针对 1 型糖尿病患儿家庭的 "健康生活三P-积极育儿计划 "随机对照试验。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 NURSING Journal of Child Health Care Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-11 DOI:10.1177/13674935221116694
Amy E Mitchell, Alina Morawska, Aditi Lohan, Ania Filus, Jennifer Batch
{"title":"针对 1 型糖尿病患儿家庭的 \"健康生活三P-积极育儿计划 \"随机对照试验。","authors":"Amy E Mitchell, Alina Morawska, Aditi Lohan, Ania Filus, Jennifer Batch","doi":"10.1177/13674935221116694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This randomised controlled trial examined the efficacy of a brief, group-based parenting program in improving child and family outcomes for families of children with type 1 diabetes. Families (<i>N</i> = 50) of children (2-10 years) with type 1 diabetes were randomly allocated to intervention (<i>n</i> = 22) or care-as-usual (<i>n</i> = 28). Assessments (pre-intervention, post-intervention and 6-month follow-up) evaluated parent- and child-reported parenting behaviour, child behaviour/adjustment and child quality of life (primary outcomes); and metabolic control (routinely-collected blood glucose data), parents' self-efficacy with diabetes management, diabetes-specific child behaviour difficulties, family quality of life, parents' diabetes-related and general parenting stress and observed parent and child behaviour (secondary outcomes). Intent-to-treat analyses indicated greater rate of improvement over time for families allocated to intervention compared to care-as-usual for use of corporal punishment (primary caregivers only), and confidence with managing children's emotions/behaviours, parent-rated child quality of life and adjustment to the child's illness (secondary caregivers only). There were no other intervention effects. Although families found the intervention useful, low levels of psychosocial problems at baseline limited the scope for group-level improvement and there was limited evidence for intervention efficacy. Individually-tailored measures of goal-specific behaviour change may be considered in future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":54388,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Randomised controlled trial of the Healthy Living Triple P-Positive Parenting Program for families of children with type 1 diabetes.\",\"authors\":\"Amy E Mitchell, Alina Morawska, Aditi Lohan, Ania Filus, Jennifer Batch\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13674935221116694\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This randomised controlled trial examined the efficacy of a brief, group-based parenting program in improving child and family outcomes for families of children with type 1 diabetes. Families (<i>N</i> = 50) of children (2-10 years) with type 1 diabetes were randomly allocated to intervention (<i>n</i> = 22) or care-as-usual (<i>n</i> = 28). Assessments (pre-intervention, post-intervention and 6-month follow-up) evaluated parent- and child-reported parenting behaviour, child behaviour/adjustment and child quality of life (primary outcomes); and metabolic control (routinely-collected blood glucose data), parents' self-efficacy with diabetes management, diabetes-specific child behaviour difficulties, family quality of life, parents' diabetes-related and general parenting stress and observed parent and child behaviour (secondary outcomes). Intent-to-treat analyses indicated greater rate of improvement over time for families allocated to intervention compared to care-as-usual for use of corporal punishment (primary caregivers only), and confidence with managing children's emotions/behaviours, parent-rated child quality of life and adjustment to the child's illness (secondary caregivers only). There were no other intervention effects. Although families found the intervention useful, low levels of psychosocial problems at baseline limited the scope for group-level improvement and there was limited evidence for intervention efficacy. Individually-tailored measures of goal-specific behaviour change may be considered in future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Child Health Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Child Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13674935221116694\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/8/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Child Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13674935221116694","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项随机对照试验研究了以小组为基础的简短育儿计划在改善 1 型糖尿病患儿家庭的儿童和家庭成果方面的效果。1 型糖尿病患儿(2-10 岁)家庭(50 个)被随机分配到干预项目(22 个)或照常护理项目(28 个)。评估(干预前、干预后和 6 个月的随访)的内容包括:家长和儿童报告的养育行为、儿童行为/适应情况和儿童生活质量(主要结果);代谢控制(常规收集的血糖数据)、家长对糖尿病管理的自我效能感、糖尿病特定儿童行为困难、家庭生活质量、家长与糖尿病相关的压力和一般养育压力以及观察到的家长和儿童行为(次要结果)。意向治疗分析表明,与照常护理相比,接受干预的家庭在体罚使用(仅主要护理者)、管理儿童情绪/行为的信心、家长评价的儿童生活质量和对儿童疾病的适应(仅次要护理者)方面的改善率更高。没有其他干预效果。尽管家庭认为干预很有用,但基线时社会心理问题的低水平限制了群体层面的改善范围,干预效果的证据也很有限。在未来的研究中,可能会考虑对特定目标的行为变化进行个体定制的测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Randomised controlled trial of the Healthy Living Triple P-Positive Parenting Program for families of children with type 1 diabetes.

This randomised controlled trial examined the efficacy of a brief, group-based parenting program in improving child and family outcomes for families of children with type 1 diabetes. Families (N = 50) of children (2-10 years) with type 1 diabetes were randomly allocated to intervention (n = 22) or care-as-usual (n = 28). Assessments (pre-intervention, post-intervention and 6-month follow-up) evaluated parent- and child-reported parenting behaviour, child behaviour/adjustment and child quality of life (primary outcomes); and metabolic control (routinely-collected blood glucose data), parents' self-efficacy with diabetes management, diabetes-specific child behaviour difficulties, family quality of life, parents' diabetes-related and general parenting stress and observed parent and child behaviour (secondary outcomes). Intent-to-treat analyses indicated greater rate of improvement over time for families allocated to intervention compared to care-as-usual for use of corporal punishment (primary caregivers only), and confidence with managing children's emotions/behaviours, parent-rated child quality of life and adjustment to the child's illness (secondary caregivers only). There were no other intervention effects. Although families found the intervention useful, low levels of psychosocial problems at baseline limited the scope for group-level improvement and there was limited evidence for intervention efficacy. Individually-tailored measures of goal-specific behaviour change may be considered in future research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Child Health Care
Journal of Child Health Care NURSING-PEDIATRICS
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
15.80%
发文量
60
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Child Health Care is a broad ranging, international, professionally-oriented, interdisciplinary and peer reviewed journal. It focuses on issues related to the health and health care of neonates, children, young people and their families, including areas such as illness, disability, complex needs, well-being, quality of life and mental health care in a diverse range of settings. The Journal of Child Health Care publishes original theoretical, empirical and review papers which have application to a wide variety of disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Why are we still doing sucrose trials for newborns? Experiences of siblings and parents of children with congenital heart disease and exploration of siblings' support needs. Mothers' experience seeking healthcare advice for their unsettled infants in Victoria, Australia. Factors that support children and young people to express their views and to have them heard in healthcare: An inductive qualitative content analysis. Goals of Morbidity and Mortality meetings in paediatric acute care. A qualitative case study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1