PLoS ONE (Jan 2022)

A randomized controlled trial of a proportionate universal parenting program delivery model (E-SEE Steps) to enhance child social-emotional wellbeing.

  • Tracey Bywater,
  • Vashti Berry,
  • Sarah Blower,
  • Matthew Bursnall,
  • Edward Cox,
  • Amanda Mason-Jones,
  • Sinead McGilloway,
  • Kirsty McKendrick,
  • Siobhan Mitchell,
  • Kate Pickett,
  • Gerry Richardson,
  • Kiera Solaiman,
  • M Dawn Teare,
  • Simon Walker,
  • Karen Whittaker

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265200
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 17, no. 4
p. e0265200

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundEvidence for parenting programs to improve wellbeing in children under three is inconclusive. We investigated the fidelity, impact, and cost-effectiveness of two parenting programs delivered within a longitudinal proportionate delivery model ('E-SEE Steps').MethodsEligible parents with a child ≤ 8 weeks were recruited into a parallel two-arm, assessor blinded, randomized controlled, community-based, trial with embedded economic and process evaluations. Post-baseline randomization applied a 5:1 (intervention-to-control) ratio, stratified by primary (child social-emotional wellbeing (ASQ:SE-2)) and key secondary (maternal depression (PHQ-9)) outcome scores, sex, and site. All intervention parents received the Incredible Years® Baby Book (IY-B), and were offered the targeted Infant (IY-I)/Toddler (IY-T) program if eligible, based on ASQ:SE-2/PHQ-9 scores. Control families received usual services. Fidelity data were analysed descriptively. Primary analysis applied intention to treat. Effectiveness analysis fitted a marginal model to outcome scores. Cost-effectiveness analysis involved Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs).ResultsThe target sample (N = 606) was not achieved; 341 mothers were randomized (285:56), 322 (94%) were retained to study end. Of those eligible for the IY-I (n = 101), and IY-T (n = 101) programs, 51 and 21 respectively, attended. Eight (of 14) groups met the 80% self-reported fidelity criteria. No significant differences between arms were found for adjusted mean difference scores; ASQ:SE-2 (3.02, 95% CI: -0.03, 6.08, p = 0.052), PHQ-9 (-0.61; 95% CI: -1.34, 0.12, p = 0.1). E-SEE Steps had higher costs, but improved mothers' Health-related Quality of Life (0.031 Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gain), ICER of £20,062 per QALY compared to control. Serious adverse events (n = 86) were unrelated to the intervention.ConclusionsE-SEE Steps was not effective, but was borderline cost-effective. The model was delivered with varying fidelity, with lower-than-expected IY-T uptake. Changes to delivery systems and the individual programs may be needed prior to future evaluation.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN11079129.