Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Original research
How are behavioural interventions delivered to children (5–11 years old): a systematic mapping review
  1. Amberly Brigden1,
  2. Roxanne Morin Parslow1,
  3. Catherine Linney1,
  4. Nina Higson-Sweeney2,
  5. Rebecca Read2,
  6. Maria Loades1,2,
  7. Anna Davies1,
  8. Sarah Stoll1,
  9. Lucy Beasant1,
  10. Richard Morris3,
  11. Siyan Ye1,
  12. Esther Crawley1
  1. 1 Centre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  2. 2 Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, Somerset, UK
  3. 3 Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  1. Correspondence to Amberly Brigden; amberly.brigden{at}bristol.ac.uk

Abstract

Context Behavioural interventions are used to prevent, manage and treat a wide variety of conditions including obesity, diabetes, chronic pain, asthma and emotional difficulties. There has been inadequate attention to the delivery of behavioural interventions to younger children (5–11 years old).

Objective Our objectives were to describe the characteristics of behavioural interventions for children aged 5–11 years.

Data sources We searched five databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library, from January 2005 to August 2019.

Study selection The inclusion criteria were (1) children aged 5–11, (2) cognitive and/or behavioural interventions, (3) randomised controlled trials and (4) 2005 onward. Two researchers independently identified studies for inclusion.

Data extraction Two researchers independently extracted data from eligible papers.

Results The search identified 10 541 papers. We extracted information on 117 interventions (from 152 papers). Many of the interventions were categorised as complex. This was particularly true for clinical populations; 78.7% were delivered to both the child and parent, and 33.9% took place across multiple settings, typically health and school settings. Most (70.9%) were ‘First Wave’ (behavioural) interventions, and few (4.3%) were ‘Third Wave’ (characterised by metacognition, acceptance and mindfulness). Thirty-nine per cent used interactive techniques (play, arts, story and/or games). Purely digital and paper-based interventions were rare, but around a third used these tools as supplements to face–face delivery. There were differences in interventions for younger (5–7 years) and older (8–11 years) children.

Conclusions Interventions designed and delivered to children should be developmentally sensitive. This review highlights characteristics of interventions delivered to children 5–11 years old: the involvement of the child’s parent, using behavioural (rather than cognitive) modalities, using interactive techniques and some interventions were delivered across multiple settings.

  • child psychology
  • paediatric practice
  • comm child health
  • general paediatrics
  • health service

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors AB conceptualised the study as part of a PhD program, drafted the protocol, created the search strategy, screened papers and carried out data extraction, drafted the manuscript, approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. RMP drafted the protocol for the study, screened papers and carried out data extraction, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. CL screened papers and carried out data extraction, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. NH-S screened papers and carried out data extraction, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. RR screened papers and carried out data extraction, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. ML provided supervision of data collection and analysis, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. AD drafted the protocol for the study, provided supervision of data collection and analysis, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. SS screened papers and carried out data extraction, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. LB drafted the protocol for the study, screened papers and carried out data extraction, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. RM drafted the protocol for the study, provided supervision of data collection and analysis, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. SY screened papers and carried out data extraction, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. EC drafted the protocol, created the search strategy, provided supervision of data collection and analysis, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

  • Funding AB is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (Doctoral Research Fellowship, DRF-2017-10-169). EC is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (Senior Research Fellowship, SRF-2013-06-013).

  • Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement All the data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.