Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34018919›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2021

A video-feedback parenting intervention to prevent enduring behaviour problems in at-risk children aged 12-36 months: the Healthy Start, Happy Start RCT.

Christine O'Farrelly, Beth Barker, Hilary Watt, Daphne Babalis, Marian Bakermans-Kranenburg, Sarah Byford, Poushali Ganguli, Ellen Grimås, Jane Iles, Holly Mattock and 10 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 9 institutions in 2 countries.

Christine O'FarrellyDivision of Psychiatry, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9269-6564
Beth BarkerDivision of Psychiatry, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7811-3417
Hilary WattSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9576-3753
Daphne BabalisImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9654-4130
Marian Bakermans-KranenburgClinical Child and Family Studies, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7763-0711
Sarah ByfordInstitute of Psychology, Psychiatry, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7084-1495
Poushali GanguliInstitute of Psychology, Psychiatry, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1764-5273
Ellen GrimåsDivision of Psychiatry, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5952-8622
Jane IlesDivision of Psychiatry, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3602-9898
Holly MattockDivision of Psychiatry, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4237-955X
Julia McGinleyNetmums, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4468-7516
Charlotte PhillipsDivision of Psychiatry, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5960-1087
Rachael RyanDivision of Psychiatry, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2648-8142
Stephen ScottInstitute of Psychology, Psychiatry, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4680-6213
Jessica SmithDivision of Psychiatry, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5334-6222
Alan SteinDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8207-2822
Eloise StevensDivision of Psychiatry, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7671-3670
Marinus van IJzendoornDepartment of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1144-454X
Jane WarwickWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7320-6603
Paul RamchandaniDivision of Psychiatry, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3646-2410
Imperial College London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBKing's College London · GBErasmus University Rotterdam · NLNetComposites (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Surrey · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

Department of Health 13/04/33
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBehaviour problems emerge early in childhood and place children at risk for later psychopathology.

objectivesTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a parenting intervention to prevent enduring behaviour problems in young children.

designA pragmatic, assessor-blinded, multisite, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial.

settingHealth visiting services in six NHS trusts in England.

participantsA total of 300 at-risk children aged 12-36 months and their parents/caregivers.

interventionsFamilies were allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio to six sessions of Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline (VIPP-SD) plus usual care or usual care alone.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms, which is a structured interview of behaviour symptoms. Secondary outcomes included caregiver-reported total problems on the Child Behaviour Checklist and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. The intervention effect was estimated using linear regression. Health and social care service use was recorded using the Child and Adolescent Service Use Schedule and cost-effectiveness was explored using the Preschool Parental Account of Children's Symptoms.

resultsIn total, 300 families were randomised: 151 to VIPP-SD plus usual care and 149 to usual care alone. Follow-up data were available for 286 (VIPP-SD, LIMITATIONS: The proportion of participants with graduate-level qualifications was higher than among the general public.

conclusionsVIPP-SD is effective in reducing behaviour problems in young children when delivered by health visiting teams. Most of the effect of VIPP-SD appears to be retained over 24 months. However, we can be less certain about its value for money.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN58327365.

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

Indexed as

Health StatusParentingAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisFeedbackHumansParentsBEHAVIOUR PROBLEMSEARLY INTERVENTIONHEALTH VISITINGPARENTING

Identifiers

PMID34018919
PMCPMC8182442
OpenAlexW3161079375

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.