Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36722615›Full record

SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2023

Routinely used interventions to improve attachment in infants and young children: a national survey and two systematic reviews.

Barry Wright, Pasco Fearon, Megan Garside, Eleni Tsappis, Elaine Amoah, Danya Glaser, Victoria Allgar, Helen Minnis, Matthew Woolgar, Rachel Churchill and 4 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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

14 authors.

Barry WrightHull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8692-6001
Pasco FearonResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1847-8443
Megan GarsideLeeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5250-2326
Eleni TsappisLeeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2432-5881
Elaine AmoahResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3497-2695
Danya GlaserResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8786-1377
Victoria AllgarPeninsula Medical School, Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5228-2623
Helen MinnisInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2377-8945
Matthew WoolgarKing's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3618-0395
Rachel ChurchillCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1751-0512
Dean McMillanHealth Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2901-8410
Peter FonagyResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0229-0091
Alison O'SullivanNational Children's Bureau, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9464-6755
Michelle McHaleAttachment Parenting UK, Totnes, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5294-1094

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAttachment refers to an infant's innate tendency to seek comfort from their caregiver. Research shows that attachment is important in promoting healthy social and emotional development. Many parenting interventions have been developed to improve attachment outcomes for children. However, numerous interventions used in routine practice have a limited evidence base, meaning that we cannot be sure if they are helpful or harmful.

objectivesThis research aimed to conduct a large-scale survey to identify what interventions are being used in UK services to improve child attachment; conduct a systematic review to evaluate the evidence for parenting attachment interventions; and develop recommendations for future research and practice. DESIGN AND

methodsWe worked closely with our Expert Reference Group to plan a large-scale survey focused on relevant UK services. We then conducted two systematic reviews. One searched for all randomised controlled trial evidence for any attachment parenting intervention. The second searched for all research for the top 10 routinely used interventions identified from the survey.

resultsThe survey collected 625 responses covering 734 UK services. The results identified the 10 most commonly used interventions. The responses showed a limited use of validated measures and a wide variety of definitions of attachment. For the first review, seven studies were included from 2516 identified records. These were combined with results from previous reviews conducted by the team. Meta-analyses showed that, overall, parenting interventions are effective in reducing disorganised attachment (pooled odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.77) and increasing secure attachment (pooled odds ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.36 to 2.52). The second review searched the literature for the top 10 routinely used interventions identified by the survey; 61 studies were included from 1198 identified records. The results showed that many of the most commonly used interventions in UK services have a weak evidence base and those with the strongest evidence base are not as widely used.

conclusionsThere is a need for better links between research and practice to ensure that interventions offered to families are safe and effective. Possible reasons for the disparity include the cost and accessibility of training. There is also a need for improved understanding by professionals regarding the meaning of attachment. LIMITATIONS: Although the survey had good geographical spread, most respondents were based in England. For review 2 we were unable to access a large number of papers; however, we conducted extensive reference checking to account for this. FUTURE WORK: There is a need for robust research to test the efficacy of routinely used attachment interventions. Research could also explore why routinely used interventions are not consistently subject to thorough evaluation; how to embed dissemination, cost-effectiveness, fidelity and sustainability into research; and how to keep clinical practice up to date with research developments. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019137362.

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

Indexed as

Health StatusParentingChild, PreschoolEnglandHumansInfantRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurveys and QuestionnairesATTACHMENTCAREGIVERSCHILDINFANTMENTAL HEALTHMETA-ANALYSESPARENTINGSURVEYSYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Identifiers

PMID36722615
PMCPMC9900465

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.