Using the RE‐AIM framework to identify and describe best practice models in family‐based intervention development: A systematic review

Abstract

The family unit carries with it a responsibility of possibly being the most important predictor of positive child development. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and describe best practice models or processes in family-based intervention development. The following databases were included in the review: PsychArticles, Academic Search Complete, ERIC, SocIndex, Sage, Sabinet, and Pubmed. Peer-reviewed, English language, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods in nature conducted within the last 10 years. Interventions were required to include families as part of the programme as well as describe the model or process used in intervention development. Two self-developed data extraction tables were developed for this review. The articles included for review were heterogeneous in terms of the outcomes, and so a narrative synthesis was used. After yielding an initial search of 400 studies, 28 articles were finally included for extraction and analysis with varying levels of intervention strength. Interventions are further described in terms of reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance dimensions. A feasible intervention appears to be one that is flexible, engages processes to recruit those who are most at-risk and is facilitated by someone known to or from the same community as the participants, can retain its participants, and can be evaluated with the same participants at a minimum of 6 months later.

Stages of change and engagement in a family intervention

“…As recommended in some studies, it may be useful to discuss any possible external obstacles (timetables and journeys) and internal obstacles (fear of being criticized or questioned) with the family and also expectations of change, as this would clarify the sense of the intervention and its benefits for the family (Gopalan et al, 2010;Small et al, 2015;Sterrett, Jones, Zalot, & Shook, 2010). Other strategies that foster involvement are to more openly emphasize family strengths, resources, and capacities, to revisit the issue of blame, and to set achievable objectives aimed at laying the groundwork for change (Isaacs, Roman, Savahl, & Cheng Sui, 2017;Pereira & Barros, 2018). An initial interview with the family is essential to assessing members' stages of change and to placing the work in the correct context.…”

“…The focus of the intervention is reflection, understanding the mental states underlying attitudes and behaviours associated with conflicts and developing the capacity to understand oneself and others (Benbassat & Priel, ). Other strategies that foster involvement are to more openly emphasize family strengths, resources, and capacities, to revisit the issue of blame, and to set achievable objectives aimed at laying the groundwork for change (Isaacs, Roman, Savahl, & Cheng Sui, ; Pereira & Barros, ). Due attention should be paid to absences from sessions, which should also be discussed, and consideration could be given to short interventions with a pre‐established duration to facilitate the family's commitment.…”

The development of a family resilience‐strengthening programme for families in a South African rural community

“…Phase 2 was a systematic review aimed at identifying and describing practices and processes used in family‐based intervention development. The findings indicated that most family‐based interventions are strengths‐based, psychoeducative in nature, makes participant engagement and retention a priority, and includes the involvement of the local community (Isaacs, Roman, Savahl, & Sui, ).…”

The Early Implementation of FFT-CW®, MST-Psychiatric®, and SafeCare® in Australia

“…Among the more prominent frameworks are the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework (Aarons et al, 2010); Getting to Outcomes (Wandersman et al, 2000); the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework (Glasgow et al, 1999); and the Active Implementation Frameworks (AIFs; Metz & Bartley, 2012). The way in which these have been utilized ranges from supporting the implementation of RSIs (Barbee et al, 2011; Metz et al, 2015; Pipkin et al, 2013), to structuring the investigation of such interventions (Gannon et al, 2019; Hickey et al, 2018; Moullin et al, 2019), or informing the development of theoretical concepts and models (Isaacs et al, 2017; Mason et al, 2014). While implementation frameworks differ in purpose, content, and form (Albers et al, 2017; Nilsen, 2015), they also have a number of aspects in common, among them the shared assumption that implementation occurs in stages—with two to four stages included in multiple frameworks (Albers et al, 2017).…”