[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure 1.
Consort Flow Diagram
Consort Flow Diagram

ITT indicates intention to treat; RCT, randomized clinical trial.

Figure 2.
Timeline of the Study
Timeline of the Study

The themes of the 11 sessions are as follows: (1) noticing good behavior, (2) spreading attention around, (3) ignoring whining and complaining, (4) transitional warnings and when-then statements, (5) planning ahead in the home, (6) the behavior chart, (7) planning ahead outside the home, (8) working with daycare, (9) timeout, (10) problem-solving relapse prevention, and (11) putting it all together. SFSW indicates Strongest Families Smart Website.

Table 1.  
Demographic Characteristics of the SFSW Intervention and the Education Control Groupsa
Demographic Characteristics of the SFSW Intervention and the Education Control Groupsa
Table 2.  
CBCL/1.5-5, ICU, Parenting Scale, and DASS-21 Mean Scores at Baseline and 6 and 12 Months After Randomization by the Treatment Groups
CBCL/1.5-5, ICU, Parenting Scale, and DASS-21 Mean Scores at Baseline and 6 and 12 Months After Randomization by the Treatment Groups
Table 3.  
Treatment Comparisons of CBCL/1.5-5, ICU, Parenting Scale, and DASS-21 Scores
Treatment Comparisons of CBCL/1.5-5, ICU, Parenting Scale, and DASS-21 Scores
1.
Burke  JD, Loeber  R, Birmaher  B.  Oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: a review of the past 10 years, part II.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2002;41(11):1275-1293.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Achenbach  TM, Howell  CT, McConaughy  SH, Stanger  C.  Six-year predictors of problems in a national sample, III: transitions to young adult syndromes.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1995;34(5):658-669.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Caspi  A, Moffitt  TE, Newman  DL, Silva  PA.  Behavioral observations at age 3 years predict adult psychiatric disorders: longitudinal evidence from a birth cohort.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996;53(11):1033-1039.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Loeber  R, Burke  JD, Lahey  BB, Winters  A, Zera  M.  Oppositional defiant and conduct disorder: a review of the past 10 years, part I.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000;39(12):1468-1484.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Hofstra  MB, van der Ende  J, Verhulst  FC.  Child and adolescent problems predict DSM-IV disorders in adulthood: a 14-year follow-up of a Dutch epidemiological sample.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2002;41(2):182-189.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Moffitt  TE; E-Risk Study Team.  Teen-aged mothers in contemporary Britain.  J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2002;43(6):727-742.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Kim-Cohen  J, Caspi  A, Moffitt  TE, Harrington  H, Milne  BJ, Poulton  R.  Prior juvenile diagnoses in adults with mental disorder: developmental follow-back of a prospective-longitudinal cohort.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(7):709-717.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Simonoff  E, Elander  J, Holmshaw  J, Pickles  A, Murray  R, Rutter  M.  Predictors of antisocial personality: continuities from childhood to adult life.  Br J Psychiatry. 2004;184:118-127.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Fergusson  DM, Horwood  LJ, Ridder  EM.  Show me the child at seven: the consequences of conduct problems in childhood for psychosocial functioning in adulthood.  J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005;46(8):837-849.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Sourander  A, Multimäki  P, Nikolakaros  G,  et al.  Childhood predictors of psychiatric disorders among boys: a prospective community-based follow-up study from age 8 years to early adulthood.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2005;44(8):756-767.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Sourander  A, Elonheimo  H, Niemelä  S,  et al.  Childhood predictors of male criminality: a prospective population-based follow-up study from age 8 to late adolescence.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006;45(5):578-586.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Sourander  A, Jensen  P, Davies  M,  et al.  Who is at greatest risk of adverse long-term outcomes? The Finnish From a Boy to a Man study.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007;46(9):1148-1161.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Richman  N, Stevenson  J, Graham  PJ.  Pre-school to School: A Behavioural Study. London, England: Academic Press; 1982.
14.
Fischer  M, Rolf  JE, Hasazi  JE, Cummings  L.  Follow-up of a preschool epidemiological sample: cross-age continuities and predictions of later adjustment with internalizing and externalizing dimensions of behavior.  Child Dev. 1984;55(1):137-150.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Dretzke  J, Frew  E, Davenport  C,  et al.  The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of parent training/education programmes for the treatment of conduct disorder, including oppositional defiant disorder, in children.  Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(50):iii, ix-x, 1-233.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Lundahl  B, Risser  HJ, Lovejoy  MC.  A meta-analysis of parent training: moderators and follow-up effects.  Clin Psychol Rev. 2006;26(1):86-104.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Waddell  C, Hua  JM, Garland  OM, Peters  RD, McEwan  K.  Preventing mental disorders in children: a systematic review to inform policy-making.  Can J Public Health. 2007;98(3):166-173.PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Dretzke  J, Davenport  C, Frew  E,  et al.  The clinical effectiveness of different parenting programmes for children with conduct problems: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.  Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2009;3(1):7.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Kazdin  AE.  Bridging the enormous gaps of theory with therapy research and practice.  J Clin Child Psychol. 2001;30(1):59-66.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Bourke  ML, Nielsen  BA.  Parent training: getting the most effective help for the most children.  J Psychol Pract. 1995;1(3):142-152.Google Scholar
21.
Cunningham  CE, Boyle  M, Offord  D,  et al.  Tri-ministry study: correlates of school-based parenting course utilization.  J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68(5):928-933.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Kazdin  AE, Holland  L, Crowley  M.  Family experience of barriers to treatment and premature termination from child therapy.  J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997;65(3):453-463.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Barkley  RA.  Commentary on the multimodal treatment study of children with ADHD.  J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2000;28(6):595-599.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Lingley-Pottie  P, McGrath  PJ, Andreou  P.  Barriers to mental health care: perceived delivery system differences.  ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2013;36(1):51-61.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Cunningham  CE, Deal  K, Rimas  H,  et al.  Modeling the information preferences of parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint experiment.  J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2008;36(7):1123-1138.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Cunningham  CE, Chen  Y, Deal  K,  et al.  The interim service preferences of parents waiting for children’s mental health treatment: a discrete choice conjoint experiment.  J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2013;41(6):865-877.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Andersson  G, Cuijpers  P.  Internet-based and other computerized psychological treatments for adult depression: a meta-analysis.  Cogn Behav Ther. 2009;38(4):196-205.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
ClinicalTrials.gov. Strongest Families Finland Canada: Family-based Prevention and Treatment Program of Early Childhood Disruptive Behavior (Fin-Can). NCT01750996. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01750996. Accessed November 14, 2011.
29.
McGrath  PJ, Sourander  A, Lingley-Pottie  P,  et al.  Remote population-based intervention for disruptive behavior at age four: study protocol for a randomized trial of Internet-assisted parent training (Strongest Families Finland-Canada).  BMC Public Health. 2013;13:985.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Caspi  A, Moffitt  TE, Morgan  J,  et al.  Maternal expressed emotion predicts children’s antisocial behavior problems: using monozygotic-twin differences to identify environmental effects on behavioral development.  Dev Psychol. 2004;40(2):149-161.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Ilola  AM, Lempinen  L, Huttunen  J, Ristkari  T, Sourander  A.  Bullying and victimisation are common in four-year-old children [published online January 6, 2016].  Acta Paediatr Scand. doi:10.1111/apa.13327.Google Scholar
32.
Statistics Finland. http://www.stat.fi/tup/index_en.html. Accessed February 1, 2015.
33.
The Finnish Population Register Centre. http://vrk.fi/default.aspx?id=39. Accessed February 15, 2015.
34.
Random Allocation Software. http://mahmoodsaghaei.tripod.com/Softwares/randalloc.html#Random. Accessed February 15, 2015.
35.
McGrath  PJ, Lingley-Pottie  P, Thurston  C,  et al.  Telephone-based mental health interventions for child disruptive behavior or anxiety disorders: randomized trials and overall analysis.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;50(11):1162-1172.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Lingley-Pottie  P, McGrath  PJ.  Distance therapeutic alliance: the participant’s experience.  ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2007;30(4):353-366.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
McGrath  PJ, Lingley-Pottie  P, Emberly  DJ, Thurston  C, McLean  C.  Integrated knowledge translation in mental health: family help as an example.  J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;18(1):30-37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
38.
Barlow  J, Smailagic  N, Huband  N, Roloff  V, Bennett  C.  Group-based parent training programmes for improving parental psychosocial health.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD002020.PubMedGoogle Scholar
39.
Klein  AM, Otto  Y, Fuchs  S, Zenger  M, Von Klitzing  K.  Psychometric properties of the parent-rated SDQ in preschoolers.  Eur J Psychol Assess. 2013;29(2):96-104.Google ScholarCrossref
40.
Achenbach  T, Rescorla  L.  Manual for the ASEBA Preschoool Forms & Profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Centre for Children, Youth, & Families; 2000.
41.
Rescorla  LA, Achenbach  TM, Ivanova  MY,  et al.  International comparisons of behavioral and emotional problems in preschool children: parents’ reports from 24 societies.  J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2011;40(3):456-467.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Sourander  A.  Emotional and behavioural problems in a sample of Finnish three-year-olds.  Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001;10(2):98-104.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Ivanova  MY, Achenbach  TM, Rescorla  LA,  et al.  Preschool psychopathology reported by parents in 23 societies: testing the seven-syndrome model of the Child Behavior Checklist for ages 1.5-5.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;49(12):1215-1224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Arnold  DS, O’Leary  SG, Wolff  LS, Acker  MM.  The Parenting Scale: a measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations.  Psychol Assess. 1993;5(2):137-144.Google ScholarCrossref
45.
Rhoades  KA, O’Leary  SG.  Factor structure and validity of the parenting scale.  J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2007;36(2):137-146.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Essau  CA, Sasagawa  S, Frick  PJ.  Callous-unemotional traits in a community sample of adolescents.  Assessment. 2006;13(4):454-469.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Fanti  KA, Frick  PJ, Georgiou  S.  Linking callous-unemotional traits to instrumental and non-instrumental forms of aggression.  J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2009;31:285-298.Google ScholarCrossref
48.
Lovibond  SH, Lovibond  PF. Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. 2nd ed. Sydney, Australia: Psychology Foundation; 1995.
49.
Henry  JD, Crawford  JR.  The 21-item version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS–21): normative data and psychometric evaluation in a large non-clinical sample.  Br J Clin Psychol. 2005;44(pt 2):227-239.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Hawes  DJ, Dadds  MR.  Assessing parenting practices through parent-report and direct observation during parent-training.  J Child Fam Stud. 2006;15(5):554-567.Google ScholarCrossref
51.
Moffitt  TE, Caspi  A.  Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females.  Dev Psychopathol. 2001;13(2):355-375.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Bennett  KJ, Lipman  EL, Racine  Y, Offord  DR.  Do measures of externalising behaviour in normal populations predict later outcome? implications for targeted interventions to prevent conduct disorder.  J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1998;39(8):1059-1070.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Tremblay  RE.  Prevention of youth violence: why not start at the beginning?  J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2006;34(4):481-487.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Fossum  S, Handegård  BH, Adolfsen  F, Vis  SA, Wynn  R.  A meta-analysis of long-term outpatient treatment effects for children and adolescents with conduct problems.  J Child Fam Stud.2016;25(1):15-29.Google ScholarCrossref
55.
Cunningham  CE, Rimas  H, Chen  Y,  et al.  Modeling parenting programs as an interim service for families waiting for children’s mental health treatment.  J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2015;44(4):616-629.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Kolko  DJ, Lindhiem  O.  Introduction to the special series on booster sessions and long-term maintenance of treatment gains.  J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2014;42(3):339-342.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Sourander  A, Niemelä  S, Santalahti  P, Helenius  H, Piha  J.  Changes in psychiatric problems and service use among 8-year-old children: a 16-year population-based time-trend study.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47(3):317-327.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Gyllenberg  D, Sourander  A.  Psychotropic drug and polypharmacy use among adolescents and young adults: findings from the Finnish 1981 Nationwide Birth Cohort Study.  Nord J Psychiatry. 2012;66(5):336-342.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Gyllenberg  D, Sourander  A, Niemelä  S,  et al.  Childhood predictors of use and costs of antidepressant medication by age 24 years: findings from the Finnish Nationwide 1981 Birth Cohort Study.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;50(4):406-415.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Zoëga  H, Furu  K, Halldórsson  M, Thomsen  PH, Sourander  A, Martikainen  JE.  Use of ADHD drugs in the Nordic countries: a population-based comparison study.  Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2011;123(5):360-367.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
April 2016

Internet-Assisted Parent Training Intervention for Disruptive Behavior in 4-Year-Old ChildrenA Randomized Clinical Trial

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Child Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
  • 2Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
  • 3Centre for Research in Family Health, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • 4Faculty of Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • 5Strongest Families Institute, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • 6Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • 7Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • 8Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, North Norway, University of Tromsø, Breivika, Norway
  • 9Faculty of Health Professions, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
 

Copyright 2016 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.

JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73(4):378-387. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.3411
Abstract

Importance  There is a large gap worldwide in the provision of evidence-based early treatment of children with disruptive behavioral problems.

Objective  To determine whether an Internet-assisted intervention using whole-population screening that targets the most symptomatic 4-year-old children is effective at 6 and 12 months after the start of treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This 2-parallel-group randomized clinical trial was performed from October 1, 2011, through November 30, 2013, at a primary health care clinic in Southwest Finland. Data analysis was performed from August 6, 2015, to December 11, 2015. Of a screened population of 4656 children, 730 met the screening criteria indicating a high level of disruptive behavioral problems. A total of 464 parents of 4-year-old children were randomized into the Strongest Families Smart Website (SFSW) intervention group (n = 232) or an education control (EC) group (n = 232).

Interventions  The SFSW intervention, an 11-session Internet-assisted parent training program that included weekly telephone coaching.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Child Behavior Checklist version for preschool children (CBCL/1.5-5) externalizing scale (primary outcome), other CBCL/1.5-5 scales and subscores, Parenting Scale, Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits, and the 21-item Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale. All data were analyzed by intention to treat and per protocol. The assessments were made before randomization and 6 and 12 months after randomization.

Results  Of the children randomized, 287 (61.9%) were male and 79 (17.1%) lived in other than a family with 2 biological parents. At 12-month follow-up, improvement in the SFSW intervention group was significantly greater compared with the control group on the following measures: CBCL/1.5-5 externalizing scale (effect size, 0.34; P < .001), internalizing scale (effect size, 0.35; P < .001), and total scores (effect size, 0.37; P < .001); 5 of 7 syndrome scales, including aggression (effect size, 0.36; P < .001), sleep (effect size, 0.24; P = .002), withdrawal (effect size, 0.25; P = .005), anxiety (effect size, 0.26; P = .003), and emotional problems (effect size, 0.31; P = .001); Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits callousness scores (effect size, 0.19; P = .03); and self-reported parenting skills (effect size, 0.53; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance  The study reveals the effectiveness and feasibility of an Internet-assisted parent training intervention offered for parents of preschool children with disruptive behavioral problems screened from the whole population. The strategy of population-based screening of children at an early age to offering parent training using digital technology and telephone coaching is a promising public health strategy for providing early intervention for a variety of child mental health problems.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01750996.

Introduction

Population-based cohort studies1-12 have found that childhood disruptive behavior disorders are developmental precursors to a wide range of negative outcomes, including peer rejection, school failure, psychopathologic conditions, substance abuse, suicidality, and criminality. Approximately half of the children who have been identified as aggressive with externalizing behavior as preschoolers develop persistent problems.13,14 Parent training is the most effective approach to the psychosocial treatment of disruptive behavioral problems15-18 and one of the best-validated therapeutic techniques.19 In parent training interventions, parents typically learn to identify, define, and observe problem behaviors in new ways and acquire strategies to prevent and respond to oppositional behavior.19

Despite the significant child, parent, and societal consequences of disruptive behavioral problems and the availability of effective interventions, most parents do not receive parent training interventions. Stigma, availability, cost of services, and logistical barriers, such as child care, transportation time, work schedules, or discomfort with services provided in groups, prevent many parents from enrolling in or completing parent training programs.20-26 An optimal intervention for disruptive behavioral problems should reduce barriers that limit use, target problems emerging during the preschool years, yield meaningful outcomes, and be affordable enough to be disseminated and sustained. Internet-assisted treatment affords many benefits over traditional means, such as high fidelity, greater accessibility, convenience, and reduced cost to patients.27

This randomized clinical trial (RCT) reports 6- and 12-month follow-up results of the population-based Strongest Families Smart Website (SFSW) intervention with telephone coaching compared with an education control (EC). The target population was children with a high level of childhood disruptive behavior disorders screened from the population of 4-year-olds attending annual child health clinic checkups. The primary hypothesis was that the SFSW intervention would reduce child disruptive behavior disorder symptoms at 6 and 12 months after randomization compared with the EC. Furthermore, we expected that participants randomized to the intervention group would exhibit improvement in self-reported parenting skills and distress compared with those randomized to the control group.

Box Section Ref ID

Key Points

  • Question: Is an Internet-assisted intervention using whole-population screening that targets the most symptomatic 4-year-old children effective at 6- and 12-month follow-ups?

  • Findings: The findings reveal effectiveness of a parent training intervention that incorporates interactive web technology to provide a personalized and sustainable intervention for the public health system.

  • Meaning: The strategy of population-based screening of children at an early age and offering Internet-assisted parent training that uses telephone coaching could be a promising solution for providing early prevention and intervention for childhood disruptive behavior.

Methods
Study Design

The study design was a 2-parallel-group RCT stratified by sex, with 1:1 allocation comparing the SFSW intervention with an EC. Consistent with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) protocol, best-practice RCT guidelines were followed. The study was approved by the research ethics boards of the Hospital District of Southwest Finland and IWK Health Centre.28 All data were collected with voluntary written consent obtained online with the SFSW application and deidentified. The study protocol, which describes the study in more detail, has been previously published29 and can be found in Supplement 1. With a 30% attrition rate and 250 participants in the SFSW intervention and EC groups, we could show medium to small incremental effects of 0.30 to 0.35 standard units.29

Screening and Inclusion Criteria

Children with a high level of childhood disruptive behavior disorder symptoms screened from the population of 4-year-olds attending annual child health clinic checkups in the catchment area located in Southwest Finland from October 1, 2011, through November 30, 2013, were recruited. Data analysis was performed from August 6, 2015, to December 11, 2015. Before the beginning of school, practically all children visit clinics where the child’s health is comprehensively assessed. Study recruitment took place at the children's yearly health clinic visit, typically within 1 month after their fourth birthday.30

Inclusion criteria for the RCT participants were as follows: (1) the child was 4 years old; (2) at least 1 parent’s native language was Finnish; (3) families resided in the participating municipalities; (4) the child had behavioral problems for the last 6 months before screening (score of ≥5 points on the conduct problems subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire [SDQ] corresponding to the 80th percentile cutoff point based on a Finnish population study31 that included 4-year-olds [n = 931]); (5) on a single question the parent reported that their child had difficulties; and (6) the parent had access to a telephone, computer, and an Internet connection in their home (a computer was provided to families if needed).30

Recruitment began on October 1, 2011, in the Southwest Finnish cities of Turku, Raisio, Kaarina, and Naantali. On October 1, 2012, a total of 7 smaller municipalities were enrolled.32 Participants were identified from the Finnish National Population Register33 and included all children who had a 4-year annual health checkup in a study municipality. A study information package was mailed approximately 1 month before the child’s fourth birthday. Parents were asked to bring the completed health questionnaire to the clinic. The Finnish universal health care system has high attendance, and families participate in preschool child annual checkups to a high extent.30

Exclusion Criteria

Children were excluded from the study if they were not speaking in full sentences, were hearing or vision impaired, were receiving or had received behavioral treatment, or had a diagnosis of autism, pervasive development disorder, Down syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome, or intellectual disability.

Randomization

The randomization sequence was generated, stratified by sex, with a 1:1 ratio of SFSW intervention vs EC, using a computerized random permuted block sequence generator (Random Allocation Software34) with concealed block sizes. Participants were informed via email of their assignment and given a link to the relevant website. Participants were not restricted from seeking other assistance. The participant flowchart (CONSORT diagram) is presented in Figure 1.

Interventions

In the EC group, participants were given access to a website that provided a brief introduction to positive parenting strategies and a 45-minute call from a coach who provided positive parenting advice, in addition to the standard care provided by their physicians or obtained by parents.

Participants in the SFSW intervention group received an Internet version of the Strongest Families telephone-based program.35-37 In this evidence-based program, participants develop skills to strengthen parent-child relationships, reinforce positive behavior, reduce conflict, manage daily transitions, plan for difficult situations, and encourage prosocial behavior (eTable 1 in Supplement 2). For the purposes of this study, the Strongest Families program was translated into Finnish, adapted to the Finnish cultural environment, and transferred to an Internet format with strategies, examples, and exercises appropriate for parents of 4-year-old children.

Parents were encouraged to complete 11 weekly online sessions (Figure 2) and to share the program’s content with their partner. Sessions included exercises, instructional videos, and audio clips demonstrating the application of new skills. Interactions within the website were personalized with the child’s name, problems, strengths, and preferred activities.29 Each week participants received an approximately 45-minute telephone call from a coach. All coaches were licensed health care professionals who received intensive training for the SWSF intervention and study protocol by an experienced Strongest Families trainer. Coaches reviewed the successful application of new skills, responded to questions, and provided encouragement. The next session was introduced if the coach determined that skill-related questions were mastered by observing website use and information collected during the telephone call. Children did not participate in coaching calls or access the website. To our knowledge, no potential adverse effects of parent training have been reported in the literature.38 Approximately 7 and 10 months after randomization, parents in the intervention group received booster coaching sessions to review the learned skills.

Screening Measures

Parents’ demographic characteristics (native language, educational level, and family structure) were recorded. The conduct problems subscale of the SDQ was used to screen participants for the RCT.31 Parent ratings of preschoolers on the SDQ’s conduct problems subscale have yielded an internal consistency score of 0.58.39 The perceived difficulties were assessed with a single question from the SDQ: “Overall, do you think that your child has difficulties in 1 or more of the following areas: emotions, behavior or being able to get on with other people?” The alternatives were no, minor difficulties, definite difficulties, and severe difficulties. To be included in the RCT, the child had to have a high level of symptoms and at least minor perceived difficulties.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome measure was the 24-item externalizing scale of the Child Behavior Checklist version for preschool children (CBCL/1.5-5).40 The Cronbach α for the externalizing scale among preschool children has been reported as 0.88.41,42

Secondary outcome measures (CBCL/1.5-5,43 Parenting Scale,44,45 Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Scale,46,47 21-item Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale,48,49 and satisfaction measures) and quality assurance are described in the eMeasures in Supplement 2. All measures were completed online by the participants at baseline and at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups.

Statistical Analysis

All participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Per-protocol analyses included participants with all time point measurements completed. Categorical variables are presented as number (percentage) and continuous variables as mean (SD). Pearson χ2 tests or Fisher exact tests were conducted to explore differences in categorical variables at baseline between the children and parents in the intervention and control groups. Two-tailed, 2-sample t tests were used to explore differences in continuous variables between groups at baseline. Outcome variables were analyzed with a linear mixed-effect model for repeated measurements with time (baseline and 6 and 12 months after treatment) as the within factor and treatment (SFSW intervention or EC) and sex as the between factors. Paired comparisons using linear contrasts were applied within the same model. The Bonferroni correction was applied to P values from multiple comparisons. Compound symmetry covariance structure was fitted to form the block-diagonal matrix for the random subject effect in this mixed-effect model. After examining the main treatment effect, we investigated whether the possible treatment effect on the outcome variables was modified by sex. For this purpose, a treatment group × sex interaction effect was added to the statistical model. The interaction terms were deemed to be statistically significant based on P < .05, which was then used for all statistical testing. In addition, the CBCL/1.5-5 externalizing scale score at 12 months was dichotomized using the 80th percentile as a cutoff point and analyzed with logistic regression analysis adjusting for sex. The Cohen d was calculated as a measure of effect size to complement the statistical testing. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS statistical software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).

Results

A total of 4656 children were referred from child health clinics with a parent completed screening questionnaire. Of these, 292 parents (6.3%) declined to participate in the RCT. Of 4364 parents willing to participate in the RCT, 730 (16.7%) met the screening inclusion criteria. Of those who met the screening inclusion criteria, 186 (25.5%) declined to participate in the RCT, 21 (3.0%) did not meet the RCT inclusion criteria, and 59 (8.1%) could not be contacted. A total of 464 parents of 4-year-old children were randomized (232 in the SFSW intervention group and 232 in the EC group); 171 participants (73.7%) in the SFSW intervention group and 178 participants (76.7%) in the EC group had baseline and 6- and 12-month follow-up measures.

Of children randomized, 287 (61.9%) were male and 79 (17.1%) lived in other than a family with 2 biological parents. Table 1 gives the demographic characteristics of the SFSW intervention and EC groups. None of the children used psychotropic medication during the study. A total of 21 (12.2%) of 172 children in the SFSW intervention group and 35 (19.3%) of 181 children in the EC group had received additional treatment because of child behavioral problems between randomization and 12-month follow-up (P = .07).

Baseline and 6- and 12-month postrandomization scores of all child outcome measures are presented in Table 2 and Table 3. No significant baseline differences were found in the primary and secondary outcome variables, apart from higher overreactivity in the SFSW intervention group on the Parenting Scale (P = .04). The findings were similar at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. The CBCL/1.5-5 externalizing scale revealed significantly greater improvement in the SFSW intervention group compared with the EC group at 6- and 12-month follow-ups (effect size at 12-month follow-up, 0.34) (Table 3). Of the secondary outcome measures, CBCL/1.5-5 total score, internalizing scale score, and scores on 5 of the 7 syndrome scales revealed significantly greater improvement in the intervention group at 12-month follow-up. Five CBCL/1.5-5 DSM-IV subscores and 4 Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Scale callousness scores revealed significantly greater improvement in the SFSW intervention group. All Parenting Scale measures revealed significant improvement in the SFSW intervention group compared with the EC group. No significant difference was found in parents’ stress, anxiety, or depression when comparing the SFSW intervention group and the EC group. No significant change was found between the 6- and 12-month follow-ups except in parenting skills, which revealed further improvement. When analyzed according to the per-protocol principle, including participants with baseline and follow-up measurements, the results were similar (eTable 2 in Supplement 2).

In additional analyses, at 12-month follow-up, 34 (19.2%) of 177 children in the SFSW intervention and 64 (34.4%) of 186 children in the EC group had an CBCL/1.5-5 externalizing score over the 80th percentile based on the Finnish population sample of preschool children (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.6; P = .001).42 Of note, all children included in the study had externalizing problems above 80th percentile at screening phase. Parent satisfaction (defined as agree and strongly agree) ranged from 98% (the program met the needs of participants) to 84% (program reduced stress of the participant).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this study is the first RCT of an Internet-assisted parent training program using a population-based screening procedure. The SFSW intervention resulted in significant improvement in child externalizing symptoms at 6 and 12 months after randomization compared with the EC. The SFSW intervention improved most psychiatric symptom domains, including parent-reported aggression, affective, anxiety, and sleep problems. Intervention reduced callousness scores, which are associated with poorer treatment outcomes.50 Self-reported parenting skills improved significantly when compared with the EC group.

Unlike RCTs on referred populations or convenience samples, the study design allows us to generalize about the effectiveness of an early parent training intervention for most symptomatic children screened from the general population. These findings have global interest in planning low-threshold early interventions and service planning for children with disruptive behavioral problems. Individuals who exhibit disruptive behavioral problems in early childhood are more likely to engage in life-course-persistent antisocial behavior that continues through adolescence into adulthood.6,10-12,51,52 The life-course-persistent pathway from childhood disruptive behavioral problems to adult criminality and violent behaviors may best be prevented early in life, when behavioral patterns are more easily modified.53 The findings suggest that population-based screening followed by Internet-assisted parent training reaches those at greatest risk who often do not obtain services to receive early evidence-based preventive intervention. Some of the effect sizes were modest compared with some parenting program studies16,18,54 that targeted clinical samples. This finding may reflect the targeted young age group with more tendency of natural improvement in behavioral problems. Furthermore, the sample was screened from the general population, and the level of problems was less severe than in clinical samples, meaning there was less room for improvement.

The findings indicate the effectiveness of a parent training intervention that incorporates interactive web technology to provide a personalized and sustainable intervention for the public health system. Internet-assisted parent training combined with support from a professional telephone coach was successful in achieving high participation rates, changing child disruptive behavior, and strengthening parental skills. Furthermore, parents reported high satisfaction with the program. These findings align with a Canadian Strongest Families parent training study35 with clinical samples using handbooks, videos, and telephone coaching. A significant percentage of parents are interested in Internet-assisted or telephone-supported parenting programs.26,55 However, to our knowledge, only a limited number of Internet-based treatments that target children’s psychiatric problems have been evaluated. The Internet-based components can be easily updated, the format is standardized and not therapist dependent, and it is more easily accessible for participants. Combining technology with remote involvement of professionals may assist in disseminating key elements of other evidence-based interventions to populations who would not otherwise be able to receive them.

The improvements in child problems were maintained until 12-month follow-up. Inclusion of 2 booster sessions after 6-month follow-up possibly had an effect on further improvement in parenting skills. Booster sessions for chronic problems, such as disruptive behavior, are often seen as an essential part of treatment but, to date, have received little study.56

Some methodologic constraints should be noted. First, only parental report of child behavior was used in the analyses. Direct observations of parenting, clinical observations, or teacher ratings would be helpful to validate the reported changes. However, the target group was 4-year-old children in Finland, where children start school at 7 years of age. Second, future studies need to determine whether the improvement in the intervention group resulted from the Internet sessions or the telephone calls (or the combination) or from the length and intensity of the intervention. Third, assessment of change in functional impairment was not conducted.

The study results are from Finland, a Nordic welfare state with a universal health care system. The educational level of Finnish parents in general is high compared with many other countries. The effects of the program are over and above the potential benefits associated with these factors. However, only a few children with mental health needs are referred to services.57 The control group clearly received more services than most preschool children with behavioral problems. Children were actively screened from the population, which is not common practice. None of screened children were taking psychotropic medication at baseline or during the study. In Finland, use of psychotropic medication in early childhood is rare, and child psychiatric medication practices for young children are different from US practices.58-60

Conclusions

Because of increased demands of child mental health services, long waiting lists, and the high cost of traditional approaches, our findings have important public health implications. Despite the high prevalence and significant associated burden, there is an enormous gap worldwide in the provision of treatment for mental disorders in children. Perhaps the most challenging barrier to service provision is the great shortage of skilled human resources to address child mental disorders in most regions of the world, even in countries with public health care, such as Finland. The study reveals the feasibility of a parent training intervention offered to parents of high-risk children screened from the population and referred to Internet-assisted parent training with telephone coaching. Given flexibility, anonymity, and ease of access, remote interventions have important benefits for reaching at-risk individuals. The strategy of population-based screening of children at an early age and offering Internet-assisted parent training that uses telephone coaching could be a promising solution for providing early prevention and intervention for a variety of child mental health problems.

Back to top
Article Information

Submitted for Publication: October 22, 2015; final revision received December 18, 2015; accepted December 21, 2015.

Corresponding Author: Andre Sourander, MD, PhD, Department of Child Psychiatry, University of Turku, Lemminkäisenkatu 3/Teutori 3.krs, 20014, Finland (andsou@utu.fi).

Published Online: February 24, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.3411.

Author Contributions: Drs Sourander and Hinkka-Yli-Salomäki had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Sourander, McGrath, Ristkari, Cunningham, Huttunen, Hinkka-Yli-Salomäki, Kinnunen, Vuorio, Sinokki, Fossum, Unruh.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Sourander, Ristkari, Cunningham, Huttunen, Lingley-Pottie, Hinkka-Yli-Salomäki, Kinnunen, Vuorio, Sinokki, Unruh.

Drafting of the manuscript: Sourander, McGrath, Ristkari, Cunningham, Huttunen, Hinkka-Yli-Salomäki, Kinnunen, Vuorio, Sinokki, Fossum, Unruh.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Sourander, McGrath, Ristkari, Cunningham, Huttunen, Lingley-Pottie, Kinnunen, Vuorio, Sinokki.

Statistical analysis: Hinkka-Yli-Salomäki.

Obtained funding: Sourander, McGrath, Cunningham, Unruh.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Sourander, Ristkari, Huttunen, Lingley-Pottie, Sinokki.

Study supervision: Sourander, McGrath, Lingley-Pottie, Fossum.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Strongest Families Institute (SFI) is a not-for-profit organization that provides services to Canadian families. Dr McGrath reported serving as cofounder and chair of the SFI board of directors; he derives no financial benefit. Dr Lingley-Pottie reported serving as cofounder and being employed full time as the president and chief executive officer of SFI. She provides her academic and clinical consultation as an in-kind contribution to this study. Dr Lingley-Pottie may commercialize the Intelligent Research Information System platform in the future. Dr Cunningham reported receiving royalties from materials and workshops on Counseling Options and Parent Education, a large group parent training program. He receives salary support from and holds shares in Brief Child and Family Phone Interview Inc, a company that provides children’s mental health screening and outcome measurement systems. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: The research was funded by Skidi-Kids, a Finland Canada program funded by grant 135136 from the Academy of Finland (Dr Sourander) and grant 193146 from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Drs McGrath and Lingley-Pottie), the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation (Dr Sourander), the Association of Friends of the University Children's Hospitals (Dr Sourander), and Turku University Hospital Expert Responsibility Area Research Funding (Dr Sourander). Dr McGrath’s research was supported by a Canada Research Chair. Dr Cunningham’s participation was supported by the Jack Laidlaw Chair in Patient-Centered Health Care.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: We acknowledge Katja Pihlava, LicAPsych, University of Turku, for her contribution to the study design; Anne Penttinen, MHC, Turku University Hospital, Marja Guillaume, MA, Turku University Hospital, Kaisa Voutilainen, BC, Turku University Hospital, and Katja Pöllänen, BS, University of Turku, for acquisition of data; Jarna Lindroos, MA, University of Turku, for administrative work and helping to prepare the manuscript; and the public health directors and health nurses at the child health clinics in Finland who assisted in the study. Mss Pihlava, Penttinen, Guillaume, Voutilainen, Pöllänen, and Lindroos received compensation for their contribution.

Additional Information: Because of the Finnish national legislation for data privacy, the research data can only be assigned to third parties if the researchers apply for such permission from the governmental authorities and if such permission is granted.

References
1.
Burke  JD, Loeber  R, Birmaher  B.  Oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: a review of the past 10 years, part II.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2002;41(11):1275-1293.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Achenbach  TM, Howell  CT, McConaughy  SH, Stanger  C.  Six-year predictors of problems in a national sample, III: transitions to young adult syndromes.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1995;34(5):658-669.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Caspi  A, Moffitt  TE, Newman  DL, Silva  PA.  Behavioral observations at age 3 years predict adult psychiatric disorders: longitudinal evidence from a birth cohort.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996;53(11):1033-1039.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Loeber  R, Burke  JD, Lahey  BB, Winters  A, Zera  M.  Oppositional defiant and conduct disorder: a review of the past 10 years, part I.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000;39(12):1468-1484.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Hofstra  MB, van der Ende  J, Verhulst  FC.  Child and adolescent problems predict DSM-IV disorders in adulthood: a 14-year follow-up of a Dutch epidemiological sample.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2002;41(2):182-189.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Moffitt  TE; E-Risk Study Team.  Teen-aged mothers in contemporary Britain.  J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2002;43(6):727-742.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Kim-Cohen  J, Caspi  A, Moffitt  TE, Harrington  H, Milne  BJ, Poulton  R.  Prior juvenile diagnoses in adults with mental disorder: developmental follow-back of a prospective-longitudinal cohort.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(7):709-717.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Simonoff  E, Elander  J, Holmshaw  J, Pickles  A, Murray  R, Rutter  M.  Predictors of antisocial personality: continuities from childhood to adult life.  Br J Psychiatry. 2004;184:118-127.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Fergusson  DM, Horwood  LJ, Ridder  EM.  Show me the child at seven: the consequences of conduct problems in childhood for psychosocial functioning in adulthood.  J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005;46(8):837-849.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Sourander  A, Multimäki  P, Nikolakaros  G,  et al.  Childhood predictors of psychiatric disorders among boys: a prospective community-based follow-up study from age 8 years to early adulthood.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2005;44(8):756-767.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Sourander  A, Elonheimo  H, Niemelä  S,  et al.  Childhood predictors of male criminality: a prospective population-based follow-up study from age 8 to late adolescence.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006;45(5):578-586.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Sourander  A, Jensen  P, Davies  M,  et al.  Who is at greatest risk of adverse long-term outcomes? The Finnish From a Boy to a Man study.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007;46(9):1148-1161.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Richman  N, Stevenson  J, Graham  PJ.  Pre-school to School: A Behavioural Study. London, England: Academic Press; 1982.
14.
Fischer  M, Rolf  JE, Hasazi  JE, Cummings  L.  Follow-up of a preschool epidemiological sample: cross-age continuities and predictions of later adjustment with internalizing and externalizing dimensions of behavior.  Child Dev. 1984;55(1):137-150.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Dretzke  J, Frew  E, Davenport  C,  et al.  The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of parent training/education programmes for the treatment of conduct disorder, including oppositional defiant disorder, in children.  Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(50):iii, ix-x, 1-233.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Lundahl  B, Risser  HJ, Lovejoy  MC.  A meta-analysis of parent training: moderators and follow-up effects.  Clin Psychol Rev. 2006;26(1):86-104.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Waddell  C, Hua  JM, Garland  OM, Peters  RD, McEwan  K.  Preventing mental disorders in children: a systematic review to inform policy-making.  Can J Public Health. 2007;98(3):166-173.PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Dretzke  J, Davenport  C, Frew  E,  et al.  The clinical effectiveness of different parenting programmes for children with conduct problems: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.  Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2009;3(1):7.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Kazdin  AE.  Bridging the enormous gaps of theory with therapy research and practice.  J Clin Child Psychol. 2001;30(1):59-66.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Bourke  ML, Nielsen  BA.  Parent training: getting the most effective help for the most children.  J Psychol Pract. 1995;1(3):142-152.Google Scholar
21.
Cunningham  CE, Boyle  M, Offord  D,  et al.  Tri-ministry study: correlates of school-based parenting course utilization.  J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68(5):928-933.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Kazdin  AE, Holland  L, Crowley  M.  Family experience of barriers to treatment and premature termination from child therapy.  J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997;65(3):453-463.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Barkley  RA.  Commentary on the multimodal treatment study of children with ADHD.  J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2000;28(6):595-599.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Lingley-Pottie  P, McGrath  PJ, Andreou  P.  Barriers to mental health care: perceived delivery system differences.  ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2013;36(1):51-61.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Cunningham  CE, Deal  K, Rimas  H,  et al.  Modeling the information preferences of parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint experiment.  J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2008;36(7):1123-1138.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Cunningham  CE, Chen  Y, Deal  K,  et al.  The interim service preferences of parents waiting for children’s mental health treatment: a discrete choice conjoint experiment.  J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2013;41(6):865-877.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Andersson  G, Cuijpers  P.  Internet-based and other computerized psychological treatments for adult depression: a meta-analysis.  Cogn Behav Ther. 2009;38(4):196-205.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
ClinicalTrials.gov. Strongest Families Finland Canada: Family-based Prevention and Treatment Program of Early Childhood Disruptive Behavior (Fin-Can). NCT01750996. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01750996. Accessed November 14, 2011.
29.
McGrath  PJ, Sourander  A, Lingley-Pottie  P,  et al.  Remote population-based intervention for disruptive behavior at age four: study protocol for a randomized trial of Internet-assisted parent training (Strongest Families Finland-Canada).  BMC Public Health. 2013;13:985.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Caspi  A, Moffitt  TE, Morgan  J,  et al.  Maternal expressed emotion predicts children’s antisocial behavior problems: using monozygotic-twin differences to identify environmental effects on behavioral development.  Dev Psychol. 2004;40(2):149-161.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Ilola  AM, Lempinen  L, Huttunen  J, Ristkari  T, Sourander  A.  Bullying and victimisation are common in four-year-old children [published online January 6, 2016].  Acta Paediatr Scand. doi:10.1111/apa.13327.Google Scholar
32.
Statistics Finland. http://www.stat.fi/tup/index_en.html. Accessed February 1, 2015.
33.
The Finnish Population Register Centre. http://vrk.fi/default.aspx?id=39. Accessed February 15, 2015.
34.
Random Allocation Software. http://mahmoodsaghaei.tripod.com/Softwares/randalloc.html#Random. Accessed February 15, 2015.
35.
McGrath  PJ, Lingley-Pottie  P, Thurston  C,  et al.  Telephone-based mental health interventions for child disruptive behavior or anxiety disorders: randomized trials and overall analysis.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;50(11):1162-1172.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Lingley-Pottie  P, McGrath  PJ.  Distance therapeutic alliance: the participant’s experience.  ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2007;30(4):353-366.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
McGrath  PJ, Lingley-Pottie  P, Emberly  DJ, Thurston  C, McLean  C.  Integrated knowledge translation in mental health: family help as an example.  J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;18(1):30-37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
38.
Barlow  J, Smailagic  N, Huband  N, Roloff  V, Bennett  C.  Group-based parent training programmes for improving parental psychosocial health.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD002020.PubMedGoogle Scholar
39.
Klein  AM, Otto  Y, Fuchs  S, Zenger  M, Von Klitzing  K.  Psychometric properties of the parent-rated SDQ in preschoolers.  Eur J Psychol Assess. 2013;29(2):96-104.Google ScholarCrossref
40.
Achenbach  T, Rescorla  L.  Manual for the ASEBA Preschoool Forms & Profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Centre for Children, Youth, & Families; 2000.
41.
Rescorla  LA, Achenbach  TM, Ivanova  MY,  et al.  International comparisons of behavioral and emotional problems in preschool children: parents’ reports from 24 societies.  J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2011;40(3):456-467.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Sourander  A.  Emotional and behavioural problems in a sample of Finnish three-year-olds.  Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001;10(2):98-104.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Ivanova  MY, Achenbach  TM, Rescorla  LA,  et al.  Preschool psychopathology reported by parents in 23 societies: testing the seven-syndrome model of the Child Behavior Checklist for ages 1.5-5.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;49(12):1215-1224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Arnold  DS, O’Leary  SG, Wolff  LS, Acker  MM.  The Parenting Scale: a measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations.  Psychol Assess. 1993;5(2):137-144.Google ScholarCrossref
45.
Rhoades  KA, O’Leary  SG.  Factor structure and validity of the parenting scale.  J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2007;36(2):137-146.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Essau  CA, Sasagawa  S, Frick  PJ.  Callous-unemotional traits in a community sample of adolescents.  Assessment. 2006;13(4):454-469.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Fanti  KA, Frick  PJ, Georgiou  S.  Linking callous-unemotional traits to instrumental and non-instrumental forms of aggression.  J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2009;31:285-298.Google ScholarCrossref
48.
Lovibond  SH, Lovibond  PF. Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. 2nd ed. Sydney, Australia: Psychology Foundation; 1995.
49.
Henry  JD, Crawford  JR.  The 21-item version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS–21): normative data and psychometric evaluation in a large non-clinical sample.  Br J Clin Psychol. 2005;44(pt 2):227-239.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Hawes  DJ, Dadds  MR.  Assessing parenting practices through parent-report and direct observation during parent-training.  J Child Fam Stud. 2006;15(5):554-567.Google ScholarCrossref
51.
Moffitt  TE, Caspi  A.  Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females.  Dev Psychopathol. 2001;13(2):355-375.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Bennett  KJ, Lipman  EL, Racine  Y, Offord  DR.  Do measures of externalising behaviour in normal populations predict later outcome? implications for targeted interventions to prevent conduct disorder.  J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1998;39(8):1059-1070.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Tremblay  RE.  Prevention of youth violence: why not start at the beginning?  J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2006;34(4):481-487.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Fossum  S, Handegård  BH, Adolfsen  F, Vis  SA, Wynn  R.  A meta-analysis of long-term outpatient treatment effects for children and adolescents with conduct problems.  J Child Fam Stud.2016;25(1):15-29.Google ScholarCrossref
55.
Cunningham  CE, Rimas  H, Chen  Y,  et al.  Modeling parenting programs as an interim service for families waiting for children’s mental health treatment.  J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2015;44(4):616-629.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Kolko  DJ, Lindhiem  O.  Introduction to the special series on booster sessions and long-term maintenance of treatment gains.  J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2014;42(3):339-342.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Sourander  A, Niemelä  S, Santalahti  P, Helenius  H, Piha  J.  Changes in psychiatric problems and service use among 8-year-old children: a 16-year population-based time-trend study.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47(3):317-327.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Gyllenberg  D, Sourander  A.  Psychotropic drug and polypharmacy use among adolescents and young adults: findings from the Finnish 1981 Nationwide Birth Cohort Study.  Nord J Psychiatry. 2012;66(5):336-342.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Gyllenberg  D, Sourander  A, Niemelä  S,  et al.  Childhood predictors of use and costs of antidepressant medication by age 24 years: findings from the Finnish Nationwide 1981 Birth Cohort Study.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;50(4):406-415.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Zoëga  H, Furu  K, Halldórsson  M, Thomsen  PH, Sourander  A, Martikainen  JE.  Use of ADHD drugs in the Nordic countries: a population-based comparison study.  Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2011;123(5):360-367.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×