White
74%
Green, J., Charman, T., Pickles, A., Wan, M. W., Elsabbagh, M., Slonims, V., . . . Jones, E. J. (2015). Parent-mediated intervention versus no intervention for infants at high risk of autism: A parallel, single-blind, randomized trial. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2(2), 133–140.
Peer Reviewed
Study design characteristics contributing to rating
| Design | Attrition | Baseline equivalence | Confounding factors? | Valid, reliable measures? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Randomized controlled trial | Low |
Not assessed for randomized controlled trials with low attrition |
No |
Yes, details reported below for findings on valid, reliable outcomes that otherwise rate at least moderate |
Notes from the review of this manuscript
The manuscript provides evidence of reliability for the Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI). The manuscript does not provide evidence of reliability for any other measure. Because of this, all measures in the study other than the MACI received a low rating. Models controlled for race and ethnicity and baseline measures of the outcomes.
Child Development and School Readiness
| Outcome Measure | Timing of Follow-Up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect Size (Absolute Value) | Stastical Significance | Sample Size | Sample Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI): Infant affect | 5 months | High | 0.19 | Not statistically significant, p= >0.05 | 53 families | iBASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, United Kingdom, 2011-2012 | |
| Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI): Infant attentiveness | 5 months | High | 0.29 | Not statistically significant, p= >.05 | 53 families | iBASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, United Kingdom, 2011-2012 |
Positive Parenting Practices
| Outcome Measure | Timing of Follow-Up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect Size (Absolute Value) | Stastical Significance | Sample Size | Sample Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI): Caregiver non-directiveness | 5 months | High | 0.81 | Statistically significant, p= <0.05 | 53 families | iBASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, United Kingdom, 2011-2012 | |
| Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI): Caregiver sensitive responding | 5 months | High | 0.06 | Not statistically significant, p= >0.05 | 53 families | iBASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, United Kingdom, 2011-2012 | |
| Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI): Dyadic mutuality | 5 months | High | 0.05 | Not statistically significant, p= >0.05 | 53 families | iBASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, United Kingdom, 2011-2012 |
This study included participants from the following locations:
- State not reported or international
International Locations
United Kingdom
Study Participants
Participants included parent–child dyads in which a sibling of the child had received an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis. The study identified participants from the British Autism Study of Infant Siblings (BASIS). Eligible participants were families with children ages 7 to 10 months who were not born prematurely (before 34 weeks) or with low birthweight (under 5 pounds). Families enrolled at one of two trial sites in Manchester or London, United Kingdom. The study randomly assigned families within each site to either the iBASIS-Video Interaction to Promote Positive Parenting (iBASIS-VIPP) home visiting intervention or usual care. Families continued their participation in the BASIS study, which did not involve an intervention. The study included 54 families, 28 in the intervention and 26 in the comparison group. At baseline, 74 percent of mothers identified as White and 26 percent identified as another race or ethnicity. Children were 9 months old on average at study enrollment. More than half (57 percent) of participants had annual household incomes of less than £40,000.
Setting
The study took place in London and Manchester, United Kingdom, at Evelina Children's Hospital and University of Manchester, respectively.
Intervention condition
Note: Navigate to the model page for more information about the home visiting model. See the source manuscript for more information about how the model was implemented in this study.
Comparison Conditions
Families assigned to the comparison condition were not offered iBASIS-VIPP. They continued to receive usual community care for infants at risk of ASD. This comprised services recommended by health professionals within the local community, including a range of allied health services, comprehensive autism interventions, or no services.
Subgroups examined
There were no subgroups reported in this manuscript.
Funding Sources
This research was supported by Award Number G0701484 from the UK Medical Research Council and from funding from Autistica, the Waterloo Foundation, and Autism Speaks.