» Articles » PMID: 25383795

Change in Participant Engagement During a Family-based Preventive Intervention: Ups and Downs with Time and Tension

Overview
Journal J Fam Psychol
Specialty Psychology
Date 2014 Nov 11
PMID 25383795
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The efficacy of preventive interventions is related to both the delivery of content and the uptake of that content. Although much research has focused on the quality of delivery, few studies have examined the factors that influence uptake. This study examines how and why participants' engagement-conceptualized as a dynamic process wherein participants interact with each other, the interventionists, and the intervention curriculum-changes over time. We apply growth curve models to repeated measures of engagement obtained from 252 families during a 7-week intervention trial. In the models, we examine (a) whether and how engagement changes over time, and the extent of between-person differences in change; and (b) how those changes and differences are related to chronic and session-specific aspects of family tension, while also controlling for differences across parent sex and 2 versions of the Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth Ages 10-14 (SFP 10-14). Results show that, on average, engagement increased over time, linearly with some deceleration, with substantial differences in both level and rates of change. Higher in-session chronic family tension was related to lower initial levels of engagement but not rates of change. Sessions when families displayed more session-specific tension were characterized by different levels of engagement for parents, depending on their level of chronic tension. Overall, our results highlight the importance of considering engagement as a dynamic construct that changes over time in complex ways. Further understanding of the many factors that influence engagement can promote both better delivery and better uptake of intervention curriculum.

Citing Articles

Preventing diabetes in Latino families: A protocol for a randomized control trial.

Braxton M, Nwabichie E, Diaz M, Lish E, Ayers S, Williams A Contemp Clin Trials. 2023; 135:107361.

PMID: 37852533 PMC: 10790650. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2023.107361.


What got in the way? Caregiver-reported challenges to home practice of assigned intervention skills.

Kim J, Gonzales N, Thamrin H, Mauricio A, Kuckertz M, Camacho-Thompson D Implement Res Pract. 2023; 2:26334895211055994.

PMID: 37090005 PMC: 9978686. DOI: 10.1177/26334895211055994.


Building partnerships in education through a story-tool based intervention: Parental involvement experiences among families with Roma backgrounds.

Moreira T, Martins J, Silva C, Berrocal de Luna E, Martins J, Moreira D Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1012568.

PMID: 36968727 PMC: 10033949. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1012568.


Caregiver Participation Engagement in Child Mental Health Prevention Programs: a Systematic Review.

Haine-Schlagel R, Dickson K, Lind T, Kim J, May G, Walsh N Prev Sci. 2021; 23(2):321-339.

PMID: 34936045 PMC: 10342191. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-021-01303-x.


Quantifying parent engagement in the randomized Fuel for Fun impact study identified design considerations and BMI relationships.

Lohse B, Cunningham-Sabo L BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021; 21(1):205.

PMID: 34627162 PMC: 8502317. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01398-4.


References
1.
Baydar N, Reid M, Webster-Stratton C . The role of mental health factors and program engagement in the effectiveness of a preventive parenting program for Head Start mothers. Child Dev. 2003; 74(5):1433-53. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8624.00616. View

2.
Spoth R, Trudeau L, Guyll M, Shin C, Redmond C . Universal intervention effects on substance use among young adults mediated by delayed adolescent substance initiation. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009; 77(4):620-32. PMC: 2876977. DOI: 10.1037/a0016029. View

3.
Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Falco M, Hansen W . A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Educ Res. 2003; 18(2):237-56. DOI: 10.1093/her/18.2.237. View

4.
Dane A, Schneider B . Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control?. Clin Psychol Rev. 1998; 18(1):23-45. DOI: 10.1016/s0272-7358(97)00043-3. View

5.
Kazdin A, Mazurick J . Dropping out of child psychotherapy: distinguishing early and late dropouts over the course of treatment. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994; 62(5):1069-74. DOI: 10.1037//0022-006x.62.5.1069. View