| Literature DB >> 31509210 |
Joanna Ting Wai Chu1, Angela Wadham1, Yannan Jiang1, Robyn Whittaker1, Karolina Stasiak2, Matthew Shepherd3, Chris Bullen1.
Abstract
Importance: There is global pressure to respond to the burden posed by adolescent mental health problems. The National Mental Health Commission has made a call for investment in mobile health services directed at prevention and early intervention to relieve the demand on targeted mental health services that are costly to provide. Parents and primary caregivers play a significant role in the lives of adolescents and are important targets for such efforts. Currently, there is no evidence for the effectiveness of programs delivered solely via text message for parents of adolescents. Objective: To evaluate the effects of a text-messaging program (MyTeen) on promoting parental competence and mental health literacy for parents of adolescents. Design, Setting, and Participants: A parallel 2-group randomized clinical trial was conducted in New Zealand. A total of 221 parents and primary caregivers of adolescents aged 10 to 15 years were recruited from March 19 to August 17, 2018, via community outreach and social media and were randomly allocated 1:1 into the control or the intervention group. Statistical analysis was performed on the principle of intention to treat with adjustment for baseline factors and ethnicity. Intervention: A text-messaging program for parents of adolescents (age 10-15 years) to promote parental competence and mental health literacy. Participants received 1 daily text message over 4 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Parental competence, assessed at 1 month after randomization by the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31509210 PMCID: PMC6739724 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11120
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JAMA Netw Open ISSN: 2574-3805
Figure. CONSORT Diagram Detailing Participant Flow
Baseline Characteristics of Participants
| Characteristic | No. (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Control (n = 112) | Intervention (n = 109) | |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 3 (2.7) | 4 (3.7) |
| Female | 109 (97.3) | 105 (96.3) |
| Ethnicity | ||
| New Zealand European | 71 (63.4) | 69 (63.3) |
| Māori | 15 (13.4) | 14 (12.8) |
| Pacific | 9 (8.0) | 9 (8.3) |
| Asian | 4 (3.6) | 4 (3.7) |
| Other | 13 (11.6) | 13 (11.9) |
| Ethnicity stratification | ||
| Māori | 15 (13.4) | 14 (12.8) |
| Pacific | 9 (8.0) | 8 (7.3) |
| Non-Māori/non-Pacific | 88 (78.6) | 87 (79.8) |
| Marital status | ||
| Married or cohabiting | 91 (81.3) | 92 (84.4) |
| Divorced, separated, or widowed | 16 (14.3) | 14 (12.8) |
| Never married | 5 (4.5) | 3 (2.8) |
| Household income, NZD | ||
| <15 000 | 1 (0.9) | 0 |
| 15000-29 999 | 2 (1.8) | 0 |
| 30 000-59 999 | 12 (10.7) | 12 (11.0) |
| 60 000-99 999 | 30 (26.8) | 35 (32.1) |
| ≥100 000 | 55 (49.1) | 57 (52.3) |
| Decline to say or don’t know | 12 (10.7) | 5 (4.6) |
| Child’s age, y | ||
| 10 | 17 (15.2) | 21 (19.3) |
| 11 | 21 (18.8) | 19 (18.4) |
| 12 | 24 (21.4) | 19 (17.4) |
| 13 | 21 (18.8) | 20 (18.3) |
| 14 | 19 (17.0) | 18 (16.5) |
| 15 | 10 (8.9) | 12 (11.0) |
| Child’s sex | ||
| Male | 64 (57.1) | 57 (52.3) |
| Female | 48 (42.9) | 52 (47.7) |
| Relationship to the child | ||
| Mother | 105 (93.8) | 103 (94.5) |
| Father | 3 (2.7) | 4 (3.7) |
| Stepparent | 1 (0.9) | 1 (0.9) |
| Grandparent | 3 (2.7) | 0 |
| Close relative | 0 | 1 (0.9) |
| Household structure | ||
| Original family | 79 (70.5) | 80 (73.4) |
| Stepfamily | 10 (8.9) | 10 (9.2) |
| Sole parent family | 15 (13.4) | 15 (13.8) |
| Living with extended family | 6 (5.4) | 3 (2.8) |
| Other | 2 (1.8) | 1 (0.9) |
Abbreviation: NZD, New Zealand dollars.
One NZD is equivalent to 0.64 US dollar.
Raw Scores and Group Differences for Primary Outcome at 1 Month
| Measure | ITT With Multiple Imputations (n = 221) | Estimated Mean Difference (95% CI) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw Score, Mean (SD) | Estimated Mean Difference (95% CI) | Standardized Mean Difference (95% CI) | ||||||||||
| Control (n = 112) | Intervention (n = 109) | Per Protocol (n = 210) | Complete Cases (n = 211) | |||||||||
| Baseline | 1 mo | Baseline | 1 mo | |||||||||
| Parenting Sense of Competence Scale | 71.8 (10.1) | 70.8 (10.9) | 69.6 (9.07) | 72.4 (8.6) | 3.33 (1.37-5.29) | .002 | 0.34 (0.14-0.54) | <.002 | 3.32 (1.45-5.19) | <.001 | 3.36 (1.50-5.23) | <.001 |
Abbreviation: ITT, intention to treat.
Raw Scores and Group Difference on All Secondary Outcomes at 1 and 3 Months
| Measures | Raw Score, Mean (SD) | 1 mo | 3 mo | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Intervention | Estimated Mean Difference (95% CI) | Estimated Mean Difference (95% CI) | |||||||
| Baseline | 1 mo | 3 mo | Baseline | 1 mo | 3 mo | |||||
| Parenting Sense of Competence Scale | 71.8 (10.1) | 70.8 (10.9) | 71.2 (11.0) | 69.6 (9.07) | 72.4 (8.6) | 73.5 (10.0) | 3.33 (1.37 to 5.29) | .002 | 4.08 (1.96 to 6.20) | .002 |
| Knowledge of | ||||||||||
| Mental health | 5.6 (1.3) | 5.6 (1.3) | 5.7 (1.2) | 5.5 (1.2) | 5.7 (1.2) | 5.9 (1.1) | 0.19 (−0.11 to 0.48) | .21 | 0.19 (−0.07 to 0.44) | .15 |
| Help-seeking information | 16.1 (2.7) | 16.6 (2.4) | 16.7 (2.2) | 15.9 (2.7) | 17.4 (2.0) | 17.6 (1.9) | 0.95 (0.44 to 1.45) | <.001 | 0.99 (0.49 to 1.50) | <.001 |
| Parental Stress Scale | 37.7 (7.4) | 40.4 (7.8) | 39.8 (8.9) | 39.8 (8.7) | 40.3 (7.7) | 38.8 (8.1) | −1.61 (−3.24 to 0.02) | .05 | −2.39 (−4.37 to −0.40) | .02 |
| Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale | 69.7 (9.9) | 69.5 (9.6) | 70.2 (10.0) | 67.6 (8.9) | 69.8 (8.5) | 70.1 (9.5) | 2.13 (0.64 to 3.62) | .005 | 2.21 (0.48 to 3.95) | .01 |
Themes and Sample Quotes From Parents’ Open-Ended Feedback on the Program
| Theme | Sample Quotes |
|---|---|
| Overall program | |
| Positive and encouraging | “It really felt empowering and reminded me of things that were important. I think you get lost in your life and there is always so much to do so this was really lovely.” |
| Helpful | “I think all parents could benefit from this programme.” |
| Enjoyable | “I enjoyed this programme. I liked how encouraging some of the messages were and I really liked the texts which had rationale for the information given.” |
| “It was so good and I was surprised how quickly the month finished. I looked forward to the daily messages.” | |
| Delivery | |
| Acceptable | “I love the idea of using technology to get this programme/education out there in an easy, nonevasive, accessible, and user-friendly way. It's really positively programmed too.” |
| Longer duration of the program | “I would love this to continue for another couple of weeks.” |
| Content | |
| Incorporate more practical tips | “I looked forward to the daily messages. I loved being encouraged. More practical ideas would be great.” |
| Mixing the order of the text messages | “The content could be better distributed. The first part were all positive messages around how to parent a teen. While the remaining messages were all about depression. An important topic but, perhaps 2 to 3 positive messages followed by 1 to 2 on depression could be a better mix.” |
| Mental health information irrelevant to current needs | “Depression is one problem for teens but not the problem for my child so more focus on general behavior might be good.” |
| “This was a really useful course, but for me the depression side of things weren't as useful as the other messages. Although I can see how they may be very helpful to some parents.” | |
| Abbreviated text was difficult to read | “Text shorthand was not easy to read.” |
| Recommendations | |
| Text messages for the child | “A good idea to reach out to teens on their mobiles too since many have them now.” |
| Text messages for both parents | “Options for texting to both parents—I forwarded all the messages to my husband and we sometimes discussed how we could/are applying them with our teens.” |
| Option to text back | “Maybe a text back option so that if parents were having problems they could text back with the issue and be referred where they need to be referred too.” |
| Additional information via email | “An email service would be good too. Short, simple and to-the-point information should be in the email.” |