NCT Number: NCT07161063
Background. Children are vulnerable to mental health challenges during development. Given that youth are reliant on their parents for support, understanding the child's symptoms within the family context is critical for promoting positive change. This proposal focuses on "systemic therapy", or family-based therapy, which seeks to enhance children's mental health by improving the relationships and communication between family members (1). Most family-based therapies for treating child mental health problems are intense in duration and frequency (2), which is a barrier to access for many families. Shorter-term family therapies or what will be referred to hereafter as brief family-based therapies are effective in treating a variety of child symptoms, while also minimizing participant burden and therapy dropout (3). One type of brief family-based therapy model is the Lausanne Family Play - Brief (LFP-B), a three-session service that utilizes a play-based family observational assessment with video feedback to draw attention to and catalyze change in challenging family interactions. The LFP has been widely researched as a clinical assessment tool and has been implemented as a brief family-based therapy program (4). The current project represents the implementation and evaluation of the program in the York University Psychology Clinic (YUPC), which services children, adults, couples, and families in the Greater Toronto Area (and Ontario, broadly). The current study will be the first to evaluate the implementation, acceptability, and effectiveness of the LFP-B as a clinic service. Objectives. The aim of this project is to evaluate the LFP-B as a brief family-based clinical service offered in the YUPC. The first objective is to explore program acceptability for both clients and therapists. The investigators are interested in whether clients and therapists are satisfied with this clinical service and its processes. The second objective is to assess program effectiveness, specifically whether coparenting, family functioning, and child mental health problems improve across the course of the program and in the months following. Importance. Brief therapies with a systemic lens can increase cost-effectiveness, accessibility, and treatment retention. They also have potential to fill an apparent gap in service needs as up to three-quarters of youth with psychological concerns never receive treatment (5). Thus, brief services can provide more timely access to mental health care in Canada which have potential for reducing wait times, preventing further deterioration in mental health, and avoiding more intensive and expensive higher levels of care (e.g., acute inpatient mental health services; (6)). The LFP-B has potential to be widely used as a brief family-based therapy program with Canadian families to support child and family functioning in a timely and non-intensive manner.
Trial opening soon.
Get Notified2 year–9 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada
Diane Philipp, MD
SUB_INVESTIGATOR
Gillian Shoychet, MA
SUB_INVESTIGATOR
Heather Prime, PhD
CONTACT
Jessica Abrams, PhD
SUB_INVESTIGATOR
Joëlle Darwiche, PhD
SUB_INVESTIGATOR
Maya Koven, MA
SUB_INVESTIGATOR
Yvonne Bohr, PhD
SUB_INVESTIGATOR
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
The Lausanne Family Play - Brief is a video-feedback intervention adapted for families seeking support for a child two to nine years old with a mental health challenge. Feedback focuses on engagement, teamwork, conflict, and child-focused issues.
Other names: LFP-B, Lausanne Trilogue Play-Brief (LTP-B)
Time frame: Week 0
Where participants heard about the program (e.g., social media, YUPC, employee, friend)
Time frame: Week 0
Number of participants enrolled per month
Time frame: Week 0
Proportion of participants offered the service versus those who actually sign up
Time frame: Week 0
Reasons for not joining the service for those who were offered it (e.g., scheduling multiple caregivers, desire for child-focused treatment, cost, time commitment, etc.)
Time frame: Week 0
Time in days from initial intake call to first phone call with clinician
Time frame: Week 1
The percentage of participants with less than or equal to a high school degree.
Time frame: Week 0
Cities/towns in Ontario families accessing the program reside
Time frame: Week 8
The percentage of participants who remain in study until the end of the follow up session.
Time frame: Week 8
The percentage of participants reporting some reflection about coparenting outside of sessions.
Time frame: Week 8
Looking for the percentage of participants reporting at least 'good' on 80 % or more indicators on an Implementation Acceptability Scale that will assess attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, and ethicality. Minimum score=7, maximum score=35. Higher scores correspond to better outcomes.
Time frame: Week 8
Looking for the percentage of clinicians reporting at least 'good' on 80 % or more indicators on an Implementation Acceptability Scale that will assess attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, and ethicality. Minimum score=7, maximum score=35. Higher scores correspond to better outcomes.
Time frame: Longitudinal change across week 1 to week 8
Exploratory for pattern of scores across the intervention on a Working Alliance Inventory Scale that will assess client perceptions of goals, tasks, and bonds during intervention. Scores range from 12-60 with higher scores representing greater self-reported alliance.
Time frame: Pre-post change from week 1 to week 8
Using the Coparenting Scale-Revised (McHale, 1999; unpublished manuscript). Minimum score=18, maximum score=90. Higher scores correspond to a greater frequency of outcomes.
Time frame: Pre-post change from week 1 to week 8
Using the Parental Stress Scale (PSS; Berry & Jones, 1995). Minimum score=18, maximum score=90. Higher scores correspond to worse outcomes (i.e., more stress).
Time frame: Pre-post change from week 2 to week 8
Using the Child Perspectives on the Coparenting Relationship - Revised (created based on McHale's 1999 Coparenting Scale - Revised). Minimum score=7, maximum score=21. Higher scores correspond to a greater frequency of outcomes.
Time frame: Pre-post change from week 1 to week 8
Using the Parenting and Family Adjustment Scale (PAFAS; Sanders & Morawska, 2010). Minimum score=0, maximum score=90. Higher scores correspond to worse outcomes (i.e., higher levels of dysfunction).
Time frame: Pre-post change from week 0 to week 8
Using the subscales of the Emotion Distress scale of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (NIH) Parent Proxy Domains (ages 5-17) or Early Childhood Parent Report (ages 1-5). Ages 5-17 minimum score = 19, maximum score = 120 Ages 1-5 minimum score = 24, maximum score = 120. Higher scores correspond to worse outcomes (i.e., more emotional distress).
Time frame: Pre-post change from week 1 to week 8
Using the Externalizing Problems subscale of the Behavior and Feelings Survey (BFS) Caregiver Report Form (Weisz et al., 2019). Minimum score=0, maximum score=24. Higher scores correspond to worse outcomes (i.e., more behavioural problems).
Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.
Heather Prime, PhD
CONTACT
Jessica Abrams, PhD
CONTACT
York University
Other
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT06839859
Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07326748
Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders
Pine Ridge, South Dakota, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT03697421
Family Relationships, Parenting
The Bronx, New York, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT03029221
Family Relationships, Parent-Child Relationships
Clearfield, Pennsylvania, United States
View Trial Details