) per child, with effects of up to 0.23 averted DALYs per child (IY). All parenting interventions were cost-effective at a threshold of US$ 15,000 per DALY in relation to the waitlist control. COPE and bibliotherapy strongly dominated the other options, and an additional US$ 2,629 would have to be invested in COPE to avert one extra DALY, in comparison to bibliotherapy. Parenting interventions are cost-effective in the longer run in comparison to a waitlist control. Bibliotherapy or COPE are the most efficient options when comparing interventions to one another. Optimal decision for investment should to be based on budget considerations and priority settings.

IntroductionChildren with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) often have associated behavioural difficulties that can present a challenge for parents and parenting. There are several effective social learning theory-based parenting programmes for dealing with behavioural difficulties, including the Incredible Years (IY) parent programmes. However, these programmes typically do not specifically target parents of children with ASD. Recently, a new addition to the IY suite of programmes known as the IY Autistic Spectrum and Language Delays (IY-ASLD) parent programme was developed. The main aims of the present study are to examine the feasibility of delivering this programme within child health services and to provide initial evidence for effectiveness and economic costs.Methods and analysisThe Parenting for Autism, Language, And Communication Evaluation Study (PALACES) trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, pilot randomised controlled trial comparing the IY-ASLD programme with a wait-list control condition. 72 parents of children with ASD (aged 3–8 years) will be randomly allocated to either the intervention or control condition. Data will be collected prior to randomisation and 6 months postrandomisation for all families. Families in the intervention condition only will also be followed up at 12 and 18 months postrandomisation. This study will provide initial evidence of effectiveness for the newly developed IY-ASLD parenting programme. It will also add to the limited economic evidence for an intervention targeting parents of children with ASD and provide longer term data, an important component for evaluations of parenting programmes.Ethics and disseminationApproval for the study was granted by the Research Ethics Committee at the School of Psychology, Bangor University (reference number: 2016–15768) and the North Wales Research Ethics Committee, UK (reference number: 16/WA/0224). The findings will be disseminated through research conferences and peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN57070414; Pre-results.

Background There is co-morbidity between parental depression and childhood conduct disorder. The Incredible Years (IY) parenting programmes reduce both conduct disorder in children and depression in their parents. Recent U.K. and Ireland trials of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IY parenting programmes have assessed children’s health and social care service use, but little is known about the programme’s impact on parental service use. This paper explores whether an above clinical cut-off score on the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI II) is associated with high or low parental health and social care service use in high-risk families receiving the IY Basic Programme. Methods This is a secondary analysis of a subsample (N = 119) from the first U.K. community-based randomised controlled trial of the 12-week IY Basic Programme (N = 153). Parents with children at risk of developing conduct disorder were randomised to receive the programme or to a waiting-list control group. BDI II total and BDI II clinical depression cut-off scores were compared to frequencies and costs of parents’ service use, at baseline, six, twelve and eighteen months post-baseline for the intervention group and at baseline and six months post-baseline for the control group. Results Intervention group parents who scored above the clinical cut-off on the BDI II at baseline used more health and social care services than those who scored below at baseline, six and eighteen months. Significant reductions in service use frequencies were found for the intervention group only. Conclusion Parents with higher levels or depression used more health and social care service and parenting programmes have been shown to reduce parental depression and also health and social service use. However, further exploration of depressed parents’ service use and the cost implications for publically funded health and social care services is needed. Trial registration Registration of the original RCT of the IY Basic Parenting Programme - Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46984318

Background Untreated behavioral and mental health problems beginning in early childhood are costly problems affecting the long-term health and wellbeing of children, their families, and society. Although parent training (PT) programs have been demonstrated to be a cost-effective intervention modality for treating childhood behavior problems, they have been less effective for children from low-income and underserved racial and ethnic populations. The purpose of this randomized trial is to compare the effectiveness, cost, and social validity of two manualized evidence-based PT programs that were developed and tested on different populations and employ different delivery models: (1) The Chicago Parent Program (CPP), a group-based program developed in collaboration with a community advisory board of African-American and Latino parents; and (2) Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT), an individualized parent-child coaching model considered to be ‘the gold standard’ for parents of children with externalizing behavior problems. Methods This trial uses an experimental design with randomization of parents seeking behavioral treatment for their 2- to 5-year-old children at a mental health clinic in Baltimore, MD (80% African-American or multi-racial; 97% receiving Medicaid). Using block randomization procedures, 262 parents are randomized to CPP or PCIT. Clinicians (n = 13) employed in the mental health clinic and trained in CPP or PCIT are also recruited to participate. Primary outcomes of interest are reductions in child behavior problems, improvements in parenting, perceived value of the interventions from the perspective of parents and clinicians, and cost. Parent distress and family social risk are assessed as modifiers of treatment effectiveness. We hypothesize that CPP will be at least as effective as PCIT for reducing child behavior problems and improving parenting but the programs will differ on cost and their social validity as perceived by parents and clinicians. Discussion This is the first study to compare the effectiveness of a PT program originally designed with and for parents from underserved racial and ethnic populations (CPP) against a well-established program considered to be the ‘the gold standard’ (PCIT) with a high-risk population of parents. Challenges related to conducting a randomized trial in a fee-for-service mental health clinic serving urban, low-income families are discussed. Trial registration NCT01517867

Background The New Forest Parenting Programme (NFPP) is a home-delivered, evidence-based parenting programme to target symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in preschool children. It has been adapted for use with ‘hard-to-reach’ or ‘difficult-to-treat’ children. This trial will compare the adapted-NFPP with a generic parenting group-based programme, Incredible Years (IY), which has been recommended for children with preschool-type ADHD symptoms. Methods/design This multicentre randomized controlled trial comprises three arms: adapted-NFPP, IY and treatment as usual (TAU). A sample of 329 parents of preschool-aged children with a research diagnosis of ADHD enriched for hard-to-reach and potentially treatment-resistant children will be allocated to the arms in the ratio 3:3:1. Participants in the adapted-NFPP and IY arms receive an induction visit followed by 12 weekly parenting sessions of 1½ hours (adapted-NFPP) or 2½ hours (IY) over 2.5 years. Adapted-NFPP will be delivered as a one-to-one home-based intervention; IY, as a group-based intervention. TAU participants are offered a parenting programme at the end of the study. The primary objective is to test whether the adapted-NFPP produces beneficial effects in terms of core ADHD symptoms. Secondary objectives include examination of the treatment impact on secondary outcomes, a study of cost-effectiveness and examination of the mediating role of treatment-induced changes in parenting behaviour and neuropsychological function. The primary outcome is change in ADHD symptoms, as measured by the parent-completed version of the SNAP-IV questionnaire, adjusted for pretreatment SNAP-IV score. Secondary outcome measures are: a validated index of behaviour during child’s solo play; teacher-reported SNAP-IV (ADHD scale); teacher and parent SNAP-IV (ODD) Scale; Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory - Oppositional Defiant Disorder scale; Revised Client Service Receipt Inventory - Health Economics Costs measure and EuroQol (EQ5D) health-related quality-of-life measure. Follow-up measures will be collected 6 months after treatment for participants allocated to adapted-NFPP and IY. Discussion This trial will provide evidence as to whether the adapted-NFPP is more effective and cost-effective than the recommended treatment and TAU. It will also provide information about mediating factors (improved parenting and neuropsychological function) and moderating factors (parent and child genetic factors) in any increased benefit. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN39288126 .

Passed by Congress in early 2018, the Family First Prevention Services Act (Family First) is a major step forward in federal child welfare reform and has the potential to transform the way states provide services to children who are abused or neglected. This installment of Law and the Public's Health offers an overview of the major provisions of Family First. As states and counties respond to the new incentives and restrictions imposed by the statute, collaboration among researchers, advocates, and policy makers will be needed to ensure tht the promise of these reforms translates into meaningful change for children and families.

There are few health economic evaluations of parenting programs with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the outcome measure. The objective of this study was, therefore, to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the universal parenting program All Children in Focus (ABC). The goals were to estimate the costs of program implementation, investigate the health effects of the program, and examine its cost-effectiveness. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. Costs included setup costs and operating costs. A parent proxy Visual Analog Scale was used to measure QALYs in children, whereas the General Health Questionnaire-12 was used for parents. A societal perspective was adopted, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. To account for uncertainty in the estimate, the probability of cost-effectiveness was investigated, and sensitivity analyses were used to account for the uncertainty in cost data. The cost was € 326.3 per parent, of which € 53.7 represented setup costs under the assumption that group leaders on average run 10 groups, and € 272.6 was the operating costs. For health effects, the QALY gain was 0.0042 per child and 0.0027 per parent. These gains resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the base case of € 47 290 per gained QALY. The sensitivity analyses resulted in ratios from € 41 739 to € 55 072. With the common Swedish threshold value of € 55 000 per QALY, the probability of the ABC program being cost-effective was 50.8 percent. Our analysis of the ABC program demonstrates cost-effectiveness ratios below or just above the QALY threshold in Sweden. However, due to great uncertainty about the data, the health economic rationale for implementation should be further studied considering a longer time perspective, effects on siblings, and validated measuring techniques, before full scale implementation.

Since modern welfare reform began in the 1980s, we have seen low-income parents leave the welfare rolls and join the workforce in large numbers. At the same time, the Earned Income Tax Credit has offered a monetary incentive for low-income parents to work. Thus, unlike some of the other two-generation mechanisms discussed in this issue of Future of Children, policies that encourage low-income parents to work are both widespread and well-entrenched in the United States. But parents' (and especially mothers') work, writes Carolyn Heinrich, is not unambiguously beneficial for their children. On the one hand, working parents can be positive role models for their children, and, of course, the income they earn can improve their children's lives in many ways. On the other hand, work can impair the developing bond between parents and young children, especially when the parents work long hours or evening and night shifts. The stress that parents bring home from their jobs can detract from their parenting skills, undermine the atmosphere in the home, and thereby introduce stress into children's lives. Unfortunately, it is low-income parents who are most likely to work in stressful, low-quality jobs that feature low pay, little autonomy, inflexible hours, and few or no benefits. And low-income children whose parents are working are more likely to be placed in inadequate child care or to go unsupervised. Two-generation approaches, Heinrich writes, could maximize the benefits and minimize the detriments of parents' work by expanding workplace flexibility, and especially by mandating enough paid leave so that mothers can breastfeed and form close bonds with their infants; by helping parents place their children in high-quality child care; and by helping low-income parents train for, find, and keep a well-paying job with benefits.

The world is waiting for a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. In anticipation of successful trial results, preparations are being made for an unprecedented effort to achieve universal coverage and protection. But the interim measures to mitigate COVID-19 have brought their own severe and negative aftershocks. Global lockdowns and closures of schools and protective services have shone light on the vulnerability of children. Challenges of parenting under the strain of the epidemic are near-universal, and most harsh parenting is not malicious, but triggered by stress, poverty and mental health distress. In the extreme, the situation of fragile families affected by violence and neglect has worsened1, abusers have had increased impunity and victims have been cut off from supportive teachers, social workers and friends. The looming economic fallout and uncertainty is adding yet more pressure onto such family settings, with lifetime and intergenerational consequences for the children affected. But there is a cost-effective and scalable response.

Our primary objective was to gather pilot data from caregivers and stakeholders to guide the development of a training program to assist informal caregivers in re-entering the job market. The goal of the program would be to help caregivers rebound from their incurred economic burden by transitioning into a paid caregiving or other health-service role. The economic burden they bear often necessitates a return to the workforce following caregiving; yet the act of returning is complicated by an extended absence from the workforce and a lack of experience in other verifiably skilled and paid roles. We interviewed 37 stakeholders and 25 caregivers of a chronically or terminally ill family member or friend in a suburban collar county close to Chicago. The interview questions considered the economic impact of illness, as well as the feasibility, logistics, and options of a training program for caregivers. Our data gathered from caregivers and leaders within this community support the acceptability of such a training program for informal caregivers, and also provide practical advice for development and implementation related to training cost, length, content, and instructional practices.