Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Study protocol

Understanding the implementation and effectiveness of a group-based early parenting intervention: a process evaluation protocol

Authors: Grainne Hickey, Sinead McGilloway, Mairead Furlong, Yvonne Leckey, Tracey Bywater, Michael Donnelly

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Group-based early parenting interventions delivered through community-based services may be a potentially effective means of promoting infant and family health and wellbeing. Process evaluations of these complex interventions provide vital information on how they work, as well as the conditions which shape and influence outcomes. This information is critical to decision makers and service providers who wish to embed prevention and early interventions in usual care settings. In this paper, a process evaluation protocol for an early years parenting intervention, the Parent and Infant (PIN) program, is described. This program combines a range of developmentally-appropriate supports, delivered in a single intervention process, for parents and infants (0–2 years) and aimed at enhancing parental competence, strengthening parent-infant relationships and improving infant wellbeing and adjustment.

Methods

The process evaluation is embedded within a controlled trial and accompanying cost-effectiveness evaluation. Building from extant frameworks and evaluation methods, this paper presents a systematic approach to the process evaluation of the PIN program and its underlying change principles, the implementation of the program, the context of implementation and the change mechanisms which influence and shape parent and infant outcomes. We will use a multi-method strategy, including semi-structured interviews and group discussions with key stakeholders, documentary analysis and survey methodology.

Discussion

The integration of innovations into existing early years systems and services is a challenging multifaceted undertaking. This process evaluation will make an important contribution to knowledge about the implementation of such programs, while also providing an example of how theory-based research can be embedded within the evaluation of community-based interventions. We discuss the strengths of the research, such as the adoption of a collaborative approach to data collection, while we also identify potential challenges, including capturing and assessing complex aspects of the intervention.

Trial registration

ISRCTN17488830 (Date of registration: 27/11/15). This trial was retrospectively registered.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
The Parent and Infant Program is known as the ‘Up to 2’ Program in West Dublin and the ‘Parent and Baby’ Program in Drogheda/Dundalk.
 
2
Three cycles per year in West Dublin and 2 cycles per year in Drogheda/Dundalk.
 
Literature
1.
Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH, Juffer F. Less is more: meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychol Bull. 2003;129:195–215.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Van Zeijl J, Mesman J, Van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Juffer F, Stolk MN, Koot HM, Alink LRA. Attachment-based intervention for enhancing sensitive discipline in mothers of 1- to 3-year-old children at risk for externalizing behavior problems: a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006;74:994–1005.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Van IJzendoorn MH, Juffer F, Duyvesteyn MGC. Breaking the intergenerational cycle of insecure attachment: a review of the effects of attachment-based interventions on maternal sensitivity and infant security. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1995;36:225–48.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Campbell F, Ramey C. Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academic achievement: a follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child Dev. 1994;65:684–98.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Landry SH, Smith KE, Swank PR, Guttentag C. A responsive parenting intervention: the optimal timing across early childhood for impacting maternal behaviors and child outcomes. Dev Psychol. 2008;44:1335–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Love JM, Kisker EE, Ross C, Raikes H, Constantine J, Boller K, Brooks-Gunn J, Chazan-Cohen R, Banks Tarullo L, Brady-Smith C, Fuligni A, Dchochet PZ, Paulsell D, Vogel C. The effectiveness of early head start for 3-year-old children and their parents: lessons for policy and programs. Dev Psychol. 2005;41:885–901.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Olds DL, Kitzman H, Cole R, Robinson J, Sidora K, Luckey DW, Henderson Jr CR, Hanks C, Bondy J, Holmberg J. Effects of nurse home-visiting on maternal life course and child development: age 6 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatr. 2004;114:1550.CrossRef
8.
Barlow J, Smailagic N, Ferriter M, Bennett C, Jones H. Group-based parent-training programs for improving emotional and behavioral adjustment in children from birth to three years old. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010. Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003680. doi:10.​1002/​14651858.​CD003680.​pub2
9.
Niccols A. ‘Right from the Start’: randomized trial comparing an attachment group intervention to supportive home visiting. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;49:754–64.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Webster-Stratton C, Taylor T. Nipping early risk factors in the bud: preventing substance abuse, delinquency, and violence in adolescence through interventions targeted at young children (0–8 years). Prev Sci. 2001;2:165–92.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Elizabeth A, Stephenson J, et al. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. Brit Med J. 2006;332:413–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Munro A, Bloor M. Process evaluation: the new miracle ingredient in public health research? Qual Res. 2010;10:699–713.CrossRef
13.
Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;4:327–50.CrossRef
14.
Metz A. Implementation science: defining the new frontier. In: Halle T, Metz A, Martinez-Beck I, editors. Applying implementation science in early childhood programs and systems. Baltimore: Paul Brooks; 2013. p. 1–5.
15.
16.
Fixsen D, Blase K, Metz A, Van Dyke M. Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Except Children. 2013;79:213–30.CrossRef
17.
Hearman M, Chalmers K, Woodgate R, Brown J. Early childhood home visiting program: factors contributing to success. J Adv Nurs. 2006;55:291–300.CrossRef
18.
Stolk MN, Mesman J, van Zeijl J, Lenneke RAA, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH, Juffer F, Koot HM. Early parenting intervention aimed at maternal sensitivity and discipline: a process evaluation. J Community Psychol. 2008;36:780–97.CrossRef
19.
Erickson MF, Egeland B. Linking theory and research to practice: the Minnesota longitudinal study of parents and children and the STEEP program. Clin Psychol. 2004;8:5–9.CrossRef
20.
Baydar N, Reid JM, Webster-Stratton C. The role of mental health factors and program engagement in the effectiveness of a preventive parenting program for Head Start mothers. Child Dev. 2003;74:1433–53.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Reid JM, Webster-Stratton CS, Baydar N. Halting the development of conduct problems in Head Start children: the effects of parent training. J Clin Child Adolesc. 2004;33:279–91.CrossRef
22.
Furlong M, McGilloway S. The Incredible Years Parenting Program in Ireland: a qualitative analysis of the experience of parents living in disadvantaged areas. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2012;17:616–30.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Gardner F, Burton J, Klimes I. Randomised controlled trial of a parenting intervention in the voluntary sector for reducing child conduct problems: outcomes and mechanisms of change. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2006;47:23–32.CrossRef
24.
Gardner F, Hutchings J, Bywater T, Whitaker C. Who benefits and how does it work? Moderators and mediators of outcomes in an effectiveness trial of a parenting intervention. J Clin Child Adolesc. 2010;39:568–80.CrossRef
25.
Levac A, McCay E, Merka P, Reddon-D’Arcy M. Exploring parent participation in a parent training program for children’s aggression: understanding and illuminating mechanisms of change. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs. 2008;21:78–88.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Hickey G, McGilloway S, Leavy S, Leckey Y, Furlong M, O’Connor S. ENRICHing children’s lives in the earliest years through the implementation and evaluation of new wraparound services for parents and infants in disadvantaged areas. Children’s Research Digest. 2015;2:54–60.
28.
Bruns EJ, Walker JS. Research on the wraparound process: intervention components and implementation supports. J Child Fam Stud. 2011;20:709–12.CrossRef
29.
Webster-Stratton C, Reid MJ. The Incredible Years Parents, Teachers and Children training series: a multifaceted treatment approach for young children with conduct problems. In: Weisz J, Kazdin A, editors. Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Publications; 2008. p. 194–210.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Johnston C, Mash EJ. A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy. J Clin Child Psychol. 1989;18:167–75.CrossRef
35.
Bledsoe KL, Graham JA. The use of multiple evaluation approaches in program evaluation. Am J Eval. 2005;26:302–19.CrossRef
36.
Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonnell C, Cooper C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O’Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight, Baird J. Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies: the need for guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;0:1–2
37.
Coryn CLS, Noakes LA, Westine CD, Schröter DC. A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. Am J Eval. 2011;32:199–226.CrossRef
38.
Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic evaluation. London: Sage; 1997.
39.
Baranowski T, Stables G. Process evaluations of the 5-a-day projects. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27:157–66.CrossRefPubMed
40.
41.
Funnell SC, Rogers PJ. Purposeful program theory: effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Fran: Jossey-Bass; 2011.
42.
Jolley G. Evaluating complex community-based health promotion: addressing the challenges. Eval Prog Plann. 2004;45:71–81.CrossRef
43.
Leeuw FL. Reconstructing program theories: methods available and problems to be solved. Am J Eval. 2003;24:5–20.CrossRef
44.
Squires JE, Graham ID, Hutchinson AM, Michie SM, Francis JM, Sales A, Brehaut J, Curran J, Ivers N, Lavis J, Linklater S, Fenton S, Noseworthy T, Vine J, Grimshaw JM. Identifying the domains of context important to implementation science: a study protocol. Implement Sci. 2015;10:135. doi:10.​1186/​s13012-015-0325-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Blamey A, Mackenzie M. Theories of change and realistic evaluation: peas in a pod or apples and oranges? Eval. 2007;13:439–55.CrossRef
46.
Donaldson SI. Program theory-driven evaluation: strategies and applications. New York: Psychology Press, Taylor and Frances Group; 2007.
47.
Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological models of human development. In: Husen T, Postlethwaite TN, editors. International Encyclopedia of Education. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier; 1994. p. 1643–7.
48.
Trudge JR, Mokrova I, Hatfield BE, Karnik RB. Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. J Fam Theory Rev. 2009;1:198–210.CrossRef
49.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.CrossRef
50.
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health C. 2007;19:349–57.CrossRef
51.
Yardley L. Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychol Health. 2000;15:215–28.CrossRef
52.
Silverman D. Doing qualitative research. 4th ed. London: Sage; 2013.
53.
Meyers DC, Durlak JA, Wandersman A. The quality implementation framework: a synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. Am J Commun Psychol. 2012;50:462–80.CrossRef
54.
55.
Berlin LJ, Brooks-Gunn J, Aber JL. Promoting early childhood development through comprehensive community initiatives. Child Serv. 2001;4:1–24.CrossRef
56.
Nicholson JM, Berthelsen D, Williams KE, Abad V. National study of an early parenting intervention: implementation differences on parent and child outcomes: parenting program implementation. Prev Sci. 2010;11:360–70.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Kling A, Forster M, Sundel K, Melin L. A randomized controlled effectiveness trial of parent management training with varying degrees of therapist support. Behav Ther. 2010;41:530–42.CrossRefPubMed
58.
McGilloway S, Ni Mhaille G, Bywater T, Furlong M, Leckey Y, Kelly P, Comiskey C, Donnelly M. A parenting intervention for childhood behavioral problems: a randomized controlled trial in disadvantaged community-based settings. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2012;80:116–27.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Ling T. Evaluating complex and unfolding interventions in real time. Eval. 2012;18:79–91.CrossRef
60.
Rogers PJ. Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Eval. 2008;14:29–48.CrossRef
61.
Horwitz SM, Chamberlain P, Landsverk J, Mullican C. Improving the mental health of children in child welfare through the implementation of evidence-based parenting interventions. Adm Policy Ment Hlth. 2010;37:27–39.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Understanding the implementation and effectiveness of a group-based early parenting intervention: a process evaluation protocol
Authors
Grainne Hickey
Sinead McGilloway
Mairead Furlong
Yvonne Leckey
Tracey Bywater
Michael Donnelly
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1737-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Health Services Research 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

Shifting tides in the emigration patterns of Canadian physicians to the United States: a cross-sectional secondary data analysis

Research article

A survey of health care needs of physicians

Research article

Post-acute pathways among hip fracture patients: a system-level analysis

Research article

An exploration of clinical practice in sites with and without clinical nurse or midwife specialists or advanced nurse practitioners, in Ireland

Research article

Patterns of community follow-up, subsequent health service use and survival among young and mid-life adults discharged from chronic care hospitals: a retrospective cohort study

Research article

Use of safety-engineered devices by healthcare workers for intravenous and/or phlebotomy procedures in healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis