None listed
Conditions
Brief summary
The primary purpose of this study was to examine if participants in the Collaborative and Proactive Solutions and Parent Management Training groups, treated in a community setting, would exhibit significant improvement in ODD symptoms at post-treatment and 6-month follow-up. We were also investigating if improvement in the CPS group would be similar to outcomes in the PMT condition. This study featured components of efficacy studies (studies set in universities with stringent criteria) and effectiveness studies (studies set in community settings with experienced settings). We further expected that there would be no differences in treatment outcomes related to elements of efficacy and effectiveness design (Michelson et al., 2013). In all, it was intended that this study would strengthen conclusions reached about the effectiveness of CPS by reproducing earlier RCT's in a community setting in Sydney, Australia.
Interventions
Two active treatments are compared: Collaborative and Proactive Solutions (CPS) vs Parent Management Training (PMT) for the treatment of oppositional defiant disorder in youth. 160 youth, aged 7-14 years were randomised to one of the active conditions. Treatments were delivered face-to-face up to 16 x 1 hour sessions, once a week for 16 weeks. Treatment was delivered to individual families only. Both parent/s and child attended each session. Treatment was delivered in a urban community-based psychology clinic. Following treatment families were offered 5 monthly booster sessions by phone to consolidate sessions. In these booster sessions parents reported how they were progressing and troubleshot any behaviour problems. The therapist then advised how to use previously taught skills in these situations. Phone calls ranged from 2-15 minutes. Families were advised of the option to access boosters, but they were optional. Collaborative and Proactive Solutions is a cognitive behavioural model developed by Dr Ross Greene. The CPS model posits that challenging behaviours occur when a child's skills do not match the demands of the given situation eg., flexibility, transitioning, maintaining focus. CPS treatment focuses on helping parents identify their child’s lagging skills and reframe their perception of their child’s behavior using this conceptualization (Greene, 1998). From there, the parent(s) and young person identify current “unsolved problems” and are coached in steps to solve the problems collaboratively and proactively. CPS entails four treatment modules (a) psychoeducation and identification of unsolved problems, which explains the conceptualization of CPS and identifies the unsolved problems precipitating challenging behavior; (b) prioritizing unsolved problems based on their relationship to safety, gravity, or frequency; (c) learning about Plan A, B, and C and the concept that parents have a choice of how to respond to an unsolved problem; and (d) clinician modeling and coaching the use of Plan B to help parents and children solve problems together proactively. Plan A is parents responding to challenging behaviors in a unilateral manner. Plan B is parent and child collaborating to come up with a solution for the problem that preempts the challenging behaviour, and Plan C is putting aside expectations they have of the child to meet certain expectations. The CPS materials can be accessed via Dr Ross Greene. They can not be accessed from any other organisation. Supplementary handouts were provided at the majority of sessions. They were already created and not created specifically for this study. Handouts for PMT are available in Barkeley's Defiant Child Manual. Handouts for CPS are readily available at: https://livesinthebalance.org/our-solution/#our-solution-overview Treatment was delivered by experienced clinical psychologists (5 year plus experience) and graduate interns from a masters of Clinical Psychology program. Training for therapists in both CPS and PMT conditions consisted of a one-day workshop, reading the manuals, listening to audiotapes of the entire course of treatment for 3 previous clients (approximately 40 hours), and 1-2 hours of weekly clinical supervision (dosage was matched for PMT and CPS). Adherence to the allocated therapeutic model was assessed by having an independent rater, experienced in both therapies, code random audiotaped therapy sessions using the Session Content Analysis checklist (Ollendick et al., 2016). Independent raters, masked to the treatment being delivered, listened to an audio recording of a therapy session and then rated the presence or absence of treatment components on a 6-item scale. Each therapist also attended regular clinical supervision.
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
• Sex: Female and male • Age range: 7-14 years • Disorder status: Patient must meet criteria for oppositional defiant disorder • Concomitant disorder status: Patient will be included in the study if they have a secondary diagnosis of anxiety or depression. • Willingness to give written informed consent and willingness to participate to and comply with the study. Parent inclusion criteria: Female and male Biological parent or grandparent, caregiver of 7-14 year old with oppositional defiant disorder Willingness to give written informed consent and willingness to participate to and comply with the study.
Exclusion criteria
Potential participants were excluded if they met the full diagnostic criteria for CD, autism spectrum disorder, developmental delay, substance abuse, or high risk of suicide. The taking of psychotropic medications, either prescribed before or during the study, was permitted though participants were encouraged to maintain a consistent regime during the trial.