Is Triple P effective in childhood anxiety disorder? A randomized controlled study

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Considering the role of parenting in the aetiology and maintenance of anxiety disorders, working with parents is a promising treatment strategy. Triple P-positive parenting programme is a parent-focused cognitive behaviour therapy. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of Triple P in improvement in childhood anxiety disorders and also to assess its effects on behavioural and emotional problems, general anxiety level, severity of the disorder, and general psychosocial functioning. Parents' mental health and general well-being were also evaluated. METHODS: In this randomized controlled study, the sample consisted of 74 children, aged between 8 and 12 years, who were diagnosed as anxiety disorder by Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School Age Children Present and Life-time Kiddie (K-SADS-PL). Following randomization into two equal groups, mothers of the first group participated to Group Triple P Programme, while the second group was receiving no treatment. The two groups were compared right before and after the intervention on rates of anxiety symptoms, emotional, and behavioural variables. RESULTS: Children's general anxiety level was significantly lower in the intervention group following Triple P implementation. Behavioural and emotional problems were also reduced in the intervention group. Parental anxiety and general well-being were not significantly different between two groups. CONCLUSION: It is considered that Triple P may be useful in the treatment of children's anxiety disorder but further studies about Triple P on children's anxiety disorders are needed. ARTICLE HISTORY

Group Triple P Intervention Effects on Children and Parents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Ten studies were published within a 16-year period (2003–2019). Six studies published after 2013, not considered on the previous meta-analysis, were included in the current meta-analysis [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 34 , 35 ] as well as an unpublished research work [ 29 ].…”

“…Most of the participants in the selected trials had a high school or university degree. Five trials with selective or treatment approaches were implemented in clinical settings [ 25 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 34 ], and six studies sharing a universal approach were implemented in community settings [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 33 , 35 ].…”

“…Seven studies followed the original five group sessions and three telephone sessions format [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 33 , 34 ], whereas three other studies implemented four group sessions and four telephone sessions [ 26 , 30 , 35 ]. Leung and collaborators [ 31 ] delivered six group sessions with two telephone sessions.…”

“…All studies declared to have used the intention-to-treat analysis approach. Ten of the studies included in the systematic review reported data on child sex, with the proportion of parents of boys ranging from 53.3% to 94.1% [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 ]. In addition, ten trials included parents with typically developing children exclusively, whereas the trial of Leung and colleagues [ 31 ] included parents of children with developmental disabilities.…”

“…Ten studies were also rated with a high risk of detection bias (lack of blinding of outcome assessment) [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 35 ], stemming from the fact that parent report was used as the most common outcome source. Only one study showed a low risk of detection bias [ 34 ]. Regarding incomplete outcome data [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 31 , 32 , 33 ] and selective reporting [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 35 ], eight studies were rated as “low risk”.…”