Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29086103›Full record

Trial reportEuropean child & adolescent psychiatry2018

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.

Edmund J S Sonuga-Barke, Joanne Barton, David Daley, Judy Hutchings, Tom Maishman, James Raftery, Louise Stanton, Cathy Laver-Bradbury, Maria Chorozoglou, David Coghill and 13 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European child & adolescent psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Edmund J S Sonuga-BarkeAcademic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 IBJ, UK. edmund.sonuga-barke@kcl.ac.uk.
Joanne BartonNorth Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
David DaleyDivision of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2TR, UK.
Judy HutchingsCentre for Evidence Based Early Intervention, School of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Tom MaishmanSouthampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
James RafteryPrimary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Louise StantonSouthampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Cathy Laver-BradburyCAMHS, Solent NHS Trust, Better Care Centre, Southampton, UK.
Maria ChorozoglouSouthampton Health Technology Assessment Centre (SHTAC), Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
David CoghillDepartments of Paediatrics and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Louisa LittleSouthampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Martin RuddockAcademic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 IBJ, UK.
Mike RadfordSouthampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Guiqing Lily YaoPrimary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Louise LeeAcademic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 IBJ, UK.
Lisa GouldAcademic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 IBJ, UK.
Lisa ShipwayAcademic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 IBJ, UK.
Pavlina MarkomichaliAcademic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 IBJ, UK.
James McGuirkNorth Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Michelle LoweNorth Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Elvira PerezDivision of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2TR, UK.
Joanna LockwoodDivision of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2TR, UK.
Margaret J J ThompsonAcademic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 IBJ, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15956Department of Health RP-PG-0108-10061
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

ParentingAttention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityChildChild, PreschoolFamily TherapyFemaleHumansMaleParentsProblem BehaviorSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomeADHDIncredible YearsIYNew ForestNFPPParentingParenting Programme

Identifiers

PMID29086103
PMCPMC5973956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.