Introducing a randomized controlled trial into Family Proceedings: Describing the ‘how?’ and defending the ‘why?’

IF 0.9 4区 社会学 Q3 FAMILY STUDIES
Carol Atkinson, Matt Forde, Karen Crawford, Marion Henderson, Philip Wilson, Dennis Ougrin, Helen Minnis
{"title":"Introducing a randomized controlled trial into Family Proceedings: Describing the ‘how?’ and defending the ‘why?’","authors":"Carol Atkinson, Matt Forde, Karen Crawford, Marion Henderson, Philip Wilson, Dennis Ougrin, Helen Minnis","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebad024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2011, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a mental health intervention for families with children under the age of 5 years coming into the Scottish care system was launched, called the Best Services Trial (BeST). When attempts were made to expand the study to English sites, the local leadership Judge objected, concerned that randomization in family proceedings was unfair, potentially discriminatory, and unlawful. Considerations about parental consent, fairness of randomization, and an understanding that the new intervention might be no better, or even harmful, compared to current best practices were crucial in addressing these concerns. In 2017, BeST was launched in England utilizing a randomized methodology. Significant input into the design of BeST came from the leadership Judge who had previously considered randomization unlawful. In July 2021, 383 families with 488 children had been recruited across both Scottish and English sites. Follow-up continues and 76 per cent of families continue to participate at 2.5 years after entering the study. Although there were undoubted challenges in designing and implementing BeST, with hindsight, the objections raised to the testing of interventions randomly were demonstrably resolvable and the process of randomization encountered no legal challenges. This is the first time an RCT has been accommodated within live proceedings in the family justice arena in England and Wales and one of a relatively few such RCTs conducted internationally.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2011, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a mental health intervention for families with children under the age of 5 years coming into the Scottish care system was launched, called the Best Services Trial (BeST). When attempts were made to expand the study to English sites, the local leadership Judge objected, concerned that randomization in family proceedings was unfair, potentially discriminatory, and unlawful. Considerations about parental consent, fairness of randomization, and an understanding that the new intervention might be no better, or even harmful, compared to current best practices were crucial in addressing these concerns. In 2017, BeST was launched in England utilizing a randomized methodology. Significant input into the design of BeST came from the leadership Judge who had previously considered randomization unlawful. In July 2021, 383 families with 488 children had been recruited across both Scottish and English sites. Follow-up continues and 76 per cent of families continue to participate at 2.5 years after entering the study. Although there were undoubted challenges in designing and implementing BeST, with hindsight, the objections raised to the testing of interventions randomly were demonstrably resolvable and the process of randomization encountered no legal challenges. This is the first time an RCT has been accommodated within live proceedings in the family justice arena in England and Wales and one of a relatively few such RCTs conducted internationally.
在家庭诉讼程序中引入随机对照试验:描述 "如何 "并为 "为什么 "辩护?
2011 年,一项名为 "最佳服务试验"(Best Services Trial,BST)的随机对照试验(RCT)正式启动,该试验针对的是苏格兰照护系统中拥有 5 岁以下儿童的家庭的心理健康干预措施。当试图将该研究扩展到英国的研究地点时,当地的领导法官表示反对,认为在家庭诉讼中进行随机化是不公平的,可能具有歧视性,也是不合法的。考虑家长同意、随机化的公平性,以及理解新的干预措施与当前的最佳实践相比可能没有更好的效果,甚至有害,是解决这些问题的关键。2017 年,英国采用随机方法推出了 BeST。对 BeST 的设计提出重要意见的是领导层法官,他们之前曾认为随机化是不合法的。2021 年 7 月,苏格兰和英格兰两地共招募了 383 个家庭和 488 名儿童。后续跟踪仍在继续,76% 的家庭在进入研究 2.5 年后仍在继续参与。尽管在设计和实施 BeST 的过程中无疑会遇到各种挑战,但事后看来,对随机测试干预措施提出的反对意见显然是可以解决的,随机化过程也没有遇到任何法律挑战。这是英格兰和威尔士首次在家庭司法领域的现场诉讼中进行 RCT 研究,也是国际上开展的相对较少的此类 RCT 研究之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
25.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The subject matter of the International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family comprises the following: - Analyses of the law relating to the family which carry an interest beyond the jurisdiction dealt with, or which are of a comparative nature - Theoretical analyses of family law - Sociological literature concerning the family which is of special interest to law and legal policy - Social policy literature of special interest to law and the family - Literature in related disciplines (such as medicine, psychology, demography) which is of special relevance to law and the family - Research findings in the above areas, reviews of books and relevant reports The journal has a flexible policy as to length of contributions, so that substantial research reports can be included.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信