Feasibility and Acceptability of a Family-Based Telehealth Intervention for Families Impacted by the Child Welfare System: Formative Mixed Methods Evaluation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Despite elevated rates of trauma exposure, substance misuse, mental health problems, and suicide, systems-impacted teens and their caregivers have limited access to empirically supported behavioral health services. Family-based interventions are the most effective for improving mental health, education, substance use, and delinquency outcomes, yet the familial and placement disruption that occurs during child welfare involvement can interfere with the delivery of family-based interventions. OBJECTIVE: To address this gap in access to services, we adapted an in-person, empirically supported, family-based affect management intervention using a trauma-informed lens to be delivered via telehealth to families impacted by the child welfare system (Family Telehealth Project). We describe the intervention adaptation process and an open trial to evaluate its feasibility, acceptability, and impact. METHODS: Adaptations to the in-person, family-based affect management intervention were conducted iteratively with input from youth, caregivers, and systems partners. Through focus groups and collaborative meetings with systems partners, a caregiver-only version of the intervention was also developed. An open trial of the intervention was conducted to assess family perspectives of its acceptability and feasibility and inform further refinements prior to a larger-scale evaluation. Participants included English-speaking families involved in the child welfare system in the past 12 months with teens (aged 12-18 years). Caregivers were eligible to participate either individually (caregivers of origin, kinship caregivers, or foster parents; n=7) or with their teen (caregiver of origin only; n=6 dyads). Participants completed session feedback forms and surveys at pretreatment, posttreatment, and 3-month posttreatment time points. Qualitative exit interviews were conducted with a subset of participants (12/19, 63%) to further understand their experiences with the intervention. RESULTS: Session attendance was high, and both caregivers and teens reported high acceptability of clinicians and sessions on feedback forms. Families were comfortable with video technology, with very few (<5%) sessions having reported technology problems. Thematic analysis of exit interview transcripts indicated that families used effective communication and affect management skills taught during the intervention. Regarding challenges and barriers, some caregiver-only participants expressed a desire to have their teen also participate in the intervention. All interview participants reported that they would recommend the intervention to others and perceptions of the intervention were overwhelmingly positive. Quantitative surveys revealed differential responses to the intervention regarding affect management and communication. CONCLUSIONS: An open trial of the Family Telehealth Project, a skills-based telehealth intervention for families impacted by the child welfare system, suggests high levels of intervention feasibility and acceptability. Participants noted improvements in areas often hindered by the impacts of trauma and family separation: communication and affect management. Perceptions of the intervention were positive overall for both teens and caregivers. The Family Telehealth Project shows promise in addressing the gaps in behavioral health access for systems-impacted families. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04488523; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04488523.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,053 | 0,050 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».