Mindfulness-enhanced parenting programmes for improving the psychosocial outcomes of children (0 to 18 years) and their parents.

BACKGROUND: Emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) in children are common, characterised by externalising or internalising behaviours that can be highly stable over time. EBD are an important cause of functional disability in childhood, and predictive of poorer psychosocial, academic, and occupational functioning into adolescence and adulthood. The prevalence, stability, and long-term consequences of EBD highlight the importance of intervening in childhood when behavioural patterns are more easily modified. Multiple factors contribute to the aetiology of EBD in children, and parenting plays an important role. The relationship between parenting and EBD has been described as bidirectional, with parents and children shaping one another's behaviour. One consequence of bidirectionality is that parents with insufficient parenting skills may become involved in increasingly negative behaviours when dealing with non-compliance in children. This can have a cyclical effect, exacerbating child behavioural difficulties and further increasing parental distress. Behavioural or skills-based parenting training can be highly effective in addressing EBD in children. However, emotional dysregulation may intercept some parents' ability to implement parenting skills, and there is recognition that skills-based interventions may benefit from adjunct components that better target parental emotional responses. Mindful parenting interventions have demonstrated some efficacy in improving child outcomes via improvements in parental emotion regulation, and there is potential for mindfulness training to enhance the effectiveness of standard parent training programmes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of mindfulness-enhanced parent training programmes on the psychosocial functioning of children (aged 0 to 18 years) and their parents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to April 2023: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social Science & Humanities, AMED, ERIC, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews, as well as the following trials registers: ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). We also contacted organisations/experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials. Participants were parents or caregivers of children under the age of 18. The intervention was mindfulness-enhanced parent training programmes compared with a no-intervention, waitlist, or attentional control, or a parent training programme with no mindfulness component. The intervention must have combined mindfulness parent training with behavioural or skills-based parent training. We defined parent training programmes in terms of the delivery of a standardised and manualised intervention over a specified and limited period, on a one-to-one or group-basis, with a well-defined mindfulness component. The mindfulness component must have included mindfulness training (breath, visualisation, listening, or other sensory focus) and an explicit focus on present-focused attention and non-judgemental acceptance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane procedures. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies met our inclusion criteria, including one ongoing study. The studies compared a mindfulness-enhanced parent training programme with a no-treatment, waitlist, or attentional control (2 studies); a parent training programme with no mindfulness component (5 studies); both a no-treatment, waitlist, or attentional control and a parent training programme with no mindfulness component (4 studies). We assessed all studies as being at an unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. We pooled child and parent outcome data from 2118 participants to produce effect estimates. No study explicitly reported on self-compassion, and no adverse effects were reported in any of the studies. Mindfulness-enhanced parent training programmes compared to a no-treatment, waitlist, or attentional control Very low certainty evidence suggests there may be a small to moderate postintervention improvement in child emotional and behavioural adjustment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.96 to 0.03; P = 0.06, I2 = 62%; 3 studies, 270 participants); a small improvement in parenting skills (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39; P = 0.008, I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 587 participants); and a moderate decrease in parental depression or anxiety (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.04; P = 0.03; 1 study, 75 participants). There may also be a moderate to large decrease in parenting stress (SMD -0.79, 95% CI -1.80 to 0.23; P = 0.13, I2 = 82%; 2 studies, 112 participants) and a small improvement in parent mindfulness (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.56; P = 0.24, I2 = 69%; 3 studies, 515 participants), but we were not able to exclude little to no effect for these outcomes. Mindfulness-enhanced parent training programmes compared to parent training with no mindfulness component Very low certainty evidence suggests there may be little to no difference postintervention in child emotional and behavioural adjustment (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.40; P = 0.71, I2 = 64%; 5 studies, 203 participants); parenting skills (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.42; P = 0.37, I2 = 16%; 3 studies, 319 participants); and parent mindfulness (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.41; P = 0.48, I2 = 44%; 4 studies, 412 participants). There may be a slight decrease in parental depression or anxiety (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.34; P = 0.41; 1 study, 45 participants; very low certainty evidence), though we cannot exclude little to no effect, and a moderate decrease in parenting stress (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.18; P = 0.002, I2 = 2%; 3 studies, 150 participants; low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Mindfulness-enhanced parenting training may improve some parent and child outcomes, with no studies reporting adverse effects. Evidence for the added value of mindfulness training to skills-based parenting training programmes is suggestive at present, with moderate reductions in parenting stress. Given the very low to low certainty evidence reviewed here, these estimates will likely change as more high-quality studies are produced.

Gender Differences in the Maltreatment-Youth Offending Relationship: A Scoping Review.

Maltreated and child welfare-involved youth are over-represented in juvenile justice systems. These youth are at a greater risk of serious offending and justice system entrenchment relative to their non-maltreated peers. Understanding gender differences in the pathways to justice involvement and the nature of offending among maltreated children is critical for informing policy and practice. Yet, this body of evidence is fragmented. This scoping review identified and narratively synthesized evidence from studies reporting on gender differences in the individual characteristics, maltreatment experiences, child protection involvement and offending profiles of maltreated youth who offend. A comprehensive search of four databases generated 11,568 publications, from which 180 met the review's inclusion criteria. These primary studies included participants aged 8-21 years with a history of childhood maltreatment and youth offending and reported at least one gendered analysis. Some consistent findings were reported across studies. A greater level of child welfare involvement and maltreatment exposure (particularly sexual abuse and multi-type maltreatment) was found for justice involved girls, relative to boys. Maltreated and child welfare-involved boys appear more likely to offend than girls, but findings about how gender moderates the maltreatment-offending relationship were inconsistent. Child welfare systems involvement (particularly foster care and residential care) appeared to be an important moderator for girls, and school performance mediated outcomes for boys. Across this body of evidence, few studies accounted for under-reporting of abuse and neglect when using youth self-report measures of maltreatment. Future research is needed which explicitly explores how gender moderates the maltreatment-offending relationship.

Interventions that address institutional child maltreatment: An evidence and gap map.

Background: Child maltreatment has serious short and long-term negative impacts for those experiencing it. Child maltreatment occurring in institutional settings has recently received substantial attention. However, evidence about the effectiveness of interventions that prevent, disclose, respond to, or treat maltreatment that has occurred in these environments is fragmented and can be difficult to access. This evidence and gap map (EGM) collates this research evidence. It was developed as a resource for stakeholders operating in the child health, welfare and protection sectors, including practitioners, organisational leaders, policy developers and researchers, wanting to access high quality evidence on interventions addressing institutional child maltreatment. Objectives: The objectives of this EGM were twofold: (a) To provide a structured and accessible collection of existing evidence from finalised and ongoing overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews and effectiveness studies of interventions addressing institutional child maltreatment-for those who work to fund, develop, implement and evaluate interventions aimed at ensuring children's safety in institutional settings; (b) to identify gaps in the available evidence on interventions addressing institutional child maltreatment-thereby helping to inform the research agendas of funders and other organisations. Search Methods: A comprehensive search strategy identified relevant studies from published and grey literature, comprising: (1) 10 electronic academic databases; (2) five trial and systematic review registries; (3) nine organisational websites; (4) websites and reference lists of inquiry reports associated with seven international inquiries into child abuse and (4) the lists of included studies within systematic reviews identified by the search strategy. Members of this EGM's Subject Matter Experts group were also invited to forward relevant unpublished studies or grey literature. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria were developed to identify finalised and ongoing overviews of reviews, systematic reviews and primary studies that reported on the effectiveness of interventions addressing child maltreatment (including sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect and emotional abuse) within institutional settings. Eligible effectiveness study designs included: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies and quasi-experimental studies. Reviews were eligible if they reported a systematic literature search strategy. Data Collection and Analysis: All screening, data extraction, coding and critical appraisals were undertaken by two or more reviewers working independently, with discrepancies resolved via consensus or by a third reviewer. The titles and abstracts of studies identified by the search strategy were screened, and each full text of potentially relevant studies was further assessed for inclusion. Key data were extracted from all included studies and reviews. This included information about: publication details (e.g., year, author, country), inclusion/exclusion criteria (for reviews), study design, institutional setting, target population, type of maltreatment, intervention type and outcomes. Critical appraisal of included systematic reviews was achieved using the AMSTAR 2 tool, and completed RCTs were assessed using the updated Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Main Results: Number of studies The electronic database search yielded 6318 citations, and a further 2375 records were identified from additional sources. Following deduplication and title/abstract screening, 256 studies remained for full text review. A total of 73 eligible studies (reported across 84 publications) met the inclusion criteria, including: 11 systematic reviews (plus, one update); 62 primary studies (including, three protocols for primary studies). Study characteristics The studies were conducted across 18 countries, however more than half (52%) were undertaken in the United States. Overall, most studies evaluated curriculum-based interventions delivered in educational settings, primarily aimed at the prevention of sexual abuse. Institutional setting: Most studies evaluated interventions in school or early learning environments (n = 8 systematic reviews; n = 58 primary studies). Far fewer studies examined other organisational settings. Out of home care (including foster care, residential care and orphanages), and social service organisations servicing children were minimally represented. No studies were identified where the primary setting was sports clubs, churches/religious organisations, summer/vacation camps, detention centres/juvenile justice settings, or primary/secondary health care facilities. Target population: Most interventions targeted children rather than adults (n = 7 systematic reviews; n = 47 primary studies) from the general population. Fewer studies included populations known to be at an increased risk, or those already exposed to maltreatment. Just over a third of the primary studies conducted an analysis to ascertain differences in the effect of an intervention between the genders. Intervention type: Prevention interventions were the most studied (n = 5 systematic reviews; n = 57 primary studies), with additional studies including prevention approaches alongside other intervention types. Fewer studies evaluated interventions targeting disclosure, institutional responses, or treatment interventions. Type of maltreatment: The vast majority of the studies assessed interventions solely addressing the sexual abuse of children (n = 8 systematic reviews; n = 45 primary studies). The remaining studies addressed other forms of maltreatment, including physical and emotional abuse, or neglect, either in combination or as a sole focus. Outcomes: Primary reported outcomes reflected the bias toward child targeted interventions. Outcome measures captured child wellbeing and knowledge outcomes, including measures of mental health, children's knowledge retention and/or self-protective skills. Measures of maltreatment disclosure or maltreatment occurrence/reoccurrence were less common, and all other outcome categories included in the EGM were minimally or not reported. A third of studies reported on some measure of implementation. Study quality The overall quality of the studies was low to moderate. Most systematic reviews were low-quality (n = 10), with only one high quality review (and update) identified. Most completed RCTs had some concerns relating to the risk of bias (n = 30), and the remainder were considered to be at a high risk of bias (n = 19). Authors' Conclusions: This EGM has highlighted a substantial need for more high quality studies that evaluate interventions across a broader range of institutional contexts and maltreatment types. The current evidence base does not represent countries with large populations and the greatest incidence of child maltreatment. Few studies focussed on perpetrators or the organisational environment. Further evidence gaps were identified for interventions relating to disclosure, organisational responses and treatment, and few studies assessed interventions targeting perpetrators' maltreatment behaviours, recidivism or desistence. Future studies should also include measure of programme implementation.

Decision making biases in the allied health professions: A systematic scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Cognitive and other biases can influence the quality of healthcare decision making. While substantial research has explored how biases can lead to diagnostic or other errors in medicine, fewer studies have examined how they impact the decision making of other healthcare professionals. This scoping review aimed to identify and synthesise a broad range of research investigating whether decisions made by allied health professionals are influenced by cognitive, affective or other biases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in five electronic databases. Title, abstract and full text screening was undertaken in duplicate, using prespecified eligibility criteria designed to identify studies attempting to demonstrate the presence of bias when allied healthcare professionals make decisions. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, focussing on the type of allied health profession, type of decision, and type of bias reported within the included studies. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 149 studies. Of these, 119 studies came from the field of psychology, with substantially fewer from social work, physical and occupational therapy, speech pathology, audiology and genetic counselling. Diagnostic and assessment decisions were the most common decision types, with fewer studies assessing treatment, prognostic or other clinical decisions. Studies investigated the presence of over 30 cognitive, affective and other decision making biases, including stereotyping biases, anchoring, and confirmation bias. Overall, 77% of the studies reported at least one outcome that represented the presence of a bias. CONCLUSION: This scoping review provides an overview of studies investigating whether decisions made by allied health professionals are influenced by cognitive, affective or other biases. Biases have the potential to seriously impact the quality, consistency and accuracy of decision making in allied health practice. The findings highlight a need for further research particularly in professional disciplines outside of psychology, using methods that reflect real life healthcare decision making.

A Systematic Review of Interventions to Reduce the Effects of Cognitive Biases in the Decision-Making of Audiologists.

BACKGROUND: Audiologists are constantly making decisions that are key to optimizing client/patient outcomes, and these decisions may be vulnerable to cognitive biases. PURPOSE: The purpose was to determine the present state of knowledge within the field of audiology regarding the potential impact of cognitive biases on clinical decision-making and the use of interventions to reduce such impact. RESEARCH DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted to identify and consider the outcomes of all studies in which an intervention, strategy, or procedure was implemented with the aim of reducing the impact of cognitive biases on the decision-making of audiologists. DATA COLLECTION: The review was part of a larger scale search which included the broader disciplines of health science and medicine. Electronic database searches were supplemented by citation searches of relevant reviews and a gray literature search. Following title and abstract screening, 201 full-text studies were considered for inclusion. RESULTS: No studies were found which fulfilled the eligibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Despite initial calls to respond to these types of cognitive biases being made three decades ago, no peer-reviewed scientific studies testing strategies to reduce the impact of cognitive biases on the decision-making of audiologists were found. There is a clear need for a more concerted research effort in this area if audiologists are to consistently deliver truly evidence-based care.

Interventions to Mitigate Cognitive Biases in the Decision Making of Eye Care Professionals: A Systematic Review.

SIGNIFICANCE: Cognitive biases, systematic errors in thinking that impact a person's choices and judgments, can influence decision making at various points during patient care provision. These biases can potentially result in misdiagnoses, delayed clinical care, and/or patient mismanagement. A range of interventions exists to mitigate cognitive biases. There is a need to understand the relative efficacy of these interventions within the context of eye care practice. PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the evidence relating to interventions for mitigating cognitive biases associated with clinical decision making by eye care professionals. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (including Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO) were searched from inception to October 2017 for studies investigating interventions intended to mitigate cognitive biases in the clinical decision making of eye care professionals. This review was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: To ensure inclusion of all relevant literature, a wide range of study designs was eligible for inclusion, such as randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized trials, interrupted time series and repeated measures, controlled before-after studies, and qualitative studies that were a component of any of these quantitative study designs. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles in duplicate, applying a priori eligibility criteria. RESULTS: After screening 2759 nonduplicate records, including full-text screening of 201 articles, no relevant studies were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS: Given that cognitive biases can significantly impact the accuracy of clinical decision making and thus can have major effects on clinical care and patient health outcomes, the lack of studies identified in this systematic review indicates a critical need for research within the area of cognitive bias mitigation for decision making within eye care practice.