The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

A comparison of the clinical effectiveness and cost of specialised individually delivered parent training for preschool attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and a generic, group-based programme: a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of the New Forest Parenting Programme versus Incredible Years

A comparison of the clinical effectiveness and cost of specialised individually delivered parent training for preschool attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and a generic, group-based programme: a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of the New Forest Parenting Programme versus Incredible Years
A comparison of the clinical effectiveness and cost of specialised individually delivered parent training for preschool attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and a generic, group-based programme: a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of the New Forest Parenting Programme versus Incredible Years

The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and cost of specialised individually delivered parent training (PT) for preschool children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) against generic group-based PT and treatment as usual (TAU). This is a multi-centre three-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial conducted in National Health Service Trusts. The participants included in this study were preschool children (33-54 months) fulfilling ADHD research diagnostic criteria. New Forest Parenting Programme (NFPP)-12-week individual, home-delivered ADHD PT programme; Incredible Years (IY)-12-week group-based, PT programme initially designed for children with behaviour problems were the interventions. Primary outcome-Parent ratings of child's ADHD symptoms (Swanson, Nolan & Pelham Questionnaire-SNAP-IV). Secondary outcomes-teacher ratings (SNAP-IV) and direct observations of ADHD symptoms and parent/teacher ratings of conduct problems. NFPP, IY and TAU outcomes were measured at baseline (T1) and post treatment (T2). NFPP and IY outcomes only were measured 6 months post treatment (T3). Researchers, but not therapists or parents, were blind to treatment allocation. Analysis employed mixed effect regression models (multiple imputations). Intervention and other costs were estimated using standardized approaches. NFPP and IY did not differ on parent-rated SNAP-IV, ADHD combined symptoms [mean difference - 0.009 95% CI (- 0.191, 0.173), p = 0.921] or any other measure. Small, non-significant, benefits of NFPP over TAU were seen for parent-rated SNAP-IV, ADHD combined symptoms [- 0.189 95% CI (- 0.380, 0.003), p = 0.053]. NFPP significantly reduced parent-rated conduct problems compared to TAU across scales (p values < 0.05). No significant benefits of IY over TAU were seen for parent-rated SNAP, ADHD symptoms [- 0.16 95% CI (- 0.37, 0.04), p = 0.121] or parent-rated conduct problems (p > 0.05). The cost per family of providing NFPP in the trial was significantly lower than IY (£1591 versus £2103). Although, there were no differences between NFPP and IY with regards clinical effectiveness, individually delivered NFPP cost less. However, this difference may be reduced when implemented in routine clinical practice. Clinical decisions should take into account parental preferences between delivery approaches.

Journal Article
1018-8827
Sonuga-Barke, Edmund J.S.
bc80bf95-6cf9-4c76-a09d-eaaf0b717635
Barton, Joanne
7b159717-9ff8-4eab-a0e9-416857cda505
Daley, David
651d0b29-8790-4a13-aa18-ad9a499d34e8
Hutchings, Judy
f6b0ba89-db4c-4945-8d67-442e0accd9fc
Maishman, Tom
cf4259a4-0eef-4975-9c9d-a2c3d594f989
Raftery, James
27c2661d-6c4f-448a-bf36-9a89ec72bd6b
Stanton, Louise
8b827763-d839-4b4b-bbf2-358a84110294
Laver-Bradbury, Cathy
50942ef0-9cc9-4250-99dc-e9f8fe91d17c
Chorozoglou, Maria
1d8dc56f-914a-402a-8155-4fb1e4380835
Coghill, David
53a9836d-d71f-4957-b310-3a38f081a186
Little, Louisa
41f55532-898e-41a6-97c6-2802a379d684
Ruddock, Martin
46d600af-5768-4ba5-85cd-66598f13466f
Radford, Mike
72cf921a-9179-430e-80d0-9970ae4099bb
Yao, Guiqing Lily
d777f84c-cf3d-4fad-bbc1-ea01dec01695
Lee, Louise
712d3303-db7b-49b1-9279-f29bd8101261
Gould, Lisa
363cc1b3-078d-48eb-a164-feee7dcd9246
Shipway, Lisa
59d3a1ec-da81-423a-a718-721cc3372977
Markomichali, Pavlina
62cb31f1-e09b-48fe-b59b-98c8e43cec8c
McGuirk, James
dd532a83-cab4-41d2-9d34-3c2c9f6a3014
Lowe, Michelle
65a13a34-2acd-4077-b2d3-eb2f5c9cdb29
Perez, Elvira
076655c5-c345-4b3b-8ae1-7165d129c739
Lockwood, Joanna
c5fae6bd-5c36-48e8-8a00-0ab8e00279ec
Thompson, Margaret J.J.
722079c8-80f8-48be-a82d-36a159d43d24
Sonuga-Barke, Edmund J.S.
bc80bf95-6cf9-4c76-a09d-eaaf0b717635
Barton, Joanne
7b159717-9ff8-4eab-a0e9-416857cda505
Daley, David
651d0b29-8790-4a13-aa18-ad9a499d34e8
Hutchings, Judy
f6b0ba89-db4c-4945-8d67-442e0accd9fc
Maishman, Tom
cf4259a4-0eef-4975-9c9d-a2c3d594f989
Raftery, James
27c2661d-6c4f-448a-bf36-9a89ec72bd6b
Stanton, Louise
8b827763-d839-4b4b-bbf2-358a84110294
Laver-Bradbury, Cathy
50942ef0-9cc9-4250-99dc-e9f8fe91d17c
Chorozoglou, Maria
1d8dc56f-914a-402a-8155-4fb1e4380835
Coghill, David
53a9836d-d71f-4957-b310-3a38f081a186
Little, Louisa
41f55532-898e-41a6-97c6-2802a379d684
Ruddock, Martin
46d600af-5768-4ba5-85cd-66598f13466f
Radford, Mike
72cf921a-9179-430e-80d0-9970ae4099bb
Yao, Guiqing Lily
d777f84c-cf3d-4fad-bbc1-ea01dec01695
Lee, Louise
712d3303-db7b-49b1-9279-f29bd8101261
Gould, Lisa
363cc1b3-078d-48eb-a164-feee7dcd9246
Shipway, Lisa
59d3a1ec-da81-423a-a718-721cc3372977
Markomichali, Pavlina
62cb31f1-e09b-48fe-b59b-98c8e43cec8c
McGuirk, James
dd532a83-cab4-41d2-9d34-3c2c9f6a3014
Lowe, Michelle
65a13a34-2acd-4077-b2d3-eb2f5c9cdb29
Perez, Elvira
076655c5-c345-4b3b-8ae1-7165d129c739
Lockwood, Joanna
c5fae6bd-5c36-48e8-8a00-0ab8e00279ec
Thompson, Margaret J.J.
722079c8-80f8-48be-a82d-36a159d43d24

Sonuga-Barke, Edmund J.S., Barton, Joanne, Daley, David, Hutchings, Judy, Maishman, Tom, Raftery, James, Stanton, Louise, Laver-Bradbury, Cathy, Chorozoglou, Maria, Coghill, David, Little, Louisa, Ruddock, Martin, Radford, Mike, Yao, Guiqing Lily, Lee, Louise, Gould, Lisa, Shipway, Lisa, Markomichali, Pavlina, McGuirk, James, Lowe, Michelle, Perez, Elvira, Lockwood, Joanna and Thompson, Margaret J.J. (2017) A comparison of the clinical effectiveness and cost of specialised individually delivered parent training for preschool attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and a generic, group-based programme: a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of the New Forest Parenting Programme versus Incredible Years. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. (doi:10.1007/s00787-017-1054-3).

Record type: Article

Abstract

The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and cost of specialised individually delivered parent training (PT) for preschool children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) against generic group-based PT and treatment as usual (TAU). This is a multi-centre three-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial conducted in National Health Service Trusts. The participants included in this study were preschool children (33-54 months) fulfilling ADHD research diagnostic criteria. New Forest Parenting Programme (NFPP)-12-week individual, home-delivered ADHD PT programme; Incredible Years (IY)-12-week group-based, PT programme initially designed for children with behaviour problems were the interventions. Primary outcome-Parent ratings of child's ADHD symptoms (Swanson, Nolan & Pelham Questionnaire-SNAP-IV). Secondary outcomes-teacher ratings (SNAP-IV) and direct observations of ADHD symptoms and parent/teacher ratings of conduct problems. NFPP, IY and TAU outcomes were measured at baseline (T1) and post treatment (T2). NFPP and IY outcomes only were measured 6 months post treatment (T3). Researchers, but not therapists or parents, were blind to treatment allocation. Analysis employed mixed effect regression models (multiple imputations). Intervention and other costs were estimated using standardized approaches. NFPP and IY did not differ on parent-rated SNAP-IV, ADHD combined symptoms [mean difference - 0.009 95% CI (- 0.191, 0.173), p = 0.921] or any other measure. Small, non-significant, benefits of NFPP over TAU were seen for parent-rated SNAP-IV, ADHD combined symptoms [- 0.189 95% CI (- 0.380, 0.003), p = 0.053]. NFPP significantly reduced parent-rated conduct problems compared to TAU across scales (p values < 0.05). No significant benefits of IY over TAU were seen for parent-rated SNAP, ADHD symptoms [- 0.16 95% CI (- 0.37, 0.04), p = 0.121] or parent-rated conduct problems (p > 0.05). The cost per family of providing NFPP in the trial was significantly lower than IY (£1591 versus £2103). Although, there were no differences between NFPP and IY with regards clinical effectiveness, individually delivered NFPP cost less. However, this difference may be reduced when implemented in routine clinical practice. Clinical decisions should take into account parental preferences between delivery approaches.

Text
s00787-017-1054-3 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (820kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 21 September 2017
e-pub ahead of print date: 30 October 2017
Keywords: Journal Article

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 416342
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/416342
ISSN: 1018-8827
PURE UUID: 398ba896-b4c5-4be7-9a0d-4264100e60f3
ORCID for Louise Stanton: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-8181-840X
ORCID for Maria Chorozoglou: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-5070-4653

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 13 Dec 2017 17:30
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 03:59

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Edmund J.S. Sonuga-Barke
Author: Joanne Barton
Author: David Daley
Author: Judy Hutchings
Author: Tom Maishman
Author: James Raftery
Author: Louise Stanton ORCID iD
Author: Cathy Laver-Bradbury
Author: David Coghill
Author: Louisa Little
Author: Martin Ruddock
Author: Mike Radford
Author: Louise Lee
Author: Lisa Gould
Author: Lisa Shipway
Author: Pavlina Markomichali
Author: James McGuirk
Author: Michelle Lowe
Author: Elvira Perez
Author: Joanna Lockwood

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×