A family outreach intervention for engaging young out-of-treatment drug users: Pre- versus post-treatment comparison

Lavoie-Trudeau

et al. 2020

Preprint

Backgound: Community outreach workers support individuals accessing healthcare and other services useful to respond to their needs. Even though community outreach workers have been working in the province of Quebec (Canada) for the past 40 years, their practice is poorly documented (especially for families having children aged 0 to 5 years). Methods: To document community outreach practice and its perceived impacts for children and families, a content analysis was performed on 55 scientific and grey literature documents, 24 individual interviews, and 3 focus groups including parents, community outreach workers, healthcare employees, and inter-sectoral partners. Results: Three main themes were highlighted: 1) characteristics of the population served, 2) concrete actions performed by community outreach workers, and 3) perceived impacts of community outreach on families and children. Community outreach workers were perceived to be essential for reaching out families with vulnerable circumstances and children with special needs. With respect to actions, community outreach workers were reported to tailor their interventions to respond in different but complementary ways to the healthcare system. Perceived impacts included increased access for children and families to services, decreased social isolation, increased parental abilities, increased social capital of families, and confidence towards the healthcare system. Conclusions: Results also showed that community outreach workers helped to reduce social inequalities in health. This social practice helped to augment the capacity of the healthcare system to fulfill its legal mandate to protect citizen and increase health and well-being. It is crucial that community outreach practices and proximity approaches be encouraged and sustained.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community outreach with families of children 0 to 5 years of age: Perceived practices and impacts in Eastern Townships, Quebec, Canada

Lavoie-Trudeau

et al. 2020

Preprint

“…the community) and the resources (e.g. care or services; Andersson, 2013) to engage with these families (Coe, Gibson, Spencer, & Stuttaford, 2008;Santis et al, 2013;Statham, 2004). Families supported by community outreach workers have reported higher self-esteem and less depression than those without support (Navaie-Waliser, Martin, Tessaro, Campbell & Cross, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Community Outreach Work, and Inter-professional Collaboration with Regional Partners

Lavoie-Trudeau

Roy³

et al. 2020

J Community Health

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

“…As a family environment is an interactive system commonly shared by IDUs and their family members, the achievement of better family relations requires effort from both parties. In contrast to intervention programs that target family members only (Kermode et al, 2008; Santis et al, 2013), the positive outcome of this study might have resulted from our approach of involving both IDUs and family members simultaneously. This is especially true in Vietnam, where families are generally tight-knit.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Correlated outcomes of a pilot intervention for people injecting drugs and their family members in Vietnam

Li¹,

Hiển

Liang

et al. 2014

Background The interrelationship between the well-being of injecting drug users (IDUs) and their family environment has been widely documented. However, few intervention programs have addressed the needs of both IDUs and their family members. Methods This study describes a randomized intervention pilot targeting 83 IDUs and 83 of their family members from four communes in Phú Thọ province, Vietnam. The IDUs and family members in the intervention condition received multiple group sessions, with the intent to improve psychological well-being and family relationships. The intervention outcomes (depressive symptoms and family relations) were evaluated at baseline, 3-month and 6-month follow-up assessments. Results Depressive symptoms and family relations reported by IDUs were found to be correlated to those reported by their family members. Overall, significant intervention effects on depressive symptoms and family relations were observed for both IDUs and family members. A similar improvement pattern in family relations emerged for both the IDU and family member samples, although the intervention effect of reducing depressive symptoms was more sustainable for family members at the 6-month assessment when compared to the IDU sample. Conclusion The intervention pilot addressed challenges faced by IDUs and their family members and revealed correlated outcomes for the two groups. Findings suggest a vital need to include family members in future drug prevention and harm reduction intervention efforts.