English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background: Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) is an effective parent training approach for a commonly occurring and disabling condition, namely conduct problems in young children. Yet, despite ongoing efforts to train clinicians in PCIT, the intervention is not widely available in New Zealand and Australia. Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional online survey of clinicians in New Zealand and Australia who had completed at least the 40-h initial PCIT training, to understand the barriers they encountered in their implementation efforts, and the extent to which attitudes toward time-out influenced implementation. The overall response rate was 47.5% (NZ: 60%; Australia: 31.4%). Results: Responses suggested that participants generally viewed PCIT as both acceptable and effective. Australian participants reported seeing significantly more clients for PCIT per week than those in NZ (Medians 0 and 2, respectively; χ2(1) = 14.08, p &lt; 0.001) and tended to view PCIT as more effective in treating disruptive and oppositional behaviour (95% CI: −0.70, −0.13, p = 0.005). Participants currently seeing PCIT clients described it as more enjoyable to implement than those not using PCIT (95% CI: −0.85, −0.10, p = 0.01). Thirty-eight percent of participants indicated that they adapt or tailor the standardised protocol, primarily by adding in content relating to emotion regulation, and removing content relating to time-out. Participants generally felt that they had fewer skills, less knowledge, and less confidence relating to the Parent-Directed Interaction phase of PCIT (which involves time-out), compared with the Child-Directed Interaction phase. Conclusion: While we had hypothesised that time-out represented an intra-intervention component that detracted from implementation success, results suggested that clinician concern over the use of time-out was present but not prominent. Rather, the lack of access to suitable equipment (i.e., one-way mirror and ear-piece) and difficulties associated with clients attending clinic-based sessions were barriers most commonly reported by clinicians. We suggest that future research might consider whether and how PCIT might be “re-implemented” by already-trained clinicians, moving beyond simply training more clinicians in the approach.

Barriers to Clinician Implementation of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) in New Zealand and Australia: What Role for Time-Out?