Conducting a randomized clinical trial of an psychological intervention for parents/caregivers of children with cancer shortly after diagnosis. Toward dissemination of evidence-based family interventions: maintenance of community-based partnership recruitment results and associated factors. Comparison of two community alternatives to incarceration for chronic juvenile offenders.
To report acceptability, feasibility, and outcome data from a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of a brief intervention for caregivers of children newly diagnosed with cancer.
                Eighty-one families were randomly assigned following collection of baseline data to Intervention or Treatment as Usual (TAU). Recruitment and retention rates and progression through the protocol were tracked. Measures of state anxiety and posttraumatic stress symptoms served as outcomes.
                Difficulties enrolling participants included a high percentage of newly diagnosed families failing to meet inclusion criteria (40%) and an unexpectedly low participation rate (23%). However, movement through the protocol was generally completed in a timely manner and those completing the intervention provided positive feedback. Outcome data showed no significant differences between the arms of the RCT.
                There are many challenges inherent in conducting a RCT shortly after cancer diagnosis. Consideration of alternative research designs and optimal timing for interventions are essential next steps. A major challenge in the dissemination of evidence-based family interventions (EBFIs) designed to reduce youth substance use and other problem behaviors is effective and sustainable community-based recruitment. This understudied topic is addressed by a preliminary study of 14 community-university partnership teams randomly assigned to an intervention condition in which teams attempted sustained implementation of EBFIs with two cohorts of middle school families. This report describes attendance rates of recruited families maintained over time and across both cohorts, along with exploratory analyses of factors associated with those rates. When compared with community-based recruitment rates in the literature, particularly for multisession interventions, relatively high rates were observed; they averaged 17% across cohorts. Community team functioning (e.g., production of quality team promotional materials) and technical assistance (TA) variables (e.g., effective collaboration with TA, frequency of TA requests) were associated with higher recruitment rates, even after controlling for community and school district contextual influences. Results support the community-university partnership model for recruitment that was implemented in the study. The relative effectiveness of group care (GC) and multidimensional treatment foster care (MTFC) was compared in terms of their impact on criminal offending, incarceration rates, and program completion outcomes for 79 male adolescents who had histories of chronic and serious juvenile delinquency. Results show that boys who participated in MTFC had significantly fewer criminal referrals and returned to live with relatives more often. Multiple regression analyses showed that assignment to a treatment condition (i.e., GC or MTFC) predicted official and self-reported criminality in follow-up beyond other well-known predictors of chronic juvenile offending (i.e., age at 1st offense, number of previous offenses, age at referral).
Although the inclusion criteria for this systematic review set a study design threshold higher than that of previous reviews, the results mirror those of earlier reviews but also highlights the tendency of the perceived effectiveness of popular interventions to outstrip their evidence base. Whilst the results of individual studies generally indicate that TFC is a promising intervention for children and youth experiencing mental health problems, behavioural problems or problems of delinquency, the evidence base is less robust than that usually reported.