Skip to content

Improving Delay Discounting to Decrease Harsh Parenting Among Parents Receiving Substance Use Treatment

Improving Delay Discounting to Decrease Harsh Parenting Among Parents Receiving Substance Use Treatment in Low Income Community

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05229120
Enrollment
38
Registered
2022-02-08
Start date
2022-04-07
Completion date
2023-03-31
Last updated
2025-03-14

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Behavioral Health

Keywords

episodic future thinking, delay discounting, parent-child relations, low income, substance use treatment

Brief summary

Parents with substance use disorders are disproportionately more likely to engage in harsh physical discipline, which can lead to serious clinical outcomes, including child maltreatment and the intergenerational transmission of addictive disorders. One mechanism linking substance use and maladaptive parenting strategies is parental delay discounting, or the tendency to value smaller, immediate rewards (such as stopping children's misbehavior via physical punishment) relative to larger, but delayed rewards (like shaping adaptive child behaviors over time). This study will examine the efficacy of implementing a low-cost, brief intervention targeting the reduction of parental delay discounting to inform broader public health efforts aimed at reducing child maltreatment and interrupting intergenerational cycles of substance abuse in traditionally underserved communities.

Detailed description

Parents with substance use disorders (SUD) are significantly more likely to engage in harsh parenting practices, including spanking, hitting, and belittling their children, than parents without SUD. Punitive physical and emotional discipline is, in turn, associated with increased rates of child maltreatment and the subsequent intergenerational transmission of substance use disorders. Parents in residential substance use treatment facilities are among those at highest risk for perpetrating harsh and abusive parenting; yet most behaviorally based parenting interventions available within inpatient settings do not take into account the unique mechanisms linking parental substance use to harsh parenting. Specifically, parents with SUD may be at heightened risk for engaging in maladaptive parenting approaches given a tendency to prioritize immediate rewards (such as stopping a child's misbehavior using physical punishment) relative to larger, but delayed rewards (including shaping positive child behavior over a longer term). This behavioral tendency is known as delay discounting and recent findings suggest that rates of delay discounting predict parents' use of harsh physical discipline. Existing research also indicates a strong link between steeper (more problematic) rates of delay discounting and the severity of alcohol and illicit drug use across the lifespan. Thus, delay discounting may represent a specific vulnerability underlying both harsh parenting and disordered substance use. The current project proposes to pilot and feasibility test an adapted episodic future thinking (EFT) intervention to target the reduction of parenting-related delay discounting and examine its effects on parenting practices among families in a residential substance use treatment setting. The intervention will be delivered by peer recovery coaches who are already employed in the center.

Interventions

The adapted episodic future thinking (EFT) intervention will focus on generation of vivid, substance-free, rewarding events that could happen in the future with their children.

Sponsors

University of Maryland, College Park
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Kansas
CollaboratorOTHER
Henry Ford Health System
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Parent of child between 6-10 years of age * Able to provide informed consent and take part in all study procedures in English * Have current diagnosis of SUD * Currently reside with their child at least 50% of the time * Be willing to receive daily postcards

Exclusion criteria

* Active suicidality/homicidally * Active bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or psychosis. * Only one parent-child dyad from each family.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in Delay Discounting 5 Trial Adjusted MeasureBaseline and 4 weeksThe 5-Trial Adjusting Delay (Temporal Discounting) Task is a computer based system which uses an adjusting algorithm to determine the amount of immediately available money that is equivalent to a large sum that is delayed by seven discrete durations of time presented in a randomized order (i.e., 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, and 25 years). The length of delay is titrated based on participants' responses to previous items to determine an indifference point (the point at which the sums of money are perceived as equal). This is then converted to a k-value and logarithmically transformed to ensure the values are normally distributed, making them unbounded by min and max values. Higher k-values indicate a greater preference for immediate rewards. Change in Delay Discounting is evaluated by comparing baseline k-value scores with scores at the intervention (approximately 1 week after baseline) and the post-intervention assessment (approximately 4 weeks after baseline).
Change in Consideration of Future Consequences Scale - Parenting AdaptedBaseline, 4 weeksThe Consideration of Future Consequences Scale-Parenting Adapted (CFCS-14-PA) is a 14-item self-report questionnaire composed of two subscales reflecting either immediate or future orientation related to parents interactions with their children. Items range from not at all like me (1) to very much like me (5) and are summed to create a total score with higher values reflecting greater future orientation. Scores range from 14 to 70. Change in CFCS-14-PA score is measured by comparing scores at the post-intervention assessment (approximately 4 weeks after baseline) with baseline scores.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System ScoresBaseline, 4 weeksParents and their children will complete a 20-minute interaction task, including 5 min. of free play, a 10 min. homework task, and a 5 min. clean up task. Interactions are recorded and coded using the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS), measuring the quality of parent and child interactions. The task is coded for 7 subscales, yielding 2 composite scores: positive parenting (a sum of: unlabeled praise, labeled praise, positive touch, reflection, and behavior description) and negative parenting (a sum of: negative talk and negative touch). Each instance of a behaviors described in the subscale (e.g., a parent giving unlabeled praise) is coded as one point, which are summed into a subscale (no max or min values). Higher values indicate greater positive or negative parenting. Change in positive parenting and negative parenting scores will be calculated by comparing baseline scores with scores at the post-intervention sessions (approximately 4 weeks after baseline).
Change in Alabama Parenting Questionnaire ScoresBaseline, 4 weeksThe Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ) is a 42-item self-report measure of parenting behaviors which yields five subscales: (1) positive involvement with children (range 10-50, higher = more involvement), (2) use of positive parenting strategies (range 6-30, higher = more positive strategies), (3) poor parental monitoring/supervision (range 10-50, higher = worse supervision), (4) inconsistent discipline (range 6-30, higher = more inconsistent discipline), and (5) use of corporal punishment (range 3-15, higher = more corporal punishment). Items are summed to create subscale scores. Change in each of the five APQ subscale scores will be measured by comparing post-intervention scores (approximately 4 weeks after baseline) with baseline scores.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Episodic Future Thinking
Parents who are receiving residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment will receive an adapted episodic future thinking focused condition. Parents will meet with peer recovery coaches (PRCs) who will administer the intervention, focused on generating future, pleasant events with their children. After the intervention session, parents will receive a daily postcard over the course of two weeks including a reminder cue generated as part of the episodic future thinking (EFT) intervention and a prompt to remember these episodes in vivid detail. Episodic Future Thinking: The adapted episodic future thinking (EFT) intervention will focus on generation of vivid, substance-free, rewarding events that could happen in the future with their children.
38
Total38

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject8

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicEpisodic Future Thinking
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
18 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
20 Participants
Age, Continuous
Adult Participants
37.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.7
Age, Continuous
Child Participants
7.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.5
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Child participants
Hispanic or Latino
1 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Child participants
Not Hispanic or Latino
17 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Child participants
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Parent participants
Hispanic or Latino
3 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Parent participants
Not Hispanic or Latino
17 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Parent participants
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Child Participants
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Child Participants
Asian
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Child Participants
Black or African American
5 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Child Participants
More than one race
1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Child Participants
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Child Participants
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Child Participants
White
11 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Parent Participants
American Indian or Alaska Native
00 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Parent Participants
Asian
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Parent Participants
Black or African American
4 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Parent Participants
More than one race
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Parent Participants
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Parent Participants
Unknown or Not Reported
1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Parent Participants
White
14 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
38 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Child participants
Female
14 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Child participants
Male
4 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Parent participants
Female
11 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Parent participants
Male
9 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 38
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 38
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 38

Outcome results

Primary

Change in Consideration of Future Consequences Scale - Parenting Adapted

The Consideration of Future Consequences Scale-Parenting Adapted (CFCS-14-PA) is a 14-item self-report questionnaire composed of two subscales reflecting either immediate or future orientation related to parents interactions with their children. Items range from not at all like me (1) to very much like me (5) and are summed to create a total score with higher values reflecting greater future orientation. Scores range from 14 to 70. Change in CFCS-14-PA score is measured by comparing scores at the post-intervention assessment (approximately 4 weeks after baseline) with baseline scores.

Time frame: Baseline, 4 weeks

Population: All parent participants who completed baseline and follow-up assessments.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Consideration of Future Consequences Scale - Parenting AdaptedCFCS-14-PA Total Score at Baseline54.93 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.08
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Consideration of Future Consequences Scale - Parenting AdaptedCFCS-14-PA Total Score at Follow-Up53.80 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.82
Comparison: Changes in consideration of future consequences (parenting) was evaluated using one-sided paired samples t-tests.p-value: 0.219t-test, 1 sided
Primary

Change in Delay Discounting 5 Trial Adjusted Measure

The 5-Trial Adjusting Delay (Temporal Discounting) Task is a computer based system which uses an adjusting algorithm to determine the amount of immediately available money that is equivalent to a large sum that is delayed by seven discrete durations of time presented in a randomized order (i.e., 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, and 25 years). The length of delay is titrated based on participants' responses to previous items to determine an indifference point (the point at which the sums of money are perceived as equal). This is then converted to a k-value and logarithmically transformed to ensure the values are normally distributed, making them unbounded by min and max values. Higher k-values indicate a greater preference for immediate rewards. Change in Delay Discounting is evaluated by comparing baseline k-value scores with scores at the intervention (approximately 1 week after baseline) and the post-intervention assessment (approximately 4 weeks after baseline).

Time frame: Baseline and 4 weeks

Population: Participants included in analyses were those who completed the measure at both baseline and 4 weeks post.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Delay Discounting 5 Trial Adjusted MeasureDelay discounting (k-value) at baseline-3.87 log (k)Standard Deviation 3.81
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Delay Discounting 5 Trial Adjusted MeasureDelay discounting (k-value) at follow-up-5.03 log (k)Standard Deviation 2.38
Comparison: A single-sided paired-samples t-test comparing k-values at baseline to k-values at follow-up (approximately 4 weeks after baseline assessment) was examined. Given that k-values are typically skewed (and to be consistent with the existing literature) we used a log-k as our outcome variable.p-value: 0.124t-test, 1 sided
Secondary

Change in Alabama Parenting Questionnaire Scores

The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ) is a 42-item self-report measure of parenting behaviors which yields five subscales: (1) positive involvement with children (range 10-50, higher = more involvement), (2) use of positive parenting strategies (range 6-30, higher = more positive strategies), (3) poor parental monitoring/supervision (range 10-50, higher = worse supervision), (4) inconsistent discipline (range 6-30, higher = more inconsistent discipline), and (5) use of corporal punishment (range 3-15, higher = more corporal punishment). Items are summed to create subscale scores. Change in each of the five APQ subscale scores will be measured by comparing post-intervention scores (approximately 4 weeks after baseline) with baseline scores.

Time frame: Baseline, 4 weeks

Population: All parents who completed the APQ at baseline and post-intervention were included.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Alabama Parenting Questionnaire ScoresInvolved Parenting at Baseline38.93 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.08
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Alabama Parenting Questionnaire ScoresPositive Parenting at Baseline26.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.79
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Alabama Parenting Questionnaire ScoresPoor Parental Monitoring at Baseline15.22 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.54
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Alabama Parenting Questionnaire ScoresInconsistent Parenting at Baseline15.14 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.84
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Alabama Parenting Questionnaire ScoresCorporal Punishment at Baseline5.21 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.93
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Alabama Parenting Questionnaire ScoresInvolved Parenting at Follow-Up38.94 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.88
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Alabama Parenting Questionnaire ScoresPositive Parenting at Follow-Up25.71 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.38
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Alabama Parenting Questionnaire ScoresPoor Parental Monitoring at Follow-Up16.43 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.8
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Alabama Parenting Questionnaire ScoresInconsistent Parenting at Follow-Up15.66 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.96
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Alabama Parenting Questionnaire ScoresCorporal Punishment at Follow-Up5.07 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.54
Comparison: Examined changes in parental involvement using a paired-samples t-test.p-value: 0.498t-test, 1 sided
Comparison: Examined changes in positive parenting using paired samples t-testsp-value: 0.108t-test, 1 sided
Comparison: Examined changes in parental monitoring using a paired samples t-testp-value: 0.145t-test, 1 sided
Comparison: Examined changes in inconsistent parenting using a paired samples one-sided t-testp-value: 0.252t-test, 1 sided
Comparison: Examined changes in corporal punishment using a paired samples one-tailed t-testp-value: 0.382t-test, 1 sided
Secondary

Change in Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System Scores

Parents and their children will complete a 20-minute interaction task, including 5 min. of free play, a 10 min. homework task, and a 5 min. clean up task. Interactions are recorded and coded using the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS), measuring the quality of parent and child interactions. The task is coded for 7 subscales, yielding 2 composite scores: positive parenting (a sum of: unlabeled praise, labeled praise, positive touch, reflection, and behavior description) and negative parenting (a sum of: negative talk and negative touch). Each instance of a behaviors described in the subscale (e.g., a parent giving unlabeled praise) is coded as one point, which are summed into a subscale (no max or min values). Higher values indicate greater positive or negative parenting. Change in positive parenting and negative parenting scores will be calculated by comparing baseline scores with scores at the post-intervention sessions (approximately 4 weeks after baseline).

Time frame: Baseline, 4 weeks

Population: Analyses included 6 parent-child dyads who completed both the pre- and post-intervention parent-child interaction task.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System ScoresPositive Parenting Composite at Baseline4.83 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.48
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System ScoresNegative Parenting at Baseline3.17 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.07
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System ScoresPositive Parenting Composite at Follow-Up4.83 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.6
Episodic Future ThinkingChange in Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System ScoresNegative Parenting at Follow-Up5.17 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.94
Comparison: Performed a one-sided paired samples t-test examining changes in both positive parenting.p-value: 0.5t-test, 1 sided
Comparison: Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in negative parenting.p-value: 0.187t-test, 1 sided

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026