Online-Delivered Over Staff-Delivered Parenting Intervention for Young Children With Disruptive Behavior Problems: Cost-Minimization Analysis

Justin B Ingels, Phaedra S Corso, Ronald J Prinz, Carol W Metzler, Matthew R Sanders, Justin B Ingels, Phaedra S Corso, Ronald J Prinz, Carol W Metzler, Matthew R Sanders

Abstract

Background: High-prevalence childhood mental health problems like early-onset disruptive behavior problems (DBPs) pose a significant public health challenge and necessitate interventions with adequate population reach. The treatment approach of choice for childhood DBPs, namely evidence-based parenting intervention, has not been sufficiently disseminated when relying solely on staff-delivered services. Online-delivered parenting intervention is a promising strategy, but the cost minimization of this delivery model for reducing child DBPs is unknown compared with the more traditional staff-delivered modality.

Objective: This study aimed to examine the cost-minimization of an online parenting intervention for childhood disruptive behavior problems compared with the staff-delivered version of the same content. This objective, pursued in the context of a randomized trial, made use of cost data collected from parents and service providers.

Methods: A cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was conducted comparing the online and staff-delivered parenting interventions. Families (N=334) with children 3-7 years old, who exhibited clinically elevated disruptive behavior problems, were randomly assigned to the two parenting interventions. Participants, delivery staff, and administrators provided data for the CMA concerning family participation time and expenses, program delivery time (direct and nondirect), and nonpersonnel resources (eg, space, materials, and access fee). The CMA was conducted using both intent-to-treat and per-protocol analytic approaches.

Results: For the intent-to-treat analyses, the online parenting intervention reflected significantly lower program costs (t168=23.2; P<.001), family costs (t185=9.2; P<.001), and total costs (t171=19.1; P<.001) compared to the staff-delivered intervention. The mean incremental cost difference between the interventions was $1164 total costs per case. The same pattern of significant differences was confirmed in the per-protocol analysis based on the families who completed their respective intervention, with a mean incremental cost difference of $1483 per case. All costs were valued or adjusted in 2017 US dollars.

Conclusions: The online-delivered parenting intervention in this randomized study produced substantial cost minimization compared with the staff-delivered intervention providing the same content. Cost minimization was driven primarily by personnel time and, to a lesser extent, by facilities costs and family travel time. The CMA was accomplished with three critical conditions in place: (1) the two intervention delivery modalities (ie, online and staff) held intervention content constant; (2) families were randomized to the two parenting interventions; and (3) the online-delivered intervention was previously confirmed to be non-inferior to the staff-delivered intervention in significantly reducing the primary outcome, child disruptive behavior problems. Given those conditions, cost minimization for the online parenting intervention was unequivocal.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02121431; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT02121431.

Keywords: child disruptive behavior problems; cost-minimization analysis; evidence-based parenting support; online parenting intervention; online versus staff delivery; population reach.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: JBI, PSC, RJP, and CWM have no conflicts of interest to declare. MRS disclosed that the Parenting and Family Support Centre is partly funded by royalties stemming from published resources of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program, which was developed and is owned by the University of Queensland (UQ). Royalties are also distributed to the Faculty of Health and Behavioral Sciences at UQ and contributory authors of published Triple P resources. Triple P International (TPI) Pty Ltd is a private company licensed by Uniquest Pty Ltd on behalf of UQ, to publish and disseminate Triple P worldwide. MRS receives royalties and consultancy fees from TPI. TPI had no involvement in the study's design, the collection, analysis, or interpretation of its data, nor in the writing of this article.

©Justin B Ingels, Phaedra S Corso, Ronald J Prinz, Carol W Metzler, Matthew R Sanders. Originally published in JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting (https://pediatrics.jmir.org), 11.03.2022.

References

    1. Carter AS, Wagmiller RJ, Gray SAO, McCarthy KJ, Horwitz SM, Briggs-Gowan MJ. Prevalence of DSM-IV disorder in a representative, healthy birth cohort at school entry: sociodemographic risks and social adaptation. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010 Jul;49(7):686–98. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2010.03.018. S0890-8567(10)00318-7
    1. Wertz J, Agnew-Blais J, Caspi A, Danese A, Fisher HL, Goldman-Mellor S, Moffitt TE, Arseneault L. From childhood conduct problems to poor functioning at age 18 years: Examining explanations in a longitudinal cohort study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2018 Jan;57(1):54–60.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2017.09.437. S0890-8567(17)31831-2
    1. Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Miller JY. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul;112(1):64–105.
    1. Dishion T, Patterson G. The development and ecology of antisocial behavior: Linking etiology, prevention, and treatment. In: Cicchetti D, editor. Developmental Psychopathology: Volume 3. Maladaptation and Psychopathology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2016. pp. 647–678.
    1. Loeber R, Farrington DP, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Van Kammen WB. Antisocial Behavior and Mental Health Problems: Explanatory Factors in Childhood and Adolescence. New York: Psychology Press; 1998.
    1. Cornacchio D, Bry LJ, Sanchez AL, Poznanski B, Comer JS. Psychosocial treatment and prevention of conduct problems in early childhood. In: Lochman JE, Matthys W, editors. The Wiley Handbook of Disruptive and Impulse Control Disorders. New York: Wiley; 2017. pp. 456–466.
    1. Piquero A, Jennings W, Diamond B, Farrington D, Tremblay R, Welsh B, Reingle Gonzalez JM. A meta-analysis update on the effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. J Exp Criminol. 2016 Apr 13;12(2):229–248. doi: 10.1007/s11292-016-9256-0. doi: 10.1007/s11292-016-9256-0.
    1. Mingebach T, Kamp-Becker I, Christiansen H, Weber L. Meta-meta-analysis on the effectiveness of parent-based interventions for the treatment of child externalizing behavior problems. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0202855. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202855. PONE-D-18-02978
    1. Theodore L, editor. Handbook of Evidence-Based Interventions for Children and Adolescents. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2017.
    1. Baggett KM, Davis B, Feil EG, Sheeber LB, Landry SH, Carta JJ, Leve C. Technologies for expanding the reach of evidence-based interventions: Preliminary results for promoting social-emotional development in early childhood. Topics Early Child Spec Educ. 2010 Feb 1;29(4):226–238. doi: 10.1177/0271121409354782.
    1. Smokowski P, Corona R, Bacallao M, Fortson BL, Marshall KJ, Yaros A. Addressing barriers to recruitment and retention in the implementation of parenting programs: Lessons learned for effective program delivery in rural and urban areas. J Child Fam Stud. 2018 Sep;27(9):2925–2942. doi: 10.1007/s10826-018-1139-8.
    1. Nieuwboer C, Fukkink R, Hermanns J. Online programs as tools to improve parenting: A meta-analytic review. Children and Youth Services Review. 2013 Nov;35(11):1823–1829. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.08.008. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.08.008.
    1. Spencer CM, Topham GL, King EL. Do online parenting programs create change?: A meta-analysis. J Fam Psychol. 2020 Apr;34(3):364–374. doi: 10.1037/fam0000605.2019-66479-001
    1. Prinz RJ, Metzler CW, Sanders MR, Rusby JC, Cai C. Online-delivered parenting intervention for young children with disruptive behavior problems: a noninferiority trial focused on child and parent outcomes. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2022 Feb 08;63(2):199–209. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13426.
    1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
    1. Bergmo TS. How to measure costs and benefits of eHealth interventions: An overview of methods and frameworks. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Nov 09;17(11):e254. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4521. v17i11e254
    1. Griffiths F, Lindenmeyer A, Powell J, Lowe P, Thorogood M. Why are health care interventions delivered over the internet? A systematic review of the published literature. J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(2):e10. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8.2.e10. v8i2e10
    1. Tate DF, Finkelstein EA, Khavjou O, Gustafson A. Cost effectiveness of internet interventions: review and recommendations. Ann Behav Med. 2009 Aug;38(1):40–5. doi: 10.1007/s12160-009-9131-6.
    1. Sanders MR. Triple P-Positive Parenting Program as a public health approach to strengthening parenting. J Fam Psychol. 2008 Aug;22(4):506–17. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.506.2008-10898-003
    1. Sanders MR, Baker S, Turner KMT. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of Triple P Online with parents of children with early-onset conduct problems. Behav Res Ther. 2012 Nov;50(11):675–84. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2012.07.004.S0005-7967(12)00119-2
    1. Rai M, Goyal R. Pharmacoeconomics and healthcare. In: Vohora D, Singh G, editors. Pharmaceutical Medicine and Translational Clinical Research. London: Academic Press; 2017. pp. 465–472.
    1. Bennett GG, Glasgow RE. The delivery of public health interventions via the Internet: actualizing their potential. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:273–92. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100235.
    1. Harris M, Andrews K, Gonzalez A, Prime H, Atkinson L. Technology-assisted parenting interventions for families experiencing social disadvantage: A meta-analysis. Prev Sci. 2020 Jul;21(5):714–727. doi: 10.1007/s11121-020-01128-0.10.1007/s11121-020-01128-0
    1. Nieuwboer CC, Fukkink RG, Hermanns JM. Online programs as tools to improve parenting: A meta-analytic review. Children and Youth Services Review. 2013 Nov;35(11):1823–1829. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.08.008.
    1. Spencer CM, Topham GL, King EL. Do online parenting programs create change?: A meta-analysis. J Fam Psychol. 2020 Apr;34(3):364–374. doi: 10.1037/fam0000605.2019-66479-001
    1. Dadds MR, Sicouri G, Piotrowska PJ, Collins DAJ, Hawes DJ, Moul C, Lenroot RK, Frick PJ, Anderson V, Kimonis ER, Tully LA. Keeping parents involved: Predicting attrition in a self-directed, online program for childhood conduct problems. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2019;48(6):881–893. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2018.1485109.
    1. Day JJ, Sanders MR. Do Parents benefit from help when completing a self-guided parenting program online? A randomized controlled trial comparing Triple P Online with and without telephone support. Behav Ther. 2018 Nov;49(6):1020–1038. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2018.03.002.S0005-7894(18)30033-9
    1. Hall CM, Bierman KL. Technology-assisted interventions for parents of young children: Emerging practices, current research, and future directions. Early Child Res Q. 2015;33:21–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.05.003.
    1. Day JJ, Sanders MR. Mediators of parenting change within a web-based parenting program: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial of Triple P Online. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice. 2017 Sep;6(3):154–170. doi: 10.1037/cfp0000083.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner