Caregiver Use of the Core Components of Technology-Enhanced Helping the Noncompliant Child: A Case Series Analysis of Low-Income Families

Abstract

Children from low-income families are more likely to develop early-onset disruptive behavior disorders (DBDs) compared to their higher income counterparts. Low-income families of children with early-onset DBDs, however, are less likely to engage in the standard-of-care treatment, behavioral parent training (BPT), than families from other sociodemographic groups. Preliminary between-group findings suggested technology-enhanced BPT was associated with increased engagement and boosted treatment outcomes for low-income families relative to standard BPT. The current study used a case series design to take this research a step further by examining whether there was variability in use of, and reactions to, the smartphone enhancements within technology-enhanced BPT and the extent to which this variability paralleled treatment outcome. Findings provide a window into the uptake and use of technology-enhanced service delivery methods among low-income families, with implications for the broader field of children’s mental health.

Optimizing Engagement in Behavioral Parent Training: Progress Toward a Technology-Enhanced Treatment Model

“…Yet, prior pre-to-post pilot analyses has shown technology-enhanced approaches can bolster outcomes even relative to standard BPT ( Jones et al, 2014 ). It will also be important to examine variability in the extent to which TE-HNC parents were motivated to engage with the technology-enhancements in order to determine if greater or more consistent use is linked to improved outcomes ( Anton et al, 2016 ; Dewar, Bull, Malvey, & Szalma, 2017 ). Importantly, these latter two directions, symptom reduction and technology use, can most richly be examined using time-intensive data analyses, which is increasingly a hallmark of the technology-enhanced treatment literature (see Baraldi, Wurpts, MacKinnon, & Lockhart, 2014 , for a review).…”

Consumer Smartphone Apps Marketed for Child and Adolescent Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Content Analysis

“…While mHealth platforms range across a number of consumer products (e.g., smartphones, tablets, wearable sensors), the present evaluation focuses specifically on those made available for smartphones; Jones et al, 2015). Given the increasing prevalence and usage rates of smartphones, in particular, across a wide range of demographics (e.g., youth, racial/ethnic minorities, those dwelling in rural communities; Pew Research Center, 2017), smartphone applications are being developed as a novel method of extending access and delivering mental health treatment to traditionally underserved groups (Anton et al, 2016). Preliminary studies point to evidence for the acceptability of using smartphones to monitor mental health (Torous, Friedman, & Keshavan, 2014) as well as the feasibility and efficacy of delivering interventions on smartphones (Donker et al, 2013; Jones et al, 2014), however this body of literature is inchoate, precluding firm conclusions.…”

The Role of Emotion Regulation and Socialization in Behavioral Parent Training: A Proof-of-Concept Study

“…First, we focused our analyses on effect sizes and medium to large effect sizes in particular to increase our confidence in findings; however, even effect sizes need to be interpreted with caution with small samples and within-group analyses (Kraemer, Mintz, Noda, Tinklenberg, & Yesavage, 2006). It is important to note that we considered other analytic approaches, including more basic behavioral designs (e.g., case studies) characteristic of pilot and proof-of-concept research, particularly on interventions (e.g., Anton et al, 2016; Daughters, Magidson, Schuster, & Safren, 2010); however, we decided that effect size analyses would better facilitate next steps in this line of research, including helping to project sample size. In addition, efficiency of services served as a proxy of caregiver’s capacity to effectively navigate BPT in the context of stress; however, more direct and proximal markers of family stress should be assessed in future work.…”