| Literature DB >> 34154666 |
Simon-Peter Neumer1,2, Joshua Patras3, Solveig Holen4, Carina Lisøy4, Anne Liv Askeland4, Ida Mari Haug3, Annette Jeneson4, Tore Wentzel-Larsen4,5, Frode Adolfsen3, Lene-Mari Potulski Rasmussen3, Jo Magne Ingul6, Kristin Ytreland6, Elisabeth Valmyr Bania6, Anne Mari Sund6,7, Kristin Martinsen4,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Youth mental health problems are a major public health concern. Anxiety and depression are among the most common psychological difficulties. The aim of this study is to evaluate an optimized version of a promising indicated group intervention for emotional problems. The program (EMOTION Coping Kids Managing Anxiety and Depression) targets school children 8-12 years with anxious and depressive symptoms and examines three factors. Factor 1 compares the standard EMOTION intervention delivered in 16 group-based sessions (Group), versus a partially-digital EMOTION intervention (DIGGI) delivered as eight group sessions and eight digital sessions. Both versions use virtual reality technology (VR) to improve behavioral experiments. Factor 2 compares parent participation in a 5-session parent group (high involvement) versus sharing information with parents via a brochure (low involvement). Factor 3 compares the use of a measurement and feedback system (MFS) designed to help group leaders tailor the intervention using feedback from children with no MFS.Entities:
Keywords: Anxiety; Children; Depression; Digital interventions; Effectiveness; Factorial design; Implementation; Indicated prevention; MFS; Parental involvement
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34154666 PMCID: PMC8215478 DOI: 10.1186/s40359-021-00581-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychol ISSN: 2050-7283
Experimental conditions of ECHO project
| Factor | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental condition number | 1. Measurement feedback system (yes/no) | 2. EMOTION coping kids (group/DIGGI*) | 3. Parental involvement (high/low) |
| 1 | Yes | Group | High |
| 2 | Yes | Group | Low |
| 3 | Yes | DIGGI | High |
| 4 | Yes | DIGGI | Low |
| 5 | No | Group | High |
| 6 | No | Group | Low |
| 7 | No | DIGGI | High |
| 8 | No | DIGGI | Low |
*The group version includes 16 sessions delivered in a group-format. DIGGI is a partially digital version with eight sessions delivered in group-format, and eight sessions delivered as internet-based sessions
SPIRIT table for evaluation of the ECHO study
| Study period | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enrolmenta | Allocationb | After school allocation: Assessments and Intervention | Close-out | ||||
| Pre-I (T1) | Intervention | Post-I (T2) | Post + 1 yr (T3) | ||||
| Timepoint | Coh1: Q1 2020 | Q1 2020 | Coh1: Q1 2020 | Coh1: Q2 2020 | Coh1: Q2 2021 | ||
| Coh2: Q3 2020 | Q3 2020 | Coh2: Q3 2020 | Coh2: Q4 2020 | Coh2: Q4 2021 | |||
| Coh3: Q1 2021 | Q1 2021 | Coh3: Q1 2021 | Coh3: Q2 2021 | Coh3: Q2 2022 | |||
| Coh4: Q3 2021 | Q3 2021 | Coh4: Q3 2021 | Coh4: Q4 2021 | Coh4: Q4 2022 | |||
| Coh5: Q1 2022 | Coh5: Q1 2022 | Coh5: Q2 2022 | Coh 5: Q2 2023 | ||||
| Eligibility screenc | X | ||||||
| Informed consent | X | ||||||
| Allocation | X | ||||||
| X | |||||||
| Primary outcomes (MASC & SMFQ) | Xc | X | X | X | |||
| Secondary outcomes except | X | X | X | X | |||
| User satisfaction, PIE Stigma evaluation sheet Implementation components | X | X | |||||
| KIDSCREEN-27, RCADS, attitudes towards EBPs, TWQ, ICS, ILS | X | ||||||
| Sustainability | X | ||||||
aEnrollment occurs at the beginning of the semester prior to delivery of the intervention. Each cohort represents a group of children recruited during the semester
bAllocation (randomization) is conducted at the school-level, therefore allocation reflects when new schools joined the study
cStudy eligibility for individual children is based on their scores on the MASC and MFQ (primary outcome measures)
Coh cohort, Q quartile
Table for secondary outcomes in the ECHO study
| Instrument | Description |
|---|---|
| The BSCI-Y [ | |
| The GSE-6 is a short-form of the GSE [ | |
| KIDSCREEN-27 | The KIDSCREEN-27 [ |
| The RCADS C/P [ | |
| The BFS [ | |
| The | |
| The | |
| The | |
| The BPM-T is an 18-item version of the Child Behavior Checklist scale (CBCL). The CBCL is a component of the | |
| Academic performance and school adaptation measures are based on an adapted version of two factors from TRF. The TRF is a component of the ASEBA [ | |
| The | |
| Six questions regarding attitudes towards evidence-based interventions will be asked. These questions are previously used in a large Norwegian study, investigating important factors related to cooperation and quality in services for children and their families [ | |
| The TWQ [ | |
| The ICS [ | |
| The ILS [ | |
| The PIE, a self-developed questionnaire (see Additional file | |
| From the Measures of Implementation Components [ | |
| One self-developed question regarding sustainability (“Are your service still running EMOTION groups?”) with a follow-up question on “why/why not” will be included one year after the groups are finished to both group leaders and service leaders | |
| The CIS parent version [ | |
| The PaRCADS [ | |
| The | The FAD [ |
| The PBI [ | |
| The ten-item HSCL-10 has shown good psychometric properties [ | |
Number of participants and clusters required in a multilevel study
| Assumed ICC | Design effect | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0.00 – Base model | 1 | 400 | 20 | 20 |
| B | 0.05 – Two-level model | 1.95 | 800 | 20 | 40 |
Design effect = 1 + (nc − 1)
ICC intraclass correlation coefficient, n number of pupils
*ICC (nc = average number of individuals in a cluster = 20)