Helping children with theSteps to Copeintervention

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to summarise the findings from two projects in Northern Ireland which investigated the feasibility of adapting an existing adult intervention, the 5-Step Method, for children affected by parental substance misuse and/or parental mental illness. The structured brief psychosocial intervention is called Steps to Cope and can be delivered as an individual or group intervention. Design/methodology/approach – The two projects recruited and trained 57 practitioners from across Northern Ireland, 20 of whom went on to use the Steps to Cope intervention with a total of 43 children. Findings – It appears possible to adapt the intervention for children; to train practitioners, some of whom are able to use the intervention with one or more children; and for the intervention to benefit children in line with the five steps of the intervention targeting areas such as health, feelings, information, coping, support, and resilience. However, there are organisational and practical barriers to delivery which need to be overcome for the intervention to be more widely implemented. Originality/value – Steps to Cope is a unique intervention for this population and the findings discussed here suggest that the model has potential in an area where support for children in their own right is lacking.

Families with Parental Mental Health Problems: A Systematic Narrative Review of Family‐Focused Practice

“…There were six interventions only provided to children. These included the children of a parent/s who had mental illness (Grant et al ., 2008; Grove et al ., 2015a; Noether et al ., 2007), children of a parent/s with problematic substance use (Templeton and Sipler, 2012), and grown up children whose parent/s had a mental illness (Knutsson‐Medin et al ., 2007; Nilsson et al ., 2015). Most seemed to be provided in service or clinical settings, including residential (Killeen and Brady, 2000; McComish et al ., 2003) and inpatient care (Isobel et al ., 2015; O'Brien et al ., 2011), but some were specifically provided in the family's home setting (Brunette et al ., 2004; Gewirtz et al ., 2009; Gruber et al ., 2001; Maybery et al ., 2015; van Doesum et al ., 2008) and two were provided via DVD and/or the internet (Grove et al ., 2015b; van der Zanden et al ., 2010).…”

“…As summarised in Table 2, 25/40 of the included studies included some clear component of psychoeducation (including increasing knowledge around either mental health problems or substance misuse). Of these, just under half ( n = 11 provided psychoeducation to children (Grove et al ., 2015a; Grove et al ., 2015b; Killeen and Brady, 1999; Maybery et al ., 2015; Maybery et al ., 2013; Noether et al ., 2007; Pihkala et al ., 2010; Pihkala et al ., 2011; Punamäki et al ., 2013; Templeton and Sipler, 2012; Wolpert et al ., 2015). Psychoeducation for children primarily centred around understanding parental mental illness and promoting children's psychological wellbeing.…”

“…Additionally, remaining studies describe the facilitation of communication between parents and their children (Pihkala et al ., 2010; Pihkala et al ., 2012; Punamäki et al ., 2013) during family sessions planned with parents and children's questions and experiences as a basis. Collaboration and goal setting during interventions were also notable forms of engagement with families (Maybery et al ., 2013; Maybery et al ., 2015), parents (McComish et al ., 2003) and children (Templeton and Sipler, 2012) as part of ongoing care and recovery planning.…”

“…Overall, interventions which incorporated a multi‐disciplinary approach and included access to more than one service or area of support were identified as helpful by families (Brunette et al ., 2004; Cleek et al ., 2012; Dumaret et al ., 2009; Einbinder, 2010; Gewirtz et al ., 2009; Grove et al ., 2015a; Pihkala et al ., 2012; Schaeffer et al ., 2013; van Doesum et al ., 2008; Wansink et al ., 2015). Furthermore, opportunities to understand mental health/substance misuse issues and how these impact on the parent and child were also valued (Bassett et al ., 2001; Catalano et al ., 1999; de Camps et al ., 2016; Donohue et al ., 2010; Dumaret et al ., 2009; Gewirtz et al ., 2009; Grove et al ., 2015a; Grove et al ., 2015b; Isobel et al ., 2016; Maybery et al ., 2013; Maybery et al ., 2015; Pihkala et al ., 2010; Pihkala et al ., 2011; Templeton and Sipler, 2012; Wolpert et al ., 2015). Community‐based interventions, particularly those which would ordinarily be clinically‐based, were also reported as favourable among parents, particularly those associated with addiction issues (Catalano et al ., 1999; Cleek et al ., 2012; Diaz‐Caneja and Johnson, 2004; Gruber et al ., 2001; Khalifeh et al ., 2009), as this allowed for better opportunities for family inclusion as well as more practical support (i.e.…”

Impact of parents' substance misuse on children: an update

“…There has been a noticeable growth in services and interventions to support children affected by parental substance misuse, all of which have incorporated some of the ideas about targeting protective factors and building resilience into their delivery models (while also addressing and prioritising risk as required) (e.g. Forrester 2008, 2016; Adamson 2012; Harwin 2014; O'Connor 2014; Templeton 2014a,b).…”