为改善父母滥用药物的儿童的社会心理状况而采取的心理、药物和法律干预措施:系统回顾

IF 4 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Elizabeth Eggins, David B. Wilson, Joseph Betts, Sara Roetman, Ned Chandler-Mather, Bronwyn Theroux, Sharon Dawe
{"title":"为改善父母滥用药物的儿童的社会心理状况而采取的心理、药物和法律干预措施:系统回顾","authors":"Elizabeth Eggins,&nbsp;David B. Wilson,&nbsp;Joseph Betts,&nbsp;Sara Roetman,&nbsp;Ned Chandler-Mather,&nbsp;Bronwyn Theroux,&nbsp;Sharon Dawe","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Parental substance misuse is a pervasive risk factor for a range of detrimental outcomes for children across the life course. While a variety of interventions have been developed for this population, the existing evidence-base requires consolidation and consideration of the comparative effectiveness of different interventions to facilitate evidence-informed decisions between different intervention approaches.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This review aimed to use network meta-analysis to synthesise the comparative effectiveness of psychosocial, legal, and pharmacological interventions for improving outcomes for children with substance misusing parents. Network meta-analysis was not possible; however, we synthesised the effects of a broad range of interventions on child psychosocial outcomes. Another aim was to examine potential moderators of the effects, yet this was also not possible due to data limitations. A secondary objective was to qualitatively synthesise economic, treatment completion, and treatment acceptability information for included studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Search Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Searches were performed in November 2020 and again in April 2021. Encompassing multiple disciplines, we searched 34 databases, 58 grey literature repositories, and 10 trial registers. Supplementary hand searches were conducted on 11 journals, along with harvesting the references of all included studies and existing reviews, and forward citation searching each report of all included studies. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\n \n <p>Eligible studies included randomised and quasi-experimental evaluations of psychosocial, pharmacological, and/or legal interventions using either a placebo, no treatment, waitlist control, treatment-as-usual, or alternative treatment as a comparison condition. Study participants needed to be comprised of families with children under the age of 18 with one or more currently substance-misusing parents (or caregivers). Studies were required to evaluate the eligible intervention using a child-focused psychosocial outcome. If reported in eligible studies, the following secondary outcomes were also synthesised in the review: cost-effectiveness, treatment completion, length of time in treatment and acceptability of treatment (e.g., participant perspectives of the intervention). There were no restrictions placed on publication status or geographic location, however only research written in English was included.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\n \n <p>Standard methodological procedures were followed across all stages of the review, as guided by the published protocol for the review (Eggins et al., 2020). Due to the inability to conduct network meta-analyses, random effects pairwise meta-analyses with inverse variance were used to synthesise effects when two or more studies with conceptually similar interventions and outcomes were available. Results of the meta-analyses are displayed in forest plots, and separate analyses are provided for conceptually distinct outcomes and time-points of measurement. Sensitivity analyses are used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity in the absence of sufficient studies to conduct subgroup analyses.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Results</h3>\n \n <p>99 studies (reported in 231 documents) met review inclusion criteria, encompassing 22,213 participants. Most studies were conducted in the United States (<i>k</i> = 76), almost half were randomised controlled trials (<i>k</i> = 46), and the most common comparator was treatment-as-usual (<i>k</i> = 50). Interventions were evaluated using a large range of child psychosocial outcomes which broadly fell under: (a) child welfare; (b) child development; (c) child emotional and behavioural; and (d) educational domains. Intervention models were rarely only legal or pharmacological in nature, with most studies evaluating integrated psychosocial treatments with either pharmacology, coordinated health care, case-management, and/or judicial or child welfare oversight and coordination. Thirty-six meta-analyses and 227 single effect sizes were used to appraise the effectiveness of included interventions, based on 68 studies with sufficient data for effect size calculation. The size and direction of the effects varied across interventions, type of outcomes, and time-point of measurement. Twenty-seven meta-analyses and 186 single effect sizes suggested null effects. Only five single effect size estimates based on three studies indicated negative effects including: higher depressive and somatisation symptoms (parent-report), hopelessness (child-report), educational achievement difficulties (parent-report), and substantiated child protection reports for those engaged with interventions versus treatment-as-usual or no treatment. Nine meta-analyses and 36 single study effect estimates suggest that psychosocial, pharmacological and/or legal interventions have a positive effect on a range of specific child welfare, developmental, and emotional/behavioural outcomes for children. The risk of bias varied across domains and studies, which further lowers confidence in the results. Based on a subset of included studies, treatment completion tends to vary, yet cost-benefits can be achieved when intervening with children whose parents misuse substances.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Authors' Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Despite a large body of evaluation evidence, disparate outcomes, and missing data precluded analyses to formally examine the comparative effectiveness of psychosocial, legal, and pharmacological interventions for improving outcomes for children with substance misusing parents. The large amount of unreported (missing) data meant that many effect estimates were underpowered due to single studies and small sample sizes. The review findings suggest that interventions for families affected by parental substance misuse can be effective when they holistically address multiple domains such as parent wellbeing/mental health, parenting, children's wellbeing, and/or other factors impacting family wellbeing (e.g., housing).</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1413","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychosocial, pharmacological, and legal interventions for improving the psychosocial outcomes of children with substance misusing parents: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Eggins,&nbsp;David B. Wilson,&nbsp;Joseph Betts,&nbsp;Sara Roetman,&nbsp;Ned Chandler-Mather,&nbsp;Bronwyn Theroux,&nbsp;Sharon Dawe\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cl2.1413\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Parental substance misuse is a pervasive risk factor for a range of detrimental outcomes for children across the life course. While a variety of interventions have been developed for this population, the existing evidence-base requires consolidation and consideration of the comparative effectiveness of different interventions to facilitate evidence-informed decisions between different intervention approaches.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>This review aimed to use network meta-analysis to synthesise the comparative effectiveness of psychosocial, legal, and pharmacological interventions for improving outcomes for children with substance misusing parents. Network meta-analysis was not possible; however, we synthesised the effects of a broad range of interventions on child psychosocial outcomes. Another aim was to examine potential moderators of the effects, yet this was also not possible due to data limitations. A secondary objective was to qualitatively synthesise economic, treatment completion, and treatment acceptability information for included studies.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Search Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Searches were performed in November 2020 and again in April 2021. Encompassing multiple disciplines, we searched 34 databases, 58 grey literature repositories, and 10 trial registers. Supplementary hand searches were conducted on 11 journals, along with harvesting the references of all included studies and existing reviews, and forward citation searching each report of all included studies. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing data.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\\n \\n <p>Eligible studies included randomised and quasi-experimental evaluations of psychosocial, pharmacological, and/or legal interventions using either a placebo, no treatment, waitlist control, treatment-as-usual, or alternative treatment as a comparison condition. Study participants needed to be comprised of families with children under the age of 18 with one or more currently substance-misusing parents (or caregivers). Studies were required to evaluate the eligible intervention using a child-focused psychosocial outcome. If reported in eligible studies, the following secondary outcomes were also synthesised in the review: cost-effectiveness, treatment completion, length of time in treatment and acceptability of treatment (e.g., participant perspectives of the intervention). There were no restrictions placed on publication status or geographic location, however only research written in English was included.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\\n \\n <p>Standard methodological procedures were followed across all stages of the review, as guided by the published protocol for the review (Eggins et al., 2020). Due to the inability to conduct network meta-analyses, random effects pairwise meta-analyses with inverse variance were used to synthesise effects when two or more studies with conceptually similar interventions and outcomes were available. Results of the meta-analyses are displayed in forest plots, and separate analyses are provided for conceptually distinct outcomes and time-points of measurement. Sensitivity analyses are used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity in the absence of sufficient studies to conduct subgroup analyses.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>99 studies (reported in 231 documents) met review inclusion criteria, encompassing 22,213 participants. Most studies were conducted in the United States (<i>k</i> = 76), almost half were randomised controlled trials (<i>k</i> = 46), and the most common comparator was treatment-as-usual (<i>k</i> = 50). Interventions were evaluated using a large range of child psychosocial outcomes which broadly fell under: (a) child welfare; (b) child development; (c) child emotional and behavioural; and (d) educational domains. Intervention models were rarely only legal or pharmacological in nature, with most studies evaluating integrated psychosocial treatments with either pharmacology, coordinated health care, case-management, and/or judicial or child welfare oversight and coordination. Thirty-six meta-analyses and 227 single effect sizes were used to appraise the effectiveness of included interventions, based on 68 studies with sufficient data for effect size calculation. The size and direction of the effects varied across interventions, type of outcomes, and time-point of measurement. Twenty-seven meta-analyses and 186 single effect sizes suggested null effects. Only five single effect size estimates based on three studies indicated negative effects including: higher depressive and somatisation symptoms (parent-report), hopelessness (child-report), educational achievement difficulties (parent-report), and substantiated child protection reports for those engaged with interventions versus treatment-as-usual or no treatment. Nine meta-analyses and 36 single study effect estimates suggest that psychosocial, pharmacological and/or legal interventions have a positive effect on a range of specific child welfare, developmental, and emotional/behavioural outcomes for children. The risk of bias varied across domains and studies, which further lowers confidence in the results. Based on a subset of included studies, treatment completion tends to vary, yet cost-benefits can be achieved when intervening with children whose parents misuse substances.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Authors' Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Despite a large body of evaluation evidence, disparate outcomes, and missing data precluded analyses to formally examine the comparative effectiveness of psychosocial, legal, and pharmacological interventions for improving outcomes for children with substance misusing parents. The large amount of unreported (missing) data meant that many effect estimates were underpowered due to single studies and small sample sizes. The review findings suggest that interventions for families affected by parental substance misuse can be effective when they holistically address multiple domains such as parent wellbeing/mental health, parenting, children's wellbeing, and/or other factors impacting family wellbeing (e.g., housing).</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1413\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1413\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1413","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

只有 5 项基于 3 项研究的单一效应估计值显示了负面影响,包括:接受干预的儿童相对于接受常规治疗或未接受治疗的儿童而言,抑郁症状和躯体化症状(家长报告)、绝望情绪(儿童报告)、教育成就困难(家长报告)和经证实的儿童保护报告均较高。九项荟萃分析和 36 项单一研究的效果估计表明,社会心理、药物和/或法律干预措施对一系列特定的儿童福利、发育和情绪/行为结果具有积极影响。不同领域和不同研究的偏倚风险各不相同,这进一步降低了研究结果的可信度。根据所纳入研究的子集,治疗完成情况往往各不相同,但对父母滥用药物的儿童进行干预可以实现成本效益。 作者的结论 尽管有大量的评估证据,但由于结果不一、数据缺失等原因,无法通过分析来正式研究心理、法律和药物干预对改善父母滥用药物的儿童的治疗效果的比较效果。大量未报告(缺失)的数据意味着,由于研究单一且样本量较小,许多效果估计值的可信度不足。综述结果表明,针对受父母药物滥用影响的家庭的干预措施,如果能全面解决多个领域的问题,如父母的福祉/心理健康、养育子女、子女的福祉和/或影响家庭福祉的其他因素(如住房),则可能有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Psychosocial, pharmacological, and legal interventions for improving the psychosocial outcomes of children with substance misusing parents: A systematic review

Psychosocial, pharmacological, and legal interventions for improving the psychosocial outcomes of children with substance misusing parents: A systematic review

Background

Parental substance misuse is a pervasive risk factor for a range of detrimental outcomes for children across the life course. While a variety of interventions have been developed for this population, the existing evidence-base requires consolidation and consideration of the comparative effectiveness of different interventions to facilitate evidence-informed decisions between different intervention approaches.

Objectives

This review aimed to use network meta-analysis to synthesise the comparative effectiveness of psychosocial, legal, and pharmacological interventions for improving outcomes for children with substance misusing parents. Network meta-analysis was not possible; however, we synthesised the effects of a broad range of interventions on child psychosocial outcomes. Another aim was to examine potential moderators of the effects, yet this was also not possible due to data limitations. A secondary objective was to qualitatively synthesise economic, treatment completion, and treatment acceptability information for included studies.

Search Methods

Searches were performed in November 2020 and again in April 2021. Encompassing multiple disciplines, we searched 34 databases, 58 grey literature repositories, and 10 trial registers. Supplementary hand searches were conducted on 11 journals, along with harvesting the references of all included studies and existing reviews, and forward citation searching each report of all included studies. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing data.

Selection Criteria

Eligible studies included randomised and quasi-experimental evaluations of psychosocial, pharmacological, and/or legal interventions using either a placebo, no treatment, waitlist control, treatment-as-usual, or alternative treatment as a comparison condition. Study participants needed to be comprised of families with children under the age of 18 with one or more currently substance-misusing parents (or caregivers). Studies were required to evaluate the eligible intervention using a child-focused psychosocial outcome. If reported in eligible studies, the following secondary outcomes were also synthesised in the review: cost-effectiveness, treatment completion, length of time in treatment and acceptability of treatment (e.g., participant perspectives of the intervention). There were no restrictions placed on publication status or geographic location, however only research written in English was included.

Data Collection and Analysis

Standard methodological procedures were followed across all stages of the review, as guided by the published protocol for the review (Eggins et al., 2020). Due to the inability to conduct network meta-analyses, random effects pairwise meta-analyses with inverse variance were used to synthesise effects when two or more studies with conceptually similar interventions and outcomes were available. Results of the meta-analyses are displayed in forest plots, and separate analyses are provided for conceptually distinct outcomes and time-points of measurement. Sensitivity analyses are used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity in the absence of sufficient studies to conduct subgroup analyses.

Main Results

99 studies (reported in 231 documents) met review inclusion criteria, encompassing 22,213 participants. Most studies were conducted in the United States (k = 76), almost half were randomised controlled trials (k = 46), and the most common comparator was treatment-as-usual (k = 50). Interventions were evaluated using a large range of child psychosocial outcomes which broadly fell under: (a) child welfare; (b) child development; (c) child emotional and behavioural; and (d) educational domains. Intervention models were rarely only legal or pharmacological in nature, with most studies evaluating integrated psychosocial treatments with either pharmacology, coordinated health care, case-management, and/or judicial or child welfare oversight and coordination. Thirty-six meta-analyses and 227 single effect sizes were used to appraise the effectiveness of included interventions, based on 68 studies with sufficient data for effect size calculation. The size and direction of the effects varied across interventions, type of outcomes, and time-point of measurement. Twenty-seven meta-analyses and 186 single effect sizes suggested null effects. Only five single effect size estimates based on three studies indicated negative effects including: higher depressive and somatisation symptoms (parent-report), hopelessness (child-report), educational achievement difficulties (parent-report), and substantiated child protection reports for those engaged with interventions versus treatment-as-usual or no treatment. Nine meta-analyses and 36 single study effect estimates suggest that psychosocial, pharmacological and/or legal interventions have a positive effect on a range of specific child welfare, developmental, and emotional/behavioural outcomes for children. The risk of bias varied across domains and studies, which further lowers confidence in the results. Based on a subset of included studies, treatment completion tends to vary, yet cost-benefits can be achieved when intervening with children whose parents misuse substances.

Authors' Conclusions

Despite a large body of evaluation evidence, disparate outcomes, and missing data precluded analyses to formally examine the comparative effectiveness of psychosocial, legal, and pharmacological interventions for improving outcomes for children with substance misusing parents. The large amount of unreported (missing) data meant that many effect estimates were underpowered due to single studies and small sample sizes. The review findings suggest that interventions for families affected by parental substance misuse can be effective when they holistically address multiple domains such as parent wellbeing/mental health, parenting, children's wellbeing, and/or other factors impacting family wellbeing (e.g., housing).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Campbell Systematic Reviews
Campbell Systematic Reviews Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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