Dataset Information

What Influences Parental Engagement in Early Intervention? Parent, Program and Community Predictors of Enrolment, Retention and Involvement.

ABSTRACT: Poor participant engagement undermines individual and public health benefits of early intervention programs. This study assessed the extent to which three types of engagement (participant enrolment, retention and involvement) were influenced by individual, program and contextual factors. Data were from a cluster randomised controlled trial (N?=?1447) of a community-based parenting program, delivered at two levels of intensity (group sessions with and without individualised home coaching) conducted in Victoria, Australia. Individual (parent and family) factors and program factors were assessed by parent report and administrative records, and contextual factors by area-level population statistics. Data were analysed using multilevel logistic or linear regression models. Individual and contextual factors predicted enrolment, while family and program factors were more influential on program retention and parents' active involvement. Provision of individualised support was important to all forms of engagement, particularly for families experiencing the greatest barriers to participation. These findings indicate that different strategies are required to effectively support families in the processes of enrolling, continuing to attend and actively participating in early intervention programs.

SUBMITTER: Hackworth NJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6182377 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What Influences Parental Engagement in Early Intervention? Parent, Program and Community Predictors of Enrolment, Retention and Involvement.

Hackworth Naomi J NJ Matthews Jan J Westrupp Elizabeth M EM Nguyen Cattram C Phan Tracey T Scicluna Amanda A Cann Warren W Bethelsen Donna D Bennetts Shannon K SK Nicholson Jan M JM

Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research 20181001 7

Poor participant engagement undermines individual and public health benefits of early intervention programs. This study assessed the extent to which three types of engagement (participant enrolment, retention and involvement) were influenced by individual, program and contextual factors. Data were from a cluster randomised controlled trial (N = 1447) of a community-based parenting program, delivered at two levels of intensity (group sessions with and without individualised home coaching) conduct ...[more]

PMID: 29629506

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMobile health tools such as text messaging programs can support smoking cessation. However, high rates of disengagement from these tools decrease their effectiveness.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to identify user characteristics associated with retention in an adult text messaging smoking cessation intervention.MethodsAdults initiating a quit attempt using the publicly available program SmokefreeTXT between March 6 and June 21, 2016 (n=6215), were included. Data were collected to assess nicotine dependence, frequency of being around other smokers, time of the day for cigarette cravings, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to quit smoking, confidence in quitting, and long-term intention to be smoke free. Multivariable survival analysis modeling for time to opt out was conducted to identify characteristics associated with opting out over the course of the intervention, adjusting for age, sex, and smoking frequency, reset of the quit date by the user, and the number of days enrolled before initiating the quit attempt. Among those who opted out, multivariable multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of opting out early (within 3 days and between 4 and 7 days into the quit attempt) compared to opting out late (more than 7 days into the quit attempt), adjusting for the same confounders.ResultsSurvival analyses indicated that younger age, female sex, higher levels of nicotine dependence, lower intention to be smoke free, and enrolling in SmokefreeTXT ≤1 week before initiating the quit attempt were associated with an increased risk of opting out. For example, users who smoked within 5 minutes of waking up were 1.17 times more likely to opt out than those who smoked more than 5 minutes after waking up (95% CI 1.01-1.35). Among users who opted out from SmokefreeTXT, logistic regression modeling indicated that compared to users who were never or rarely around other smokers, those who were sometimes around other smokers had 1.96 times more likely to opt out within the first 3 days of the quit attempt (95% CI 1.18-3.25). In addition, compared to users with high levels of long-term quit intention, users with lower levels of intention had 1.80 times the odds of opting out between 4 and 7 days into the quit attempt (95% CI 1.02-3.18). Users who reset their quit date after initiating a quit attempt were less likely to opt out at either time point compared with those who did not reset their quit date.ConclusionsSeveral user characteristics are associated with retention in an adult text messaging smoking cessation program. These results provide guidance on potential characteristics that should be addressed in future text messaging smoking cessation programs. Providing additional support to users with these characteristics may increase retention in text messaging programs and ultimately lead to smoking cessation.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) on rates of enrolment and retention in clinical trials and explore how this varies with the context and nature of PPI.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesTen electronic databases, including Medline, INVOLVE Evidence Library, and clinical trial registries.Eligibility criteriaExperimental and observational studies quantitatively evaluating the impact of a PPI intervention, compared with no intervention or non-PPI intervention(s), on participant enrolment and/or retention rates in a clinical trial or trials. PPI interventions could include additional non-PPI components inseparable from the PPI (for example, other stakeholder involvement).Data extraction and analysisTwo independent reviewers extracted data on enrolment and retention rates, as well as on the context and characteristics of PPI intervention, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to determine the average effect of PPI interventions on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: main analysis including randomised studies only, secondary analysis adding non-randomised studies, and several exploratory subgroup and sensitivity analyses.Results26 studies were included in the review; 19 were eligible for enrolment meta-analysis and five for retention meta-analysis. Various PPI interventions were identified with different degrees of involvement, different numbers and types of people involved, and input at different stages of the trial process. On average, PPI interventions modestly but significantly increased the odds of participant enrolment in the main analysis (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval and prediction interval 1.01 to 1.34). Non-PPI components of interventions may have contributed to this effect. In exploratory subgroup analyses, the involvement of people with lived experience of the condition under study was significantly associated with improved enrolment (odds ratio 3.14 v 1.07; P=0.02). The findings for retention were inconclusive owing to the paucity of eligible studies (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 4.14), for main analysis).ConclusionsThese findings add weight to the case for PPI in clinical trials by indicating that it is likely to improve enrolment of participants, especially if it includes people with lived experience of the health condition under study. Further research is needed to assess which types of PPI work best in particular contexts, the cost effectiveness of PPI, the impact of PPI at earlier stages of trial design, and the impact of PPI interventions specifically targeting retention.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016043808.

Project description:BackgroundPoor and variable implementation of childhood obesity prevention programmes reduces their population impact and sustainability. We drew upon ethnographic work to develop a multi-level, theory-based implementation optimisation intervention. This intervention aimed to promote parental enrolment and attendance at HENRY (Health Exercise Nutrition for the Really Young), a UK community obesity prevention programme, by changing behaviours of children's centre and local authority stakeholders.MethodsWe evaluated the effectiveness of the implementation optimisation intervention on HENRY programme enrolment and attendance over a 12-month implementation period in a cluster randomised controlled trial. We randomised 20 local government authorities (with 126 children's centres) to HENRY plus the implementation optimisation intervention or to HENRY alone. Primary outcomes were (1) the proportion of centres enrolling at least eight parents per programme and (2) the proportion of centres with a minimum of 75% of parents attending at least five of eight sessions per programme. Trial analyses adjusted for stratification factors (pre-randomisation implementation of HENRY, local authority size, deprivation) and allowed for cluster design. A parallel mixed-methods process evaluation used qualitative interviews and routine monitoring to explain trial results.ResultsNeither primary outcome differed significantly between groups; 17.8% of intervention centres and 18.0% of control centres achieved the parent enrolment target (adjusted difference - 1.2%; 95% CI - 19.5%, 17.1%); 17.1% of intervention centres and 13.9% of control centres achieved the attendance target (adjusted difference 1.2%; 95% CI - 15.7%, 18.1%). Unexpectedly, the trial coincided with substantial national service restructuring, including centre closures and reduced funds. Some commissioning and management teams stopped or reduced delivery of both HENRY and the implementation optimisation intervention due to competing demands. Thus, at follow-up, HENRY programmes were delivered to approximately half the number of parents compared to baseline (n = 433 vs. 881).ConclusionsDuring a period in which services were reduced by external policies, this first definitive trial found no evidence of effectiveness for an implementation optimisation intervention promoting parent enrolment to and attendance at an obesity prevention programme.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02675699 . Registered on 4 February 2016.

Dataset Information

What Influences Parental Engagement in Early Intervention? Parent, Program and Community Predictors of Enrolment, Retention and Involvement.

Publications

What Influences Parental Engagement in Early Intervention? Parent, Program and Community Predictors of Enrolment, Retention and Involvement.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets