Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33196410›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2020

An intervention to improve the quality of life in children of parents with serious mental illness: the Young SMILES feasibility RCT.

Kathryn M Abel, Penny Bee, Lina Gega, Judith Gellatly, Adekeye Kolade, Diane Hunter, Craig Callender, Lesley-Anne Carter, Rachel Meacock, Peter Bower and 10 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

20 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Kathryn M AbelCentre for Women's Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3538-8896
Penny BeeDivision of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5600-0400
Lina GegaDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2902-9256
Judith GellatlyCentre for Women's Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5134-5581
Adekeye KoladeCentre for Women's Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1352-7680
Diane HunterNational Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0135-0884
Craig CallenderNorthumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, St Nicholas Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8073-6274
Lesley-Anne CarterCentre for Biostatistics, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1193-8681
Rachel MeacockManchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8933-5058
Peter BowerNational Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9558-3349
Nicky StanleySchool of Social Work, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7644-1625
Rachel CalamFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4385-1687
Miranda WolpertEvidence Based Practice Unit, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7463-4976
Paul StewartNational Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3058-8787
Richard EmsleyDepartment for Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1218-675X
Kim HoltDepartment of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, University of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3407-8300
Holly LinklaterDepartment of Education and Inclusive Pedagogy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7927-5506
Simon DouglasNorthumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, St Nicholas Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1336-0131
Bryony Stokes-CrossleyNorthumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, St Nicholas Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7265-6223
Jonathan GreenDivision of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0143-181X
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBCumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBNational Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children · GBAnna Freud Centre · GBGreater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing's College London · GBNorthumbria University · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Lancashire · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

Department of Health 09/117/02Department of Health 14/29/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality of life for children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness can be impaired, but evidence-based interventions to improve it are scarce.

objectiveCo-production of a child-centred intervention [called Young Simplifying Mental Illness plus Life Enhancement Skills (SMILES)] to improve the health-related quality of life of children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness, and evaluating its acceptability and feasibility for delivery in NHS and community settings.

designQualitative and co-production methods informed the development of the intervention (Phase I). A feasibility randomised controlled trial was designed to compare Young SMILES with treatment as usual (Phase II). Semistructured qualitative interviews were used to explore acceptability among children and adolescents living with their parents, who had serious mental illness, and their parents. A mixture of semistructured qualitative interviews and focus group research was used to examine feasibility among Young SMILES facilitators and referrers/non-referrers.

settingRandomisation was conducted after baseline measures were collected by the study co-ordinator, ensuring that the blinding of the statistician and research team was maintained to reduce detection bias.

participantsPhase I: 14 children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness, seven parents and 31 practitioners from social, educational and health-related sectors. Phase II: 40 children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness, 33 parents, five referrers/non-referrers and 16 Young SMILES facilitators.

interventionYoung SMILES was delivered at two sites: (1) Warrington, supported by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), and (2) Newcastle, supported by the NHS and Barnardo's. An eight-session weekly group programme was delivered, with four to six children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness per age-appropriate group (6-11 and 12-16 years). At week 4, a five-session parallel weekly programme was offered to the parents/carers. Sessions lasted 2 hours each and focused on improving mental health literacy, child-parent communication and children's problem-solving skills.

main outcome measuresPhase ll children and parents completed questionnaires at randomisation and then again at 4 and 6 months post randomisation. Quality of life was self-reported by children and proxy-reported by parents using the Paediatric Quality of Life questionnaire and KIDSCREEN. Semistructured interviews with parents (

resultsA total of 35 families were recruited: 20 were randomly allocated to Young SMILES group and 15 to treatment as usual. Of those, 28 families [15/20 (75%) in the intervention group and 13/15 (87%) in the control group] gave follow-up data at the primary end point (4 months post baseline). Participating children had high adherence to the intervention and high completion rates of the questionnaires. Children and adolescents living with their parents, who had serious mental illness, and their parents were mainly very positive and enthusiastic about Young SMILES, both of whom invoked the benefits of peer support and insight into parental difficulties. Although facilitators regarded Young SMILES as a meaningful and distinctive intervention having great potential, referrers identified several barriers to referring families to the study. One harm was reported by a parent, which was dealt with by the research team and the NSPCC in accordance with the standard operating procedures. LIMITATIONS: The findings from our feasibility study are not sufficient to recommend a fully powered trial of Young SMILES in the near future. Although it was feasible to randomise children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness of different ages to standardised, time-limited groups in both NHS and non-NHS settings, an intervention like Young SMILES is unlikely to address underlying core components of the vulnerability that children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness express as a population over time.

conclusionsYoung SMILES was widely valued as unique in filling a recognised gap in need. Outcome measures in future studies of interventions for children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness are more likely to capture change in individual risk factors for reduced quality of life by considering their unmet need, rather than on an aggregate construct of health-related quality of life overall, which may not reflect these young people's needs. FUTURE WORK: A public health approach to intervention might be best. Most children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness remain well most of the time, so, although their absolute risks are low across outcomes (and most will remain resilient most of the time), consistent population estimates find their relative risk to be high compared with unexposed children. A public health approach to intervention needs to be both tailored to the particular needs of children and adolescents living with serious parental mental illness and agile to these needs so that it can respond to fluctuations over time.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN36865046.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAdolescentChildCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth EducationHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMental DisordersParent-Child RelationsParentsCHILDRENFEASIBILITYHEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFEINTERVENTIONPARENTAL MENTAL ILLNESSQUALITATIVERCTYOUNG PEOPLE

Identifiers

PMID33196410
PMCPMC7701992
OpenAlexW3103971873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.