Dataset Information

Barriers to Clinician Implementation of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) in New Zealand and Australia: What Role for Time-Out?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) is an effective parent training approach for a commonly occurring and disabling condition, namely conduct problems in young children. Yet, despite ongoing efforts to train clinicians in PCIT, the intervention is not widely available in New Zealand and Australia.

Methods

We undertook a cross-sectional online survey of clinicians in New Zealand and Australia who had completed at least the 40-h initial PCIT training, to understand the barriers they encountered in their implementation efforts, and the extent to which attitudes toward time-out influenced implementation. The overall response rate was 47.5% (NZ: 60%; Australia: 31.4%).

Results

Responses suggested that participants generally viewed PCIT as both acceptable and effective. Australian participants reported seeing significantly more clients for PCIT per week than those in NZ (Medians 0 and 2, respectively; χ²(1) = 14.08, p < 0.001) and tended to view PCIT as more effective in treating disruptive and oppositional behaviour (95% CI: -0.70, -0.13, p = 0.005). Participants currently seeing PCIT clients described it as more enjoyable to implement than those not using PCIT (95% CI: -0.85, -0.10, p = 0.01). Thirty-eight percent of participants indicated that they adapt or tailor the standardised protocol, primarily by adding in content relating to emotion regulation, and removing content relating to time-out. Participants generally felt that they had fewer skills, less knowledge, and less confidence relating to the Parent-Directed Interaction phase of PCIT (which involves time-out), compared with the Child-Directed Interaction phase.

Conclusion

While we had hypothesised that time-out represented an intra-intervention component that detracted from implementation success, results suggested that clinician concern over the use of time-out was present but not prominent. Rather, the lack of access to suitable equipment (i.e., one-way mirror and ear-piece) and difficulties associated with clients attending clinic-based sessions were barriers most commonly reported by clinicians. We suggest that future research might consider whether and how PCIT might be "re-implemented" by already-trained clinicians, moving beyond simply training more clinicians in the approach.

SUBMITTER: Woodfield MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8700887 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of the present investigation was to compare the effectiveness of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) with treatment as usual (TAU) in young children who were referred to regular child and adolescent mental health clinics for behavior problems.MethodEighty-one Norwegian families with two- to seven-year-old children (52 boys) who had scored ? 120 on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) were randomly assigned to receive either PCIT or TAU. The families were assessed 6 and 18 months after beginning treatment. Parenting skills were measured using the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS), and child behavior problems were measured using the ECBI and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL).ResultsLinear growth curve analyses revealed that the behavior problems of children receiving PCIT improved more compared with children receiving TAU according to mother reports (ECBI d = .64, CBCL d = .61, both p < .05) but not according to father report. Parents also improved with regard to Do and Don't skills (d = 2.58, d = 1.46, respectively, both p ? .001). At the 6-month assessment, which often occurred before treatment was finished, children who had received PCIT had lower father-rated ECBI and mother-rated CBCL-scores (p = .06) compared with those who had received TAU. At the 18-month follow-up, the children who had received PCIT showed fewer behavior problems compared with TAU according to mother (d = .37) and father (d = .56) reports on the ECBI and mother reports on the CBCL regarding externalizing problems (d = .39). Parents receiving PCIT developed more favorable Do Skills (6-month d = 1.81; 18-month d = 1.91) and Don't Skills (6-month d = 1.46; 18-month d = 1.42) according to observer ratings on the DPICS compared with those receiving TAU.ConclusionChildren receiving PCIT in regular clinical practice exhibited a greater reduction in behavior problems compared with children receiving TAU, and their parents' parenting skills improved to a greater degree compared with those receiving TAU.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NTC01085305.

Project description:ImportanceParents of children with cancer value strong therapeutic relationships with oncology clinicians, but not every relationship is positive.ObjectiveTo identify the prevalence of challenging parent-clinician relationships in pediatric oncology and factors associated with these challenges from parent and clinician perspectives.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey was conducted among parents and oncology clinicians of children with cancer within 3 months of diagnosis from November 2015 to July 2019 at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Boston Children's Hospital and Texas Children's Hospital. Participants were 400 parents of children with cancer and 80 clinicians (ie, oncology physicians and nurse practitioners). Parents completed surveys about relationships with 1 to 2 primary oncology clinicians; clinicians completed surveys about relationships with parents. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to August 2021.ExposuresAt least 3 previous clinical visits between parent and clinician.Main outcomes and measuresThe Relationship Challenges Scale Parent Version and Clinician Version were developed and used to measure threats to the therapeutic alliance. For the Relationship Challenges Scale-Parent version, relationships were considered challenging if a parent responded to any single question in the 2 lowest of 4 possible categories. For the Relationship Challenges Scale-Clinician version, challenges were considered to be present if a clinician reported responses in the 3 lowest of 6 possible response categories to any question.ResultsAmong 400 parents, there were 298 [74.5%] women, 25 Asian individuals (6.3%), 28 Black individuals (7.0%), 97 Hispanic individuals (24.3%), 223 White individuals (55.8%), and 10 individuals (2.4%) with other race or ethnicity; race and ethnicity data were missing for 17 (4.3%) individuals. Among 80 clinicians, there were 57 (71.3%) women, 38 attending physicians (47.5%), 32 fellows (40.0%), and 10 nurse practitioners (12.5%). Parents identified 676 unique relationships with clinicians, and clinician reports were available for 338 relationships. Among 338 relationships with paired parent and clinician surveys, 81 relationships (24.0%) were considered challenging by parents, 127 relationships (37.6%) were considered challenging by clinicians, and 33 relationships (9.8%) were considered challenging by parent and clinician. Parents with Asian or other race or ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] vs White parents, 3.62; 95% CI, 1.59-8.26) or who had lower educational attainment (OR for ≤high school vs >high school, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.56-5.90) were more likely to experience relationships as challenging. Clinicians used a variety of strategies more frequently in 127 relationships in which they perceived challenges vs 211 relationships in which they did not perceive challenges, such as holding regular family meetings (22 relationships [17.3%] vs 13 relationships [6.2%]; P = .009) and offering extra time and attention (66 relationships [52%] vs 60 relationships [28.4%]; P < .001). However, these strategies were not used with increased frequency when parents experienced relationships as challenging vs when parents did not experience this.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study found that nearly one-quarter of parents of children with cancer reported challenges in the therapeutic relationship with their oncologist and that clinicians used strategies to improve relationships more frequently when they experienced the relationship as challenging. These findings suggest that new strategies are needed to improve experiences for parents and to help clinicians recognize and attend to parents whose experiences are suboptimal.

Project description:Rationale. Many cancer patients and survivors do not meet nutritional and physical activity guidelines, thus healthier eating and greater levels of physical activity could have considerable benefits for these individuals. While research has investigated cancer survivors' perspective on their challenges in meeting the nutrition and physical guidelines, little research has examined how health professionals may assist their patients meet these guidelines. Cancer nurses are ideally placed to promote healthy behaviours to their patients, especially if access to dieticians or dietary resources is limited. However, little is known about cancer nurses' healthy eating promotion practices to their patients. The primary aim of this study was to examine current healthy eating promotion practices, beliefs and barriers of cancer nurses in Australia and New Zealand. A secondary aim was to gain insight into whether these practices, beliefs and barriers were influenced by the nurses' hospital or years of work experience. Patients and Methods. An online questionnaire was used to obtain data. Sub-group cancer nurse comparisons were performed on hospital location (metropolitan vs regional and rural) and years of experience (<25 or ?25 years) using ANOVA and chi square analysis for continuous and categorical data respectively. Results. A total of 123 Australasian cancer nurses responded to the survey. Cancer nurses believed they were often the major provider of nutritional advice to their cancer patients (32.5%), a value marginally less than dieticians (35.9%) but substantially higher than oncologists (3.3%). The majority promoted healthy eating prior (62.6%), during (74.8%) and post treatment (64.2%). Most cancer nurses felt that healthy eating had positive effects on the cancer patients' quality of life (85.4%), weight management (82.9%), mental health (80.5%), activities of daily living (79.7%) and risk of other chronic diseases (79.7%), although only 75.5% agreed or strongly agreed that this is due to a strong evidence base. Lack of time (25.8%), adequate support structures (17.3%) nutrition expertise (12.2%) were cited by the cancer nurses as the most common barriers to promoting healthy eating to their patients. Comparisons based on their hospital location and years of experience, revealed very few significant differences, indicating that cancer nurses' healthy eating promotion practices, beliefs and barriers were largely unaffected by hospital location or years of experience. Conclusion. Australasian cancer nurses have favourable attitudes towards promoting healthy eating to their cancer patients across multiple treatment stages and believe that healthy eating has many benefits for their patients. Unfortunately, several barriers to healthy eating promotion were reported. If these barriers can be overcome, nurses may be able to work more effectively with dieticians to improve the outcomes for cancer patients.