Comparative Costs of a Parent-Only and Parent and Child Treatment for Children with Overweight or Obesity.

OBJECTIVE: Models such as family-based treatment (FBT), delivered to both the parent and child, are considered the most efficacious intervention for children with obesity. However, recent research suggests that parent-based treatment (PBT; or parent-only treatment) is noninferior to FBT. The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative costs of the FBT and PBT models. METHODS: A total of 150 children with overweight and obesity and their parents were randomized to one of two 6-month treatment programs (FBT or PBT). Data was collected at baseline, during treatment, and following treatment, and and trial-based analyses of the costs were conducted from a health care sector perspective and a limited societal perspective. RESULTS: Results suggest that PBT, compared with FBT, had lower costs per parent-child dyad from the health care sector perspective (PBT = $2,886; FBT = $3,899) and from a limited societal perspective (PBT = $3,231; FBT = $4,279). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that a PBT intervention has lower costs and is noninferior to an FBT intervention for both child and parent weight loss.

Evaluation of a new model for assessment and treatment of uncomplicated ADHD - effect, patient satisfaction and costs.

Aim: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common diagnosis within child- and adolescent psychiatry. Waiting lists and delayed care are major issues. The aim was to evaluate if standardized care (SC) for assessment and treatment of uncomplicated ADHD would reduce resource utilization and increase satisfaction with preserved improvement within the first year of treatment.Method: Patients 6-12 years with positive screen for uncomplicated ADHD at the brief child and family phone interview (BCFPI), a routine clinical procedure, were triaged to SC. The control group consisted of patients diagnosed with ADHD in 2014 and treated as usual. BCFPI factors at baseline and follow-up after one year and resource utilization were compared.Results: Patients improved in ADHD symptoms (Cohen's d = 0.78, p < 0.001), child function (Cohen's d = 0.80, p < 0.001) and in family situation (Cohen's d = 0.61, p < 0.001) without group differences. Parents of SC patients participated more often in psychoeducational groups (75.5 vs. 49.5%, p < 0.001). SC had shorter time to ADHD diagnosis (8.4 vs. 15.6 weeks, p = 0.01) and to medication (24.6 vs. 32.1 weeks, p = 0.003). SC families were more satisfied with the waiting time (p = 0.01), otherwise there were no differences in satisfaction between the groups. Families of SC patients had fewer visits (4.7 vs. 10.8, p < 0.001) but used the same number of phone calls (6.3 vs. 6.2, p = 0.71). Costs were 55% lower.Conclusions: A SC for ADHD can markedly reduce costs with preserved quality. As resources are limited, child psychiatry would benefit from standardization.

Multicenter randomized controlled trial on the comparison of multi-family therapy (MFT) and systemic single-family therapy (SFT) in young patients with anorexia nervosa: study protocol of the THERAFAMBEST study.

BACKGROUND: Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a serious psychiatric illness that begins most of the time during adolescence. An early and efficacious intervention is crucial to minimize the risk of the illness becoming chronic and to limit the occurrence of comorbidities. There is a global consensus on optimal treatment for adolescents suffering from AN: international guidelines recommend single-family therapy that involves the patient and his/her family. Several family therapy approaches have been developed to date. However, these approaches, which imply a direct questioning of intrafamilial dynamics, are not suitable for all patients and families, and the rates of dropout or poor response to treatment remain quite high. A modality of family therapy has been adapted to AN, known as multi-family therapy (MFT), which consists in bringing together several families whose children suffers from the same illness. Objectives of the present randomized clinical trial are to evaluate whether the implementation of MFT in a multi-disciplinary treatment program for adolescents with AN is at least as efficacious as the use of systemic single-family therapy (SFT), with respect to the evolution of body mass index and other clinical outcomes 12 and 18 months after the start of treatment. A cost-efficiency analysis will also be conducted. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients meeting the inclusion criteria will be randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups. Patients and their families will receive 10 sessions of therapy spread over 12 months. Body weight, eating disorder and other psychopathology-related symptoms, quality of family relationships, and family satisfaction with treatment will be evaluated during the treatment and at an 18 months follow-up. A cost-efficiency analysis will also be carried out. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that MFT is at least as efficacious as SFT, but at a lesser cost. The identification of possible preferential indications for each technique could help the improvement of therapeutic indications for adolescents suffering from AN and contribute to the earliness of intervention, which is associated with a better outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03350594 . Registered on 22 November 2017. IDRCB number 2016-A00818-43.

State-wide implementation and clinical outcomes associated with evidence-based psychotherapies for traumatized youth.

BACKGROUND: Highly efficacious evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) exist for children and youth exposed to trauma, yet very few who need the treatments in the community receive them. Research within real-world settings is needed to better understand what is required to translate treatments into the community. PURPOSE: We aimed to examine the implementation and clinical outcomes of a multiyear project installing 2 EBPs for trauma-exposed youth in community agencies across the state of New Hampshire. METHOD: We invited clinicians to 2 days of training plus weekly group consultation calls for 9 or 12 months in Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Child Parent Psychotherapy. Implementation metrics included clinician adherence to training, consultation, and treatment delivery expectations. Clinical outcomes included treatment dropout, as well as posttraumatic stress (PTS) symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 292 clinicians meeting eligibility and agreeing to participate, 243 (83%) attended trainings, 168 (58%) began consultation calls, and 70 (24%) adhered to implementation expectations by attending 80% of consultation calls and beginning the treatment with 2 youths. According to (completing) clinicians' reports, of the 363 youths tracked over the 9 to 12 month consultation periods, 47% dropped out of treatment and 44% were ongoing. Pre-post PTS scores (n = 82) demonstrated clinically meaningful reductions for 59% of youth. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes were robust for those who completed treatment, rivaling those of highly controlled trials. However, implementation outcomes indicate an uphill battle in reaching youth who need the treatment. Implementation outcomes were mixed compared with those of more resource-intensive implementation models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Strengthening Clinical Research in Marriage and Family Therapy: Challenges and Multilevel Solutions.

There is a critical need for high-quality and accessible treatments to improve mental health. Yet, there are indications that the research being conducted by contemporary marriage and family therapy (MFT) scholars focuses less on advancing and disseminating clinical interventions than in previous decades. In this article, we describe challenges to increasing rigorous clinical research in MFT. We use systems mapping and the intervention-level framework to identify strategic goals designed to drive innovation in clinical research in the field. It is our hope this article encourages dialog and action among MFT stakeholder groups to support clinical science that will improve the health and functioning of families.

Scaling-Up Evidence-Based Programs Using a Public Funding Stream: a Randomized Trial of Functional Family Therapy for Court-Involved Youth.

The Affordable Care Act expanded access to Medicaid programs and required them to provide essential health benefits, which can include prevention services. This study assesses the costs and benefits to using Medicaid funding to implement a well-known evidence-based program, Functional Family Therapy (FFT), with a sample of juvenile justice-involved youth. The study also provides a rigorous test of FFT accommodated for a contemporary urban population that is gang at risk or gang-involved. One hundred twenty-nine predominantly minority and low income families were randomly assigned to receive an enhanced version of FFT or an alternative family therapy. Data from pre- and post-intervention interviews with youth and parents, court records of contacts with the justice system and residential placements, official records of community services, and the costs of placements and services are summarized. The intervention was implemented with fidelity to the FFT model using Medicaid funding. Treatment and control subjects received a wide range of community and residential services in addition to FFT. A higher percentage of treatment subjects than controls received services following random assignment, but the cost per youth served was lower for treatment than control youth, primarily because control youth were more often placed in residential facilities. Recidivism during the 18-month follow-up period was lower for FFT than for control youth. The combination of cost savings realized from avoiding more costly services and the expected future savings due to recidivism reduction suggest the expanded use of evidence-based practices using public funding streams such as Medicaid is warranted.

Cost-effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing in child welfare: a controlled study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the short- and long term (cost-) effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing (FGC) compared to care as usual (CAU) in terms of improved child safety, empowerment and social support. METHODS: A subgroup of a larger randomized controlled trial, comprising 69 families in child welfare (experimental group: n = 46; control group: n = 23), was included. RESULTS: No additional effects of FGC on child safety, social support and only short-term positive effects on empowerment were found. There were no differences in costs between FGC and CAU. The chance for FGC to be cost-effective was small. For families who refused FGC, the FGC approach was more cost-effective than CAU, whereas it was less cost-effective for families that prepared or completed FGC. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, FGC is not (cost-)effective in improving child safety, empowerment and social support, but cost-effectiveness varies at different levels of FGC-completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register number NTR4320 . Registered 17 December 2013.

Economic Impact of Multisystemic Therapy for Child Abuse and Neglect.

This study evaluated the economics of Multisystemic Therapy for Child Abuse and Neglect (MST-CAN) by applying the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) cost-benefit model to data from a randomized effectiveness trial with 86 families (Swenson et al. in JFP 24:497-507, 2010b). The net benefit of MST-CAN, versus enhanced outpatient treatment, was $26,655 per family at 16 months post-baseline. Stated differently, every dollar spent on MST-CAN recovered $3.31 in savings to participants, taxpayers, and society at large. Policymakers and public service agencies should consider these findings when making investments into interventions for high-need families involved with child protective services.

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of family therapy versus treatment as usual for young people seen after second or subsequent episodes of self-harm: the Self-Harm Intervention - Family Therapy (SHIFT) trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm in adolescents is common and repetition rates high. There is limited evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to reduce self-harm. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of family therapy (FT) compared with treatment as usual (TAU). DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised controlled trial of FT compared with TAU. Participants and therapists were aware of treatment allocation; researchers were blind to allocation. SETTING: Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) across three English regions. PARTICIPANTS: Young people aged 11-17 years who had self-harmed at least twice presenting to CAMHS following self-harm. INTERVENTIONS: Eight hundred and thirty-two participants were randomised to manualised FT delivered by trained and supervised family therapists (n = 415) or to usual care offered by local CAMHS following self-harm (n = 417). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of repetition of self-harm leading to hospital attendance 18 months after randomisation. RESULTS: Out of 832 young people, 212 (26.6%) experienced a primary outcome event: 118 out of 415 (28.4%) randomised to FT and 103 out of 417 (24.7%) randomised to TAU. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in repetition rates between groups (the hazard ratio for FT compared with TAU was 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.49; p = 0.3349). FT was not found to be cost-effective when compared with TAU in the base case and most sensitivity analyses. FT was dominated (less effective and more expensive) in the complete case. However, when young people's and caregivers' quality-adjusted life-year gains were combined, FT incurred higher costs and resulted in better health outcomes than TAU within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness range. Significant interactions with treatment, indicating moderation, were detected for the unemotional subscale on the young person-reported Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (p = 0.0104) and the affective involvement subscale on the caregiver-reported McMaster Family Assessment Device (p = 0.0338). Caregivers and young people in the FT arm reported a range of significantly better outcomes on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Self-reported suicidal ideation was significantly lower in the FT arm at 12 months but the same in both groups at 18 months. No significant unexpected adverse events or side effects were reported, with similar rates of expected adverse events across trial arms. CONCLUSIONS: For adolescents referred to CAMHS after self-harm, who have self-harmed at least once before, FT confers no benefits over TAU in reducing self-harm repetition rates. There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of FT in reducing self-harm when caregivers reported poor family functioning. When the young person themselves reported difficulty expressing emotion, FT did not seem as effective as TAU. There was no evidence that FT is cost-effective when only the health benefits to participants were considered but there was a suggestion that FT may be cost-effective if health benefits to caregivers are taken into account. FT had a significant, positive impact on general emotional and behavioural problems at 12 and 18 months. LIMITATIONS: There was significant loss to follow-up for secondary outcomes and health economic analyses; the primary outcome misses those who do not attend hospital following self-harm; and the numbers receiving formal FT in the TAU arm were higher than expected. FUTURE WORK: Evaluation of interventions targeted at subgroups of those who self-harm, longer-term follow-up and methods for evaluating health benefits for family groups rather than for individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59793150. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Family Integrated Care (FICare) in Level II Neonatal Intensive Care Units: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Every year, about 15 million of the world's infants are born preterm (before 37 weeks gestation). In Alberta, the preterm birth rate was 8.7% in 2015, the second highest among Canadian provinces. Approximately 20% of preterm infants are born before 32 weeks gestation (early preterm), and require care in a Level III neonatal intensive care unit (NICU); 80% are born moderate (32 weeks and zero days [320/7] to 336/7 weeks) and late preterm (340/7 to 366/7 weeks), and require care in a Level II NICU. Preterm birth and experiences in the NICU disrupt early parent-infant relationships and induce parental psychosocial distress. Family Integrated Care (FICare) shows promise as a model of care in Level III NICUs. The purpose of this study is to evaluate length of stay, infant and maternal clinical outcomes, and costs following adaptation and implementation of FICare in Level II NICUs. METHODS: We will conduct a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) in ten Alberta Level II NICUs allocated to one of two groups: FICare or standard care. The FICare Alberta model involves three theoretically-based, standardized components: information sharing, parenting education, and family support. Our sample size of 181 mother-infant dyads per group is based on the primary outcome of NICU length of stay, 80% participation, and 80% retention at follow-up. Secondary outcomes (e.g., infant clinical outcomes and maternal psychosocial distress) will be assessed shortly after admission to NICU, at discharge and 2 months corrected age. We will conduct economic analysis from two perspectives: the public healthcare payer and society. To understand the utility, acceptability, and impact of FICare, qualitative interviews will be conducted with a subset of mothers at the 2-month follow-up, and with hospital administrators and healthcare providers near the end of the study. DISCUSSION: Results of this pragmatic cRCT of FICare in Alberta Level II NICUs will inform policy decisions by providing evidence about the clinical effectiveness and costs of FICare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02879799 . Registered on 27 May 2016. Protocol version: 9 June 2016; version 2.

The search for relevant outcome measures for cost-utility analysis of systemic family interventions in adolescents with substance use disorder and delinquent behavior: a systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: Systemic family interventions have shown to be effective in adolescents with substance use disorder and delinquent behavior. The interventions target interactions between the adolescent and involved systems (i.e. youth, family, peers, neighbors, school, work, and society). Next to effectiveness considerations, economic aspects have gained attention. However, conventional generic quality of life measures used in health economic evaluations may not be able to capture the broad effects of systemic interventions. This study aims to identify existing outcome measures, which capture the broad effects of systemic family interventions, and allow use in a health economic framework. METHODS: We based our systematic review on clinical studies in the field. Our goal was to identify effectiveness studies of psychosocial interventions for adolescents with substance use disorder and delinquent behavior and to distill the instruments used in these studies to measure effects. Searched databases were PubMed, Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), Cochrane and Psychnet (PsycBOOKSc, PsycCRITIQUES, print). Identified instruments were ranked according to the number of systems covered (comprehensiveness). In addition, their use for health economic analyses was evaluated according to suitability characteristics such as brevity, accessibility, psychometric properties, etc. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred seventy-eight articles were found and screened for eligibility. Eighty articles were selected, 8 instruments were identified covering 5 or more systems. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic review identified instruments from the clinical field suitable to evaluate systemic family interventions in a health economic framework. None of them had preference-weights available. Hence, a next step could be to attach preference-weights to one of the identified instruments to allow health economic evaluations of systemic family interventions.

Statewide Implementation of Parenting with Love and Limits Among Youth with Co-Existing Internalizing and Externalizing Functional Impairments Reduces Return to Service Rates and Treatment Costs.

Many community mental health (CMH) systems contain inefficiencies, contributing to unmet need for services among youth. Using a quasi-experimental research design, we examined the implementation of an adapted structural-strategic family intervention, Parenting with Love and Limits, in a state CMH system to increase efficiency of services to youth with co-existing internalizing and externalizing functional impairments (PLL n = 296; Treatment-As-Usual n = 296; 54% male; 81% Caucasian). Youth receiving PLL experienced shorter treatment durations and returned to CMH services at significantly lower rates than youth receiving treatment-as-usual. They also demonstrated significant decreases in internalizing and externalizing symptoms over time. Findings lay the foundation for further examination of the role of an adapted structural-strategic family treatment in increasing the efficiency of CMH systems.

Effectiveness of an implementation optimisation intervention aimed at increasing parent engagement in HENRY, a childhood obesity prevention programme - the Optimising Family Engagement in HENRY (OFTEN) trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Family-based interventions to prevent childhood obesity depend upon parents' taking action to improve diet and other lifestyle behaviours in their families. Programmes that attract and retain high numbers of parents provide an enhanced opportunity to improve public health and are also likely to be more cost-effective than those that do not. We have developed a theory-informed optimisation intervention to promote parent engagement within an existing childhood obesity prevention group programme, HENRY (Health Exercise Nutrition for the Really Young). Here, we describe a proposal to evaluate the effectiveness of this optimisation intervention in regard to the engagement of parents and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: The Optimising Family Engagement in HENRY (OFTEN) trial is a cluster randomised controlled trial being conducted across 24 local authorities (approximately 144 children's centres) which currently deliver HENRY programmes. The primary outcome will be parental enrolment and attendance at the HENRY programme, assessed using routinely collected process data. Cost-effectiveness will be presented in terms of primary outcomes using acceptability curves and through eliciting the willingness to pay for the optimisation from HENRY commissioners. Secondary outcomes include the longitudinal impact of the optimisation, parent-reported infant intake of fruits and vegetables (as a proxy to compliance) and other parent-reported family habits and lifestyle. DISCUSSION: This innovative trial will provide evidence on the implementation of a theory-informed optimisation intervention to promote parent engagement in HENRY, a community-based childhood obesity prevention programme. The findings will be generalisable to other interventions delivered to parents in other community-based environments. This research meets the expressed needs of commissioners, children's centres and parents to optimise the potential impact that HENRY has on obesity prevention. A subsequent cluster randomised controlled pilot trial is planned to determine the practicality of undertaking a definitive trial to robustly evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the optimised intervention on childhood obesity prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02675699 . Registered on 4 February 2016.

The cost-effectiveness of family/family-based therapy for treatment of externalizing disorders, substance use disorders and delinquency: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Family therapy and family-based treatment has been commonly applied in children and adolescents in mental health care and has been proven to be effective. There is an increased interest in economic evaluations of these, often expensive, interventions. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize and evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of family/family-based therapy for externalizing disorders, substance use disorders and delinquency. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Education Resource information Centre (ERIC), Psycinfo and Cochrane reviews including studies conducted after 1990 and before the first of August of 2013. Full economic evaluations investigating family/family-based interventions for adolescents between 10 and 20 years treated for substance use disorders, delinquency or externalizing disorders were included. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-one articles met the search criteria and 51 studies were initially selected. The final selection resulted in the inclusion of 11 studies. The quality of these studies was assessed. Within the identified studies, there was great variation in the specific type of family/family-based interventions and disorders. According to the outcomes of the checklists, the overall quality of the economic evaluations was low. Results varied by study. Due to the variations in setting, design and outcome it was not feasible to pool results using a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the identified economic evaluations of family/family-based therapy for treatment of externalizing disorders, adolescent substance use disorders and delinquency was insufficient to determine the cost-effectiveness. Although commonly applied, family/family-based therapy is costly and more research of higher quality is needed.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Family Systems Intervention for Managing Pediatric Chronic Illness.

Despite recent increases of psychosocial programs for pediatric chronic illness, few studies have explored their economic benefits. This study investigated the costs-benefits of a family systems-based, psychosocial intervention for pediatric chronic illness (MEND: Mastering Each New Direction). A quasi-prospective study compared the 12-month pre-post direct and indirect costs of 20 families. The total cost for program was estimated to $5,320. Families incurred $15,249 less in direct and $15,627 less in indirect costs after MEND. On average, medical expenses reduced by 86% in direct and indirect costs, for a cost-benefit ratio of 0.17. Therefore, for every dollar spent on the program, families and their third payers saved approximately $5.74. Implications for healthcare policy and reimbursements are discussed.

A decision support tool to determine cost-to-benefit of a family-centered in-home program for at-risk adolescents.

Family-centered program research has demonstrated its effectiveness in improving adolescent outcomes. However, given current fiscal constraints faced by governmental agencies, a recent report from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council highlighted the need for cost-benefit analyses to inform decision making by policymakers. Furthermore, performance management tools such as balanced scorecards and dashboards do not generally include cost-benefit analyses. In this paper, we describe the development of an Excel-based decision support tool that can be used to evaluate a selected family-based program for at-risk children and adolescents relative to a comparison program or the status quo. This tool incorporates the use of an efficient, user-friendly interface with results provided in concise tabular and graphical formats that may be interpreted without need for substantial training in economic evaluation. To illustrate, we present an application of this tool to evaluate use of Boys Town's In-Home Family Services (IHFS) relative to detention and out-of-home placement in New York City. Use of the decision support tool can help mitigate the need for programs to contract experts in economic evaluation, especially when there are financial or time constraints.

Cost-effectiveness of multidimensional family therapy compared to cognitive behavioral therapy for adolescents with a cannabis use disorder: Data from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT) for adolescents with a cannabis use disorder, compared to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). METHODS: A parallel-group randomized controlled trial was performed. 109 adolescents with a DSM-IV cannabis use disorder (CBT n=54; MDFT n=55) were included. Assessments were conducted at baseline, and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post-baseline, and included measures on cannabis and other substance use, delinquency, health care utilization, and general health related quality of life. RESULTS: Excluding those with missing cost-data, 96 participants (MDFT n=49; CBT n=47) were included. From a health care perspective, the average annual direct medical costs in the CBT group were €2015 (95%C.I. 1397-2714), compared to €5446 (95%C.I. 4159-7092) in the MDFT group. The average quality-adjusted life years (QALY's) gained were 0.06 QALY higher for the MDFT group, which led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 54,308 Euro/QALY or €43,405 per recovered patient. Taking the costs of delinquency into account, the costs increased to €21,330 (95%C.I. 12,389-32,894) for the CBT group and to €21,915 (95%C.I. 16,273-28,181) for the MDFT group, which lead to an ICER of 9266 Euro/QALY or a cost per recovered patient of €7491. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive CEA of MDFT compared to CBT and it demonstrated that when costs of delinquency were included, the ICERS were modest. The results underline the importance of adopting a broader perspective regarding cost effectiveness analyses in mental health care.

Making the Business Case for Coverage of Family-Based Behavioral Group Interventions for Pediatric Obesity.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric obesity presents a significant burden. However, family-based behavioral group (FBBG) obesity interventions are largely uncovered by our health care system. The present study uses Return on Investment (ROI) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) analyses to analyze the business side of FBBG interventions. METHODS: ROI and IRR were calculated to determine longitudinal cost-effectiveness of a FBBG intervention. Multiple simulations of cost savings are projected using three estimated trajectories of weight change and variations in assumptions. RESULTS: The baseline model of child savings gives an average IRR of 0.2% ± 0.08% and an average ROI of 20.8% ± 0.4%, which represents a break-even IRR and a positive ROI. More pessimistic simulations result in negative IRR values. CONCLUSIONS: Under certain assumptions, FBBGs offer a break-even proposition. Results are limited by lack of data regarding several assumptions, and future research should evaluate changes in cost savings following changes in child and adult weight.

Self-Harm Intervention: Family Therapy (SHIFT), a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of family therapy versus treatment as usual for young people seen after a second or subsequent episode of self-harm.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm is common in the community with a lifetime prevalence of 13 %. It is associated with an elevated risk of overall mortality and suicide. People who harm themselves are high users of public services. Estimates of the 1-year risk of repetition vary between 5 and 15 % per year. Currently, limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of clinical interventions for young people who engage in self-harm. Recent reviews have failed to demonstrate any effect on reducing repetition of self-harm among adolescents receiving a range of treatment approaches. Family factors are particularly important risk factors associated with fatal and non-fatal self-harm among children and adolescents. Family therapy focuses on the relationships, roles and communication patterns between family members, but there have been relatively few studies of specifically family-focused interventions with this population. The Self-Harm Intervention: Family Therapy (SHIFT) Trial was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (grant no. 07/33/01) following a commissioned call for this research. METHODS/DESIGN: SHIFT is a pragmatic, phase III, multicentre, individually randomised, controlled trial comparing Family Therapy (FT) with treatment as usual (TAU) for adolescents aged 11 to 17 who have engaged in at least two episodes of self-harm. Both therapeutic interventions were delivered within the National Health Service (NHS) Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in England. Participants and therapists were, of necessity, aware of treatment allocation, but the researchers were blind to the allocations to allow unbiased collection of follow-up data. Primary outcome data (repetition of self-harm leading to hospital attendance 18 months post-randomisation) were collected from the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC), augmented by directed searches of medical records at Acute Trusts. Secondary outcome data (including suicidal intent, depression, hopelessness and health economics) were collected at 12 and 18 months post-randomisation via researcher-participant interviews and by post at 3 and 6 months. DISCUSSION: SHIFT will provide a well-powered evaluation of the clinical and cost effectiveness of Family Therapy for young people who have self-harmed on more than one occasion. The study will be reported in 2016, and the results will inform clinical practice thereafter. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN59793150 . 26 January 2009.