IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i24p13116-d700724.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Barriers to Clinician Implementation of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) in New Zealand and Australia: What Role for Time-Out?

Author

Listed:
  • Melanie J. Woodfield

    (The Werry Centre, Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand
    Auckland District Health Board, Auckland 1023, New Zealand)

  • Tania Cargo

    (The Werry Centre, Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand
    Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand)

  • Sally N. Merry

    (The Werry Centre, Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand)

  • Sarah E. Hetrick

    (The Werry Centre, Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand
    Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia)

Abstract

Background: Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) is an effective parent training approach for a commonly occurring and disabling condition, namely conduct problems in young children. Yet, despite ongoing efforts to train clinicians in PCIT, the intervention is not widely available in New Zealand and Australia. Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional online survey of clinicians in New Zealand and Australia who had completed at least the 40-h initial PCIT training, to understand the barriers they encountered in their implementation efforts, and the extent to which attitudes toward time-out influenced implementation. The overall response rate was 47.5% (NZ: 60%; Australia: 31.4%). Results: Responses suggested that participants generally viewed PCIT as both acceptable and effective. Australian participants reported seeing significantly more clients for PCIT per week than those in NZ (Medians 0 and 2, respectively; χ 2 (1) = 14.08, p < 0.001) and tended to view PCIT as more effective in treating disruptive and oppositional behaviour (95% CI: −0.70, −0.13, p = 0.005). Participants currently seeing PCIT clients described it as more enjoyable to implement than those not using PCIT (95% CI: −0.85, −0.10, p = 0.01). Thirty-eight percent of participants indicated that they adapt or tailor the standardised protocol, primarily by adding in content relating to emotion regulation, and removing content relating to time-out. Participants generally felt that they had fewer skills, less knowledge, and less confidence relating to the Parent-Directed Interaction phase of PCIT (which involves time-out), compared with the Child-Directed Interaction phase. Conclusion: While we had hypothesised that time-out represented an intra-intervention component that detracted from implementation success, results suggested that clinician concern over the use of time-out was present but not prominent. Rather, the lack of access to suitable equipment (i.e., one-way mirror and ear-piece) and difficulties associated with clients attending clinic-based sessions were barriers most commonly reported by clinicians. We suggest that future research might consider whether and how PCIT might be “re-implemented” by already-trained clinicians, moving beyond simply training more clinicians in the approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Melanie J. Woodfield & Tania Cargo & Sally N. Merry & Sarah E. Hetrick, 2021. "Barriers to Clinician Implementation of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) in New Zealand and Australia: What Role for Time-Out?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-17, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:24:p:13116-:d:700724
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/24/13116/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/24/13116/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Woodfield, M.J. & Cargo, T. & Barnett, D. & Lambie, I., 2020. "Understanding New Zealand therapist experiences of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) training and implementation, and how these compare internationally," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    2. Niec, Larissa N. & Abrahamse, Mariëlle E. & Egan, Ryan & Coelman, Frederique J.G. & Heiner, Willemine D., 2018. "Global dissemination of parent-child interaction therapy: The perspectives of Dutch trainees," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 485-492.
    3. Scudder, Ashley T. & Herschell, Amy D., 2015. "Building an evidence-base for the training of evidence-based treatments in community settings: Use of an expert-informed approach," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 84-92.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John-Joe Dawson-Squibb & Eugene Lee Davids & Rhea Chase & Eve Puffer & Justin D. M. Rasmussen & Lauren Franz & Petrus J. de Vries, 2022. "Bringing Parent–Child Interaction Therapy to South Africa: Barriers and Facilitators and Overall Feasibility—First Steps to Implementation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-20, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Woodfield, M.J. & Cargo, T. & Barnett, D. & Lambie, I., 2020. "Understanding New Zealand therapist experiences of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) training and implementation, and how these compare internationally," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    2. Melanie J. Woodfield & Irene Brodd & Sarah E. Hetrick, 2021. "Time-Out with Young Children: A Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) Practitioner Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Niec, Larissa N. & Abrahamse, Mariëlle E. & Egan, Ryan & Coelman, Frederique J.G. & Heiner, Willemine D., 2018. "Global dissemination of parent-child interaction therapy: The perspectives of Dutch trainees," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 485-492.
    4. Stroobants, Tim & Vanderfaeillie, Johan & Andries, Caroline & Van Holen, Frank, 2016. "Youth care workers' perspectives on and adoption of evidence-based practice," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 299-307.
    5. Wallace, Nancy M. & Quetsch, Lauren B. & Robinson, Cree & McCoy, Kelsey & McNeil, Cheryl B., 2018. "Infusing parent-child interaction therapy principles into community-based wraparound services: An evaluation of feasibility, child behavior problems, and staff sense of competence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 567-581.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:24:p:13116-:d:700724. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.