Improving Satisfaction, Engagement and Outcomes Among Traditionally Underserved Children Through Cultural Formulation

April 5, 2023 updated by: Florida International University

Improving Satisfaction, Engagement and Clinical Outcomes Among Traditionally Underserved Children Through Cultural Formulation

The project at the center of this proposal will leverage a pilot randomized design to examine initial feasibility and preliminary effects of augmenting usual mental health evaluation procedures with a structured person-centered assessment tool that specifically considers the cultural context of patient mental health problems (i.e., the Cultural Formulation Interview; CFI) on parent satisfaction, engagement and clinical child outcomes in the treatment of early child behavior problems. Additional analyses will explore whether traditional barriers (e.g., stigma, ethnic identity, and daily stress) moderate the effects of the CFI on satisfaction, engagement and treatment outcomes.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

This project is leveraging a pilot randomized design to evaluate initial feasibility and preliminarily examine whether augmenting assessment procedures for child behavior problems with the CFI improves satisfaction with assessment procedures and treatment, parent engagement in subsequent behavior parent training, and ultimately clinical child outcomes. Exploratory analyses will further consider whether traditional barriers to care moderate outcomes. The study is being conducted within a large South Florida mental health network serving predominately low-income minority families obtaining parent training for early child behavior problems. Participating families will be randomized at baseline to receive either the standard diagnostic and clinical assessment (CA) or CA+CFI.

Specifically, the investigators are interested in assessing study feasibility. Feasibility of recruitment and randomization, study retention, and condition integrity will be monitored. Additionally, clinician reports of CFI feasibility, acceptability and clinical utility will be examined. An additional main outcome will be initial satisfaction directly after the interview. It is hypothesized that families in the CA+CFI group will report higher levels of initial satisfaction than the CA group. A secondary goal is to assess preliminary effects of administering the CFI on treatment satisfaction, engagement and clinical child outcomes. Parents and therapists will report on their satisfaction with treatment. Engagement outcomes will be measured via: (a) initial session attendance, (b) drop out rate (c) session attendance rate, (d) homework completion rate, and (e) therapeutic alliance. Clinical outcomes will be measured via parent ratings of child behavior problems and parent time to skill mastery. It is hypothesized that CA+CFI families will demonstrate improved satisfaction, engagement and clinical outcomes relative to CA families. Further exploratory analyses will examine individual differences in effects related to traditional barriers to care. Exploratory analyses will examine stigma, ethnic identity, and daily stress as moderators of the effects of CFI administration on satisfaction, engagement and clinical outcomes. It is hypothesized that CFI effects will be particularly strong for families who experience greater traditional barriers to care.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
89

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Florida
      • Miami, Florida, United States, 33137
        • University of Miami Mailman Center

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

2 years to 7 years (Child)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Child with elevated behavior problems
  • Child is between ages 2-7 years (inclusive)
  • Family seeking services at one of the University of Miami PCIT-Community Connect Centers

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Parent is actively abusing illegal substances
  • Child is younger than 2 years of age
  • Child is older than 7 years of age

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Double

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: Clinical Assessment and CFI
CA and CFI families will receive the Cultural Formulation Interview prior to their standard Clinical Assessment during their intake.
Behavioral: Clinical Assessment and CFI
CA and CFI families will participate in the Cultural Formulation Interview prior to their standard intake.
Active Comparator: Clinical Assessment Only
CA families will receive a standard Clinical Assessment during intake.
Behavioral: Clinical Assessment
CA families will participate their standard intake procedures.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
CFI Clinician Questionnaire
Time Frame: Post Intake Assessment (Week 0)

The CFI Clinician Questionnaire is a 4-item measure developed designed to assess clinical utility of the CFI. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert style scale ranging from 1='not at all' to 5='very much'. Each item has a minimum score of 1 and a max of 5. Items include the extent to which conducting the CFI influences content and quality of information obtained in the intake, realtionship with the caregiver, treatment planning, and differential diagnosis. Higher scores indicate higher levels of clinical utility of the CFI. The measure was given only to the CA + CFI condition.

This analysis was utilized to assess for initial utility of the CFI and was mistakenly entered into the system as a primary outcome variable. This measure is not used to determine the effect of an experimental variable on participants in the study. Statistical analyses for this measure were descriptive and only examined for the experimental group.
Post Intake Assessment (Week 0)
Satisfaction With Intake Questionnaire
Time Frame: Post Intake Assessment (Week 0)

The Satisfaction with Intake Questionnaire is a 7-item measure developed for use in the current study to assess parent and clinician satisfaction with their intake assessment. This measure assesses how well the patient/clinician felt the clinician understood the family's problems, cultural background, how their culture may influence their problem, and how much the parent trusts the clinician. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert style scale ranging from 1='not at all' to 5='very much', with higher scores representing higher satisfaction. Each item has a minimum of 1 and maximum of 5. Items were not summed.

Two items were analyzed separately for the main outcomes: linear regressions tested condition effects on caregiver and provider satisfaction, and the extent to which the provider understood the caregivers' values or what is important to them.
Post Intake Assessment (Week 0)
CFI Fidelity Instrument
Time Frame: Post Intake Assessment (Week 0)

The CFI Fidelity Instrument assesses fidelity to the CFI (i.e. adherence and competence) in the CA+CFI group and potential cross-condition contamination in CA condition. Independent evaluators masked to condition, study design, and study hypotheses coded recordings of all assessments.

This analysis was utilized to assess for feasibility of the pilot study and was mistakenly entered into the system as a primary outcome variable. This measure is not used to determine the effect of an experimental variable on participants in the study. Statistical analyses for this measure were only descriptive.
Post Intake Assessment (Week 0)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Working Alliance Inventory-Short Form Revised
Time Frame: Post Treatment (Anticipated average: Week 14)
The WAI-Short Form Revised (WAI-SR; Hatcher & Gillaspy, 2006) is a 12-item clinician- and patient-report measure of therapeutic alliance that assesses (a) agreement on the tasks of therapy, (b) agreement on the goals of therapy and (c) development of an affective bond. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert style scale ranging from 1='never' to 5='always'. Scores on each sub scale are summed to create a total score. Total scores range from 12-60 with higher scores representing higher therapeutic alliance.
Post Treatment (Anticipated average: Week 14)
Treatment Response
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (Week 0) through post treatment (anticipated average: Week 14)

Treatment response reflected traditional PCIT graduation criteria: caregiver skill acquisition as coded against specific criteria in both phases of treatment; and (b) child behavior problems dropped into the subclinical range.

Families were classified as Treatment Responders in accordance with formal PCIT graduation criteria, that is: (a) caregivers demonstrated skill acquisition, as coded against specific criteria in both phases of treatment; and (b) child behavior problems dropped into the subclinical range - i.e., Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) falls below 114).

Participants were coded as either treatment responders=1, or treatment non-responders=0.
Change from Baseline (Week 0) through post treatment (anticipated average: Week 14)
Engagement
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (Week 0) through post treatment
Engagement will be measured for each family via: (a) dichotomous coding of initial session attendance (yes=1, no=0), (b) dichotomous coding of whether they completed the first treatment module (yes=1, no=0), (c) attendance rate (number of sessions attended over number of weeks in treatment), and (d) mean weekly homework completion across treatment (Homework Compliance)
Change from Baseline (Week 0) through post treatment
Therapy Attitudes Inventory
Time Frame: Post Treatment (anticipated average: Week 14)
The Therapy Attitudes Inventory (TAI; Brestan et al., 2000) is a 10-item parent-report of satisfaction with treatment including change in child behavior problems and parenting skills on a likert style scale from 1="nothing"-5="very many useful techniques". Items are summed to create a total score. Minimum value is 10 and maximum value is 50. Higher scores represent higher satisfaction with treatment.
Post Treatment (anticipated average: Week 14)
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (Week 0) through post treatment (anticipated average: Week 14)

The Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI; Eyberg & Pincus, 1999) is a 36-item parent-report measure of disruptive behavior problems in children as young as 2 years that has shown strong psychometrics. The intensity score is summed to form a total score and ranges from 36 to 252 with higher numbers representing more severe behavior problems.

The difference in ECBI score between baseline and treatment completion was measured.
Change from Baseline (Week 0) through post treatment (anticipated average: Week 14)
Everyday Stressors Index
Time Frame: Post Intake Assessment (Week 0)

The Everyday Stressors Index (ESI Hall, 1983) is a 20-item measure that assesses daily stressors experienced by economically disadvantaged parents with young children. Items are rated on a Likert-style scale ranging from 1='not at bothered' to 4='bothered a great deal' with higher scores indicating higher levels of stress. The minimum value=20, and maximum value=80

This is a single time point assessment and is therefore not an outcome variable. There was an error when registering in clinical trials.
Post Intake Assessment (Week 0)
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure- Revised
Time Frame: Post Intake Assessment (Week 0)

The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure- Revised (MEIM-R; Phinney & Ong, 2007) is a 6-item measure that assesses exploration of and commitment to one's ethnic group. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-style scale from 1='strongly disagree' to 6='strongly agree', with higher scores indicating stronger ethnic identity.

This is a single time point assessment and is therefore not an outcome variable. There was an error when registering in clinical trials.
Post Intake Assessment (Week 0)
Parental Attitudes Toward Psychological Services Inventory
Time Frame: Post Intake Assessment (Week 0)

Two subscales of the Parental Attitudes Toward Psychological Services Inventory (PATPSI; Turner, 2012) will be administered: help seeking attitudes scale (8 items) and the stigmatization scale (8 items) comprising 16 items total. The PATPSI assesses caregivers' attitudes toward outpatient mental health services. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-style scale from 0='strongly disagree' to 5='strongly agree'.

Item responses are summed to form a stigma total scale (minimum value=0 and maximum value=40) and a help seeking total scale (minimum value=0 and maximum value=40) with higher scores representing more mental health related stigma and more positive attitudes toward mental health services.

This is a single time point assessment and is therefore not an outcome variable. There was an error when registering in clinical trials.
Post Intake Assessment (Week 0)
Everyday Discrimination Scale
Time Frame: Post Intake Assessment (Week 0)

The Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS; Williams et al., 1997) is a 9-item measure that assesses aspects of interpersonal discrimination or unfair treatment in their day-to-day life. Items are rated on a Likert-style scale ranging from 0='never' to 5='almost every day', with higher scores indicating more experiences of discrimination. The minimum score is 0 and maximum score is 45. Scores were averaged to create a mean discrimination score which could range from 0 to 5.

This is a single time point assessment and is therefore not an outcome variable. There was an error when registering in clinical trials.
Post Intake Assessment (Week 0)

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Florida International University

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
University of Miami

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
August 1, 2017

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
October 20, 2018

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
May 30, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
April 9, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
April 9, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
April 17, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
April 7, 2023

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
April 5, 2023

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
April 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • 106618
  • R36MH116677-01 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

IPD Plan Description

We will use a controlled access approach, using a robust system to review requests and provide secure access to de-identified data

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Disruptive Behavior

Clinical Trials on Clinical Assessment and CFI

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings