Family Club Denmark #strongertogether - a volunteer intervention for disadvantaged families: study protocol for a quasi-experimental trial

Maiken Pontoppidan, Mette Thorsager, Arendse Tange Larsen, Mette Friis-Hansen, Maiken Pontoppidan, Mette Thorsager, Arendse Tange Larsen, Mette Friis-Hansen

Abstract

Background: Need-oriented family support programs are examples of voluntary-based interventions increasingly recognized by the public sector as an important contribution to health and social care provision. Voluntary interventions are attractive because of their focus on activism, inclusion, and participation, but also their low cost and easy accessibility. There is an increasing demand for documentation of the effectiveness of family support programs. Methodologically sound studies are, however, limited and findings are generally inconsistent. This trial aims to assess the effectiveness of the volunteer-based intervention Family Club Denmark on parental stress, mental health, development and well-being of parents and children and to get insight into the experiences of both volunteers and families.

Methods: This is a prospective quasi-experimental trial with two conditions: (1) intervention group participating in Family Club Denmark and (2) wait-list control group. Participants are families with children aged 2-12 years who wish to participate in the program. Participants are allocated to intervention primarily after a first-come-first-serve principle, and further families will join the wait-list and be offered participation after around 6 months. Quantitative data are collected through web surveys at three time-points: at baseline, post-intervention (6 months after baseline), and follow-up (12 months after baseline). The primary outcome is mental health. Secondary outcomes include parenting behavior, parenting stress, self-efficacy and self-worth, family routines and child well-being. Qualitative data are collected through observations, focus groups, and interviews.

Discussion: This trial is among the first experimental studies of a group-based third sector need-oriented family support program offered to a wide array of families. The trial will provide important knowledge on the effectiveness of a volunteer-based family intervention on important outcomes such as mental health, self-efficacy, family routines. Furthermore, the trial will provide knowledge on volunteer, parent, and child experiences with participating in the intervention and knowledge on how to conduct experimental trails in a complex volunteer environment.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT03657888 (registered 29.08.2018).

Keywords: Effectiveness; Family; Intervention; Parenting; Support; Third sector; Volunteer.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments
Fig.2
Fig.2
Study flow chart

References

    1. Enjolras B, Strømsnes K. Scandinavian civil society and social transformations : the case of Norway. 2017. pp. 0–233.
    1. Skov Henriksen L, Strømsnes K, Svedberg L. Understanding civic engagement in the Scandinavian context. 2019.
    1. Grubb A. Vi skal bare hjælpe og spise chokoladekiks: En kvalitativ undersøgelse af unge frivilliges deltagelse i en ikkemedlemsbaseret, digitalt koordineret organiseringsform af frivilligt socialt arbejde. Aalborg Universitetsforlag. (Ph.d.-serien for DetSamfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Aalborg Universitet). 2016. 10.5278/vbn.phd.socsci.00037.
    1. Gentry SV, Powers EFJ, Azim N, Maidrag M. Effectiveness of a voluntary family befriending service: a mixed methods evaluation using the Donabedian model. Public Health. 2018;160:87–93.
    1. Dickinson H, Allen K, Alcock P, Macmillan R, Glasby J. The role of the third sector in delivering social care. 2012.
    1. Dodd S, Hill M, Ockenden N, Algorta GP, Payne S, Preston N, et al. ‘Being with’ or ‘doing for’? How the role of an end-of-life volunteer befriender can impact patient wellbeing: interviews from a multiple qualitative case study (ELSA) Support Care Cancer. 2018;26:3163–3172.
    1. Hiatt SW, Jones AA. Volunteer services for vulnerable families and at-risk elderly. Child Abuse Negl. 2000;24:141–148.
    1. Socialstyrelsen . Frivillighed i forandring - ny analyse. 2018.
    1. Socialstyrelsen . Konferencer om frivillighed. 2018.
    1. Sundhedsstyrelsen . Frivillighed i plejesektoren. 2019.
    1. Sundhedsstyrelsen . Pårørende og civilsamfund. 2019.
    1. Hustinx L, Lammertyn F. Collective and reflexive styles of volunteering: a sociological modernization perspective. Volunt Int J Volunt Nonprofit Organ. 2003;14:167–187. doi: 10.1023/A:1023948027200.
    1. Kamali M, Andersen LL. Neoliberalism, Nordic welfare states and social work. 2018. Neoliberal drivers in hybrid civil society organisationsCritical readings of civicness and social entrepreneurism.
    1. Andersen LL. Neoliberal drivers in hybrid civil society organizations: critical readings of civicness and social entrepreneurism. In: Kamali M, Jönsson JH, editors. Neoliberalism, Nordic welfare states and social work: current and future challenges: Routledge; 2018. p. 25–34.
    1. Boje TP. Citizenship, democratic participation, and civil society. Cursiv. 2015;15:27–44.
    1. Wijkström F. Nordic civil society at a cross-roads. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft; 2011. “Charity speak and business talk” the on-going (re) hybridization of civil society; pp. 25–55.
    1. Kamerāde D, Mohan J, Sivesind KH. Third sector impacts on human resources and community. A critical review. 2015. p. 44.
    1. Mccreary LL, Kaponda CPN, Davis K, Kalengamaliro M, Norr KF. Empowering peer group leaders for HIV prevention in Malawi. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2013;45:288–297.
    1. Alam K, Tasneem S, Oliveras E. Performance of female volunteer community health workers in Dhaka urban slums. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:511–515.
    1. Atif N, Lovell K, Husain N, Sikander S, Patel V, Rahman A. Barefoot therapists: barriers and facilitators to delivering maternal mental health care through peer volunteers in Pakistan: a qualitative study. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2016;10:1–12.
    1. Tynan WD, Asp KS, Serper L, Emory EK. Student volunteer social support and infant intervention: a case study. Infant Ment Health J. 1985;6:204–209.
    1. Zhao C, Zhou X, Wang F, Jiang M, Hesketh T. Care for left-behind children in rural China: a realist evaluation of a community-based intervention. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2017;82:239–245.
    1. Mui AC, Glajchen M, Chen H, Sun J. Developing an older adult volunteer program in a New York Chinese community: an evidence-based approach. Ageing Int. 2013;38:108–121.
    1. Villiger C, Hauri S, Tettenborn A, Hartmann E, Näpflin C, Hugener I, et al. Effectiveness of an extracurricular program for struggling readers: a comparative study with parent tutors and volunteer tutors. Learn Instr. 2019;60:54–65.
    1. Kelleher L, Johnson M. An evaluation of a volunteer-support program for families at risk. Public Health Nurs. 2004;21:297–305. doi: 10.1111/j.0737-1209.2004.21402.x.
    1. van Aar JV, Asscher JJ, Zijlstra BJH, Deković M, Hoffenaar PJ. Changes in parenting and child behavior after the home-start family support program: a 10year follow-up. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2015;53:166–175. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.03.029.
    1. Barnes J, Senior R, MacPherson K. The utility of volunteer home-visiting support to prevent maternal depression in the first year of life. Child Care Health Dev. 2009;35:807–816.
    1. Paris R, Gemborys MK, Kaufman PH, Whitehill D. Reaching isolated new mothers: insights from a home visiting program using paraprofessionals. Fam Soc J Contemp Soc Serv. 2013;88:616–626.
    1. Hatzipapas I, Visser MJ, van Rensburg EJ. Laughter therapy as an intervention to promote psychological well-being of volunteer community care workers working with HIV-affected families. Sahara J. 2017;14:202–212.
    1. Wittenberg-Lyles E, Demiris G, Ferrell B, Shaunfield S. Volunteers as facilitators of communication about pain: a feasibility study. Res Aging. 2012;34:246–253.
    1. Brijoux T, Kricheldorff C, Hüll M, Bonfico S. Supporting families living with dementia in rural areas - a randomized controlled trial of quality of life improvement using qualified volunteers. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016;113:681–687.
    1. Mooren T, Rabaia Y, Mitwalli S, Reiffers R, Koenen R, de Man M. The multi-family approach to facilitate a family support network for Palestinian parents of children with a disability: a descriptive study. Lancet (London, England) 2018;391:S49.
    1. Hamdani SU, Akhtar P, Zill-E-Huma NH, Minhas FA, Sikander S, et al. WHO parents skills training (PST) programme for children with developmental disorders and delays delivered by family volunteers in rural Pakistan: study protocol for effectiveness implementation hybrid cluster randomized controlled trial. Glob Ment Heal (Cambridge, England) 2017;4:e11.
    1. Kidman R, Nice J, Taylor T, Thurman TR. Home visiting programs for HIV-affected families: a comparison of service quality between volunteer-driven and paraprofessional models. Vulnerable Child Youth Stud. 2014;9:305–317.
    1. Edgar LJ, Remmer J, Rosberger Z, Rapkin B. Evaluating a volunteer cancer support service. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2003;21:53–72.
    1. Vijayakumar L, Kumar MS. Trained volunteer-delivered mental health support to those bereaved by Asian tsunami - an evaluation. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2008;54:293–302.
    1. MacLeod A, Skinner MW, Low E. Supporting hospice volunteers and caregivers through community-based participatory research. Health Soc Care Community. 2012;20:190–198.
    1. Allen RS, Harris GM, Burgio LD, Azuero CB, Miller LA, Shin HJ, et al. Can senior volunteers deliver reminiscence and creative activity interventions? Results of the legacy intervention family enactment randomized controlled trial. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2014;48:590–601.
    1. McWilliams L, Bellhouse S, Yorke J, Cowan R, Heaven CM, French DP. The acceptability and feasibility of lay-health led interventions for the prevention and early detection of cancer. Psychooncology. 2018;27:1291–1297.
    1. Chacko A, Scavenius C. Bending the curve: a community-based behavioral parent training model to address ADHD-related concerns in the voluntary sector in Denmark. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2018;46:505–517. doi: 10.1007/s10802-017-0310-9.
    1. 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 Allied Discip. 2006;47:1123–1132.
    1. Home-Start. Home-Start. About us. . Accessed 14 Aug 2019.
    1. McAuley C, Knapp M, Beecham J, McCurry N, Sleed M. Young families under stress. 2004.
    1. Asscher JJ, Hermanns JMA, Dekovíc M. Effectiveness of the home-start parenting support program: behavioral outcomes for parents and children. Infant Ment Health J. 2008;29:95–113.
    1. Hermanns JMA, Asscher JJ, Zijlstra BJH, Hoffenaar PJ, Dekovič M. Long-term changes in parenting and child behavior after the home-start family support program. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2013;35:678–684.
    1. Deković M, Asscher JJ, Hermanns J, Reitz E, Prinzie P, van den Akker AL. Tracing changes in families who participated in the home-start parenting program: parental sense of competence as mechanism of change. Prev Sci. 2010;11:263–274. doi: 10.1007/s11121-009-0166-5.
    1. Sweet MA, Appelbaum MI. Is home visiting an effective strategy? A meta-analytic review of home visiting programs for families with young children. Child Dev. 2004;75:1435–1456.
    1. Bilukha O, Hahn RA, Crosby A, Fullilove MT, Liberman A, Moscicki E, et al. The effectiveness of early childhood home visitation in preventing violence: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2 SUPPL. 1):11–39.
    1. Filene JH, Kaminski JW, Valle LA, Cachat P. Components associated with home visiting program outcomes: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2013;132(Supplement):S100–S109.
    1. Koushede V, Lasgaard M, Hinrichsen C, Meilstrup C, Nielsen L, Rayce SB, et al. Measuring mental well-being in Denmark: validation of the original and short version of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS and SWEMWBS) and cross-cultural comparison across four European settings. Psychiatry Res. 2019;271:502–509. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.003.
    1. Stewart-Brown S, Tennant A, Tennant R, Platt S, Parkinson J, Weich S. Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): a Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish health education population survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:1–8.
    1. Lovejoy MC, Weis R, O’hare E, Rubin EC. Development and initial validation of the parent behavior inventory. Psychol Assess. 1999;11:534.
    1. Berry JO, Jones WH. The parental stress scale: initial psychometric evidence. J Soc Pers Relat. 1995;12:463–472.
    1. Stewart-Brown S, Vinther-Larsen M, Koushede V, Meilstrup C, Holstein BE, Nielsen L. High and low levels of positive mental health: are there socioeconomic differences among adolescents? J Public Ment Health. 2016;15:37–49. doi: 10.1108/JPMH-10-2014-0041.
    1. Ravens-Sieberer U, Erhart M, Rajmil L, Herdman M, Auquier P, Bruil J, et al. Reliability, construct and criterion validity of the KIDSCREEN-10 score: a short measure for children and adolescents’ well-being and health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:1487–1500.
    1. Nievar MA, Van Egeren LA, Pollard S. A meta-analysis of home visiting programs: moderators of improvements in maternal behavior. Infant Ment Health J. 2010;31:499–520. doi: 10.1002/imhj.20269.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner