Can Children be Protected Against Violence and Violations From Parents? A Randomized Controlled Study of Safer Kids: A Manualized Intervention to Prevent Child Abuse
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 已完成
- 入组人数
- 112
- 试验地点
- 58
- 主要终点
- Change in Brief Child Abuse Potential Inventory (B-CAP)
研究概览
简要总结
One of the most important responsibilities for the social services is to investigate suspected child abuse and to offer suitable intervention for the families. The lack of published studies on the effect of such interventions is therefore noteworthy. Globally, few controlled studies have been published and none of them have been conducted in Sweden. To better guide the social services in the selection of interventions, the need for Swedish studies with experimental design is therefore apparent. Previous experience in using manualized interventions with families within the social services points to the importance of regarding issues of implementation and dissemination. Interventions need to be developed and adjusted to optimize the chance of engaging families that often live under strong social pressure. The interventions also need to be designed to enable implementation and sustainability in regular services.
Safer Kids is a manualized intervention offered to caregivers under investigation for child abuse. The intervention was developed by the City of Stockholm in cooperation with practitioners within the social services. The content is based on the established parenting program Comet, but has been adjusted to suit the target group. Safer Kids has already been offered for a couple of years within the social services, but has not yet been evaluated.
In this project, a study of intervention effects will be conducted. Caregivers will be randomized to either receive Intervention as usual (IAU), or IAU plus Safer Kids. Effects on established risk-factors for child abuse, as well as the abused childrens' experiences, will be measures. Information on additional reports to the social services on child abuse will be collected, up to 30 month after the intervention.
详细描述
BACKGROUND:
International studies have shown prevalence rates of child abuse globally, with around 20 percent of all children being exposed to violent or abusive parenting (Stoltenborgh, Bakermans Kranenburg, Ijzendoorn, & Alink, 2013). A Swedish study showed that 15 percent of children living in Sweden sometime had experienced physical violence from a parent or close relative, from which half had been exposed several times (Annerbäck, Wingren, Svedin, & Gustafsson, 2010). Apart from the suffering caused by the abuse in itself, does the experience of child abuse act as a risk-factor for future problems. It has for example been shown that children who have experienced child abuse run a greater risk for developing depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, conduct disorders and substance abuse problems (Norman et al., 2012).
Despite the apparent need for effective interventions to prevent child abuse, few well-designed studies of intervention effects have been published. In a recent meta-analysis including all randomized trials of all types of interventions to prevent or treat child abuse, only 23 studies were included (Euser, Alink, Stoltenborgh, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2015). The results of that analysis was also a disappointment, since the overall effect in terms of reducing or preventing child abuse was d=0.13, an effect that turned out to be non- significant after taking publication bias into account. However, a moderation analysis showed that interventions based on parent training (N=10) showed significantly larger effects than other types of interventions. In support of that result, another meta-analysis including studies of parent training interventions only, did show a significant overall effect of 11 percent absolute reduction in risk of reabuse (Vlahovicova, Melendez-Torres, Leijten, Knerr, & Gardner, 2017). Thus, even if parent training interventions show some promise, the small to non-existent intervention effects found in the meta-analyses also point to the need of developing more effective interventions.
The application of manualized interventions is rare within the social services in Sweden, but there have been a few projects in recent years with the purpose of implementing interventions that previously have been evaluated in foreign studies. One example is the iRisk-project (Broberg et al., 2015). The main purpose of that project was to investigate the ability of regular service providers to implement the interventions fith fidelity and sustainability. The effects of the interventions were also measured, but only with pre-post design without a matched control group. Both parents and the practitioners appreciated the interventions. There were also positive effects on outcome measures between pre and post the interventions, but since no matched control group was included, no safe conclusion of intervention effects could be drawn. However, several challenges were also identified in terms of implementation and sustainability. First, it was found that it was harder than expected to recruit and engage caregivers in the interventions. Secondly, several of the included service units had difficulties getting started with interventions and many reported that contacts were terminated prematurely. A third conclusion was that several practitioners described difficulties in sustaining the work with the more time consuming interventions at their service unit. A final conclusion was that practitioners found it difficult to maintain continuity in the longer interventions, due to logistic challenges for the practitioner and the families.
In summary, most previously evaluated interventions demand considerable time and resources, and there have consequently been reports of challenges in terms of implementation. In view of the prevalence of child abuse, it is therefore apparent that many families that are investigated within the services never will get access to such interventions. Furthermore, a condition in several of the existing interventions is that the suspected caregiver acknowledges the abusive act that has been committed, either in the investigation that precedes the intervention, or as a part of the intervention itself. This may pose challenges in terms of stigma and motivation to engage in the intervention. In light of these challenges, it is important to develop interventions that a) readily can be implemented with fidelity and sustainability in regular social service units, b) is less demanding and time consuming - both to be able to serve a larger number of investigated families, but also to prevent fatigue and premature termination in participating families, c) that minimize stigma and therefore can engage reluctant caregivers.
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Randomized
- 干预模型
- Parallel
- 主要目的
- Treatment
- 盲法
- None
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 2 Years 至 12 Years(Child)
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 否
入选标准
- •At least one adult residing in the family is suspected to have perpetrated an abusive act towards a child.
- •The social services has decided to start a formal investigation of the suspected act.
- •At least one child in the family is between 3 and 12 years old.
排除标准
- •The social services already has an ongoing intervention with the family at the time when the suspected act is reported.
- •REVISED CRITERIA (n = 101 included according to):
- •Criteria were specified at beginning of inclusion (early spring 2020) to ensure that the intended population of Safer Kids could be recruited.
- •Revised inclusion criteria:
- •At least one adult in the family is suspected to have perpetrated an abusive act towards a child, resulting in an initiated child welfare investigation.
- •The suspected adult lives with the child, at least part time, during the investigation
- •At least one child in the family is between 2-12 years old.
- •Revised exclusion criteria:
- •The events preceding the report does not concern the child between 2-12 years old, only a younger or older sibling
- •The participating caregivers have participated in an intervention concerning abuse of children at the social services in the past 12 months
- •Caregiver and focus child lack residence permit the coming 30 months
- •The family's problem are assessed to be so severe that there is great risk of out-of-home placement of the child during the investigation.
研究组 & 干预措施
Intervention as usual
The social services standard process for families reported for violence or abuse towards children. The standard process always includes a formal investigation of the suspected violence/abuse. The investigation may or may not result in voluntary or mandatory interventions, such as family support or parent training.
干预措施: Intervention as usual (IAU) (Other)
Intervention as usual + Safer Kids
The procedure in this arm is exactly the same as in the active comparator arm (i.e., investigation that may be followed by interventions). In addition, the general parent training program Safer Kids is offered during the investigation to all participants in this arm.
干预措施: Safer Kids (Behavioral)
Intervention as usual + Safer Kids
The procedure in this arm is exactly the same as in the active comparator arm (i.e., investigation that may be followed by interventions). In addition, the general parent training program Safer Kids is offered during the investigation to all participants in this arm.
干预措施: Intervention as usual (IAU) (Other)
结局指标
主要结局
Change in Brief Child Abuse Potential Inventory (B-CAP)
时间窗: Pre (0 month), Post (4 month), Follow-up (7 month), long-term follow-up (18 and 30 month)
A short version of the well established CAP, which measures empirically established risk-factors for child abuse. The short version includes 24 items.
Change in Journal records: further reports on abuse or violence
时间窗: 4-months, 7-months, 18-months and 30-months from baseline.
On four occasions, personnel at the included social services units will extract information from the participating families journal records. The data that will be collected by the research team is: number of additional reports to the social services concerning the family, the date of each report, as well as the reason for each report.
次要结局
- Practitioner Acceptability Questionnaire(Follow-up (7 month))
- Change in Parent Anger Scale (PAS)(Pre (0 month), Post (4 month) and Follow-up (7 month))
- Change in Kindl-R(Pre (0 month), Post (4 month) and Follow-up (7 month))
- Change in The Adult Child Relationship Scale (ACRS)(Pre (0 month), Post (4 month) and Follow-up (7 month))
- Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)(Follow-up (7 month))
- Change in Perceived stress scale (PSS)(Pre (0 month), Post (4 month) and Follow-up (7 month))
- Change in Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9)(Pre (0 month), Post (4 month) and Follow-up (7 month))
- Change in The Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)(Pre (0 month), Post (4 month), Follow-up (7 month), long-term follow-up (18 and 30 month))
- Change in The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire(Pre (0 month), Post (4 month) and Follow-up (7 month))
- Change in GAD-7(Pre (0 month), Post (4 month) and Follow-up (7 month))
- Change in AUDIT-C(Pre (0 month), Post (4 month) and Follow-up (7 month))
研究者
Martin Forster
Principal Investigator
Karolinska Institutet
