Internet-based parent management training: A randomized controlled study

What is the level of evidence for the use of currently available technologies in facilitating the self-management of difficulties associated with ADHD in children and young people? A systematic review

“…Reason for exclusion Barnett et al [86] Participants are teachers Benyakorn et al [87] Not interventional Bishop [88] Intervention not technology Bonarini et al [89] Population focus not ADHD Bul et al [90] Outcome measures do not assess ADHD-related difficulties Chan et al [91] Not interventional Chen et al [92] Not interventional Christiansen et al [93] Intervention reliant on others Dale and Grut [94] Not exclusively for ADHD Duffy [95] Population focus not ADHD Enebrink et al [96] Population focus not ADHD References Reason for exclusion Epstein et al [97] Intervention reliant on health care professionals Fiellin et al [98] Population focus not ADHD Frutos-Pascual et al [99] Population focus not ADHD Frutos-Pascual and GarciaZapirain [100] Participants typically developing, not ADHD Gray et al [72] ADHD not primary diagnosis of participants Halperin et al [101] Intervention not technology Janeslätt et al [102] Intervention not technology Kim et al [103] Intervention not technology Lim et al [104] Intervention reliant on health care professionals Mazurek and Engelhardt [105] Not interventional Myers et al [106] Participants ADHD diagnosis not confirmed Nie et al [107] Intervention not technology Pandria et al [108] Not interventional Rohani et al [109] Participants ADHD diagnosis not confirmed Rosch and Mostofsky [110] Not interventional Schafer et al [111] Participants not received ADHD diagnosis Schuck et al [112] Participants not received ADHD diagnosis Shah et al 2012 Not interventional Silva et al [113] Technology as outcome measure, not intervention Steeger et al 2016 Participants ADHD diagnosis not confirmed Stephenson [114] Population focus not ADHD Tse et al …”

Telephone-supported versus self-directed delivery of an online parenting program: Outcomes, mediators and moderators of change

“…Andersson et al, 2013;Mohr et al, 2010). In the context of online parenting programs, to our knowledge no studies have yet performed a direct comparison between self-directed and practitioner-supported versions of an online parenting program, however positive outcomes have been achieved with clinical support provided through diary feedback (Enebrink, Högström, Forster, & Ghaderi, 2012) and moderated parenting forums (Love et al, 2016).…”

“…As mentioned in Chapter 1, a recent paper following-up from a non-inferiority comparison between self-directed Triple P Online and the "Every Parent's Self-Help Workbook" (Markie- Dadds et al, 1999) found that outcomes were significantly predicted by factors such as module completion, baseline levels of child behaviour difficulties and poor parenting . Additionally, an eighteen-month follow-up study of an online Parent Management Training intervention, shown to have good treatment outcomes at post-intervention and six-month follow-up (Enebrink et al, 2012), examined whether engagement with different types of homework tasks were predictive of outcomes, with findings indicating that completion of homework tasks aimed at reducing negative parenting behaviours were more predictive of pre-post changes in child problem behaviours than tasks aimed at improving use of positive parenting strategies (Högström, Enebrink, Melin, & Ghaderi, 2015).…”

Using telehealth technologies to engage and support parents of children with disabilities: An evaluation of a novel telehealth parenting programme

“…Of the handful of empirical trials that have been conducted in this area, the majority target parents of typically developing children Enebrink, Högström, Forster, & Ghaderi, 2012;Nieuwboer et al, 2013a; leaving only a few that specifically target, and/or include, adaptations to meet the particular needs of parents and caregivers of children with a disability Kable, Coles, Strickland, & Taddeo, 2012;Wainer & Ingersoll, 2015). Acknowledging the unique challenges faced by parents and carers of children with a disability, and the significant and continuing impacts that may be experienced by the parent, child, family and broader community when there is a failure to link these families to effective and appropriate supports, it is suggested there is an urgent need for the development of empirically-validated telehealth interventions created specifically for parents and carers of children with a disability…”

“…Web-based and digital interventions encompass a broad scope of technologies and treatment approaches ranging from static, informational websites that provide basic education or advice requiring minimal user participation, through to comprehensive web-based programs which may be self-directed or include some degree of therapist guidance or support using email, real-time chat, videoconferencing or similar (Barak, Klein, & Proudfoot, 2009). Broader telehealth-based dissemination tools include mobile phones, text messaging, private messages (social media), video and teleconferencing (Hall & Bierman, 2015).Comparisons of online interventions with conventional face-to-face therapy have not only shown similar outcomes in treatment results (Kairy, Lehoux, Vincent, & Visintin, 2009), but have also indicated that online programmes deliver parenting support in a manner that overcomes many traditional barriers to treatment such as cost, childcare restrictions, perceived social stigma and so on (Enebrink et al, 2012;Tarver, Daley, Lockwood & Sayal, 2014). With engagement to these programmes being readily available to any parent or carer who has Internet access, along with a basic level of online expertise Funderburk, Ware, Altshuler, & Chaffin, 2008), technology-driven delivery platforms offer the very real potential to both expand reach and reduce cost -for both parents and providers (Ingersoll & Berger, 2015;Jones et al, 2013;Macdonell & Prinz, 2016;Wainer & Ingersoll, 2015).…”