First steps: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of the Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) program compared to routine care in improving outcomes for high-risk mothers and their children and preventing abuse

Trials

Joanna Sturgess⁷  Jane Stuart¹  Helen Spiby⁴  Claire Snowdon⁷  Joshua Pink²  Stavros Petrou²  Edward Melhuish¹  Geraldine Macdonald⁶  Diana Elbourne⁷  Jane Barlow²  Elizabeth Allen⁷  Dipti Aistrop³  Jacqueline Barnes⁵ 

[1] Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK;Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK;Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK;University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK;Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HX, UK;Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK;London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

关键词: Young parents;    Nurse;    Child abuse;    Early intervention;   

Others  :  1093099
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-14-285

 received in 2013-07-19, accepted in 2013-08-30,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Evidence from the USA suggests that the home-based Family Nurse Partnership program (FNP), extending from early pregnancy until infants are 24 months, can reduce the risk of child abuse and neglect throughout childhood. FNP is now widely available in the UK. A new variant, Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) offers similar content but in a group context and for a shorter time, until infants are 12 months old. Each group comprises 8 to 12 women with similar expected delivery dates and their partners. Its implementation has been established but there is no evidence of its effectiveness.

Methods/Design

The study comprises a multi-site randomized controlled trial designed to identify the benefits of gFNP compared to standard care. Participants (not eligible for FNP) must be either aged < 20 years at their last menstrual period (LMP) with one or more previous live births, or aged 20 to 24 at LMP with low educational qualifications and no previous live births. ‘Low educational qualifications’ is defined as not having both Maths and English Language GCSE at grade C or higher or, if they have both, no more than four in total at grade C or higher. Exclusions are: under 20 years and previously received home-based FNP and, in either age group, severe psychotic mental illness or not able to communicate in English. Consenting women are randomly allocated (minimized by site and maternal age group) when between 10 and 16 weeks pregnant to either to the 44 session gFNP program or to standard care after the collection of baseline information. Researchers are blind to group assignment.

The primary outcomes at 12 months are child abuse potential based on the revised Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory and parent/infant interaction coded using the CARE Index based on a video-taped interaction. Secondary outcomes are maternal depression, parenting stress, health related quality of life, social support, and use of services.

Discussion

This is the first study of the effectiveness of gFNP in the UK. Results should inform decision-making about its delivery alongside universal services, potentially enabling a wider range of families to benefit from the FNP curriculum and approach to supporting parenting.

Trial registration

ISRCTN78814904.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Barnes et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Department for Education (DfE): Statistical First Release SFR27/2010. London: Department for Education; 2012.
• [2]Office H: Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002: Supplementary Volume. London: Home Office; 2003.
• [3]Dias MS, Smith K, de Guehery K, Mazur P, Li V, Shaffer ML: Preventing abusive head trauma among infants and young children: a hospital-based, parent education program. Pediatrics 2005, 115:470-477.
• [4]Sidebotham PD and the ALSPAC study team: Patterns of child abuse in early childhood, a cohort study of the ‘Children of the Nineties’. Child Abuse Rev 2000, 9:311-320.
• [5]Allen G: Early Intervention: the Next Steps. London: Cabinet Office; 2011.
• [6]Gunnar MR, Donzella B: Social regulation of the cortisol levels in early human development. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2002, 27:199-220.
• [7]Schore AN: Attachment and the regulation of the right brain. Attach Hum Dev 2000, 2:23-47.
• [8]Mikton C, Butchart A: Child maltreatment prevention: a systematic review of reviews. Bull WHO 2009, 87(5):325-404.
• [9]Avellar S, Paulsell D, Sama-Miller E, Del Grosso P: Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness Review: Executing Summary. Washington DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2012.
• [10]Olds DL, et al.: Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect. Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA 1997, 278:637-643.
• [11]Olds D, Kitzman H, Cole R, Robinson J: Theoretical foundations of a program of home visitation for pregnant women and parents of young children. J Com Psych 1997, 25:9-25.
• [12]Bronfenbrenner U: The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1979.
• [13]Bandura A: Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Rev 1977, 84:191-215.
• [14]Bowlby J: Attachment and Loss. Volume 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books; 1969.
• [15]Olds DL: The Nurse-Family Partnership: an evidence-based preventive intervention. Inf Mental Hlth J 2006, 27:5-25.
• [16]Kitzman H, et al.: Effect of prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses on pregnancy outcomes, childhood injuries, and repeated childbearing. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1997, 278:644-652.
• [17]Eckenrode J, et al.: Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths. Nineteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010, 164:9-15.
• [18]Olds DL, et al.: Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses: age-four follow-up of a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2004, 114:1560-1568.
• [19]Aos S, Lieb R, Mayfield J, Miller M, Pennucci A: Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early Intervention Programs for Youth. Olympia WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2004.
• [20]Olds DL, Henderson CR Jr, Chamberlin R, Tatelbaum R: Preventing child abuse and neglect: a randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics 1986, 78:65-78.
• [21]Barnes J, Ball M, Meadows P, McLeish J, Belsky J, FNP Implementation Research Team: Nurse-Family Partnership: First Year Pilot Sites Implementation in England. Pregnancy and the Post-partum Period. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families; 2008.
• [22]Barnes J, Ball M, Meadows P, Belsky J, FNP Implementation Research Team: Nurse-Family Partnership Program: Second Year Pilot Sites Implementation in England. The Infancy Period. Research report DCSF-RR166. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families; 2009.
• [23]Barnes J, Ball M, Meadows P, Howden B, Jackson A, Henderson J, Niven L: The Family-Nurse Partnership Program in England: Wave 1 Implementation in Toddlerhood and a Comparison between Waves 1 and 2a of Implementation in Pregnancy and Infancy. London: Department of Health; 2011.
• [24]Department of Health (DH): More Help for Disadvantaged Families. in press. [http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/mediacentre/pressreleases/DH_121040 webcite]
• [25]Hall D, Hall S: The ‘Family-Nurse Partnership’: Developing an Instrument for Identification, Assessment and Recruitment of Clients. Research Report DCSF-RW022. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families; 2007.
• [26]Barnes J: Evaluation of a Group Support Program Based on the Nurse Family Partnership Model. Melbourne, Australia; 2011. [Paper presented at: RE Ross Trust and Murdoch Children’s Research Institute conference Empowering Parents, Empowering Communities. Using evidence in family-centerd practice] [http://www.rch.org.au/uploadedfiles/main/content/ccch/03_barnes_melbourne_april_15.pdf webcite]
• [27]Rising S: Centering pregnancy: an interdisciplinary model of empowerment. J Nurse Midwifery 1998, 43:46-54.
• [28]Ickovics JR, Kershaw TS, Westdahl C, et al.: Group prenatal care and preterm birth weight: results from a matched cohort study at public clinics. Obstet Gynaecol 2003, 102:1052-1057.
• [29]Ickovics J, Kershaw T, Westdahl C, Magriples U, Reynolds H, Rising S: Group prenatal care and perinatal outcomes: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynaecol 2007, 110:330-339.
• [30]Robertson B, Aycock DM, Darnell LA: Comparison of centering pregnancy to traditional care in Hispanic mothers. Matern Child Health J 2009, 13:407-414.
• [31]Grady MA, Bloom KC: Pregnancy outcomes of adolescents enrolled in a centering pregnancy program. J Midwifery and Women’s Health 2004, 49:412-420.
• [32]Williams KJ, Zolotor A, Kaufmann L: Does group prenatal care improve pregnancy outcomes? JFP 2009, 58:384a-c.
• [33]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Antenatal Care. Routine Care for the Healthy Pregnant Woman. NICE Clinical Guideline 62. London: NICE; 2008.
• [34]Henderson J, Barnes J: Interim Report on Recruitment and the Pregnancy Phase of the Formative Evaluation of the Group-based Antenatal Care Project, Report to the Department of Health. London: Birkbeck University of London; 2010.
• [35]Henderson J, Barnes J: Interim Report on Early Infancy Phase of the Formative Evaluation of the Group-based Antenatal Care Project, Report to the Department of Health. London: Birkbeck, University of London; 2010.
• [36]Barnes J, Henderson J: Summary of the Formative Evaluation of the First Phase of the Group-based Family Nurse Partnership program. London: Department of Health; 2012.
• [37]Shribman S, Billingham K: Healthy Child Program. Pregnancy and the First Five Years. London: Department of Health; 2009.
• [38]Hall D, Elliman D: Health for All Children. 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
• [39]Bavolek SJ, Keene RG: Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory AAPI-2: Administration and Development Handbook. Park City, UT: Family Development Resources; 2001.
• [40]Crittenden PM: CARE-Index Infants and Toddlers: Coding Manual. Miami, FL: Family Relations Institute; 2001.
• [41]Crittenden PM: Abusing, neglecting, problematic, and adequate dyads: differentiating by patterns of interaction. Merrill-Palmer Q 1981, 27:1-18.
• [42]Cramer B, Robert-Tissot C, Stern DN, et al.: Outcome evaluation in brief mother-infant psychotherapy: a preliminary report. Inf Mental Hlth J 1990, 11:278-300.
• [43]Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.
• [44]Cox JL, Holden JM, Sagovsky R: Detection of postnatal depression: development of the 10-item Edinburgh postnatal depression scale. B J Psych 1987, 150:782-786.
• [45]Abidin R: Parenting Stress Index (3rd Edition): Professional Manual. Lutz, FL: PAR, Inc; 1995.
• [46]Lacharite C, Ethier LS, Couture G: Sensitivity and specificity of the Parenting Stress Index in situations of child maltreatment. Canad J Behav Sci 1999, 31:217-220.
• [47]Mash EJ, Johnston C, Kovitz K: A comparison of the mother-child interactions of physically abused and non-abused children during play and task situations. J Clin Child Psychol 1983, 12:337-346.
• [48]Nair P, Schuler ME, Black MM, Kettinger L, Harrington D: Cumulative environmental risk in substance abusing women: early intervention, parenting stress, child abuse potential, and child development. Child Abuse Negl 2003, 27:997-1017.
• [49]Johnston C, Mash EJ: A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy. J Clin Child Psychol 1989, 18:167-175.
• [50]Gilmore L, Cuskelly M: Factor structure of the parenting sense of competence scale using a normative sample. Child: Care Hlth & Dev 2008, 35:48-55.
• [51]Brooks R: EQ-5D, the current state of play. Health Pol 1996, 37:53-72.
• [52]Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQoL health states. Med Care 1997, 35:1095-1108.
• [53]Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL: The MOS social support survey. Soc Sci Med 1991, 32:705-714.
• [54]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE; 2013.
• [55]Barber JA, Thompson SG: Analysis of cost data in randomized trials: an application of the non-parametric bootstrap. Stat Med 2000, 23:3219-3236.
• [56]Stinnett AA, Mullahy J: Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998, 18(2 Suppl):S68-S80.
• [57]Robson C: Real World Research. 3rd edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
• [58]Lopez KA, Willis DG: Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: their contributions to nursing knowledge. Qual Health Res 2004, 14:726-735.
• [59]Damocles Study Group: A proposed charter for clinical trial data monitoring committees: helping them to do their job well. Lancet 2005, 365:711-722.