Non-randomised trial assesses feasibility of Watch Me Play! intervention to enhance mental health in young children, suggesting effective delivery methods.
BACKGROUND: Mental health problems among children in England are rising, with significant wait times and barriers preventing many from accessing timely support. Watch Me Play! (WMP) is a caregiver-child interaction intervention designed to enhance child development and promote mental health resilience through child-led play. AIMS: To assess the feasibility of delivering WMP remotely to parents and carers of children aged 0-8 years referred to UK early years and children's services. METHOD: A non-randomised, single-group feasibility design with a mixed-methods process evaluation aimed to recruit 40 families. The study evaluated recruitment, retention, adherence, fidelity and acceptability. Outcomes were collected at baseline and 3 months; we conducted qualitative interviews to examine barriers and facilitators, and we used health economic data estimated intervention costs. RESULTS: WMP was well-regarded and acceptable to families and service providers. Recruitment involved seven sites and 21 families, with 67% retention at 3 months. Self-reported adherence was 80%. Facilitators included the simplicity of the approach and quick access to support. Barriers included limited staff capacity and practitioner perceptions of readiness in families with complex needs. Hybrid delivery (online and face-to-face sessions) was feasible and acceptable. The average intervention cost was £209 per family. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate core feasibility parameters - including acceptability, fidelity, data-collection procedures and delivery across diverse contexts - were met. WMP is a low-cost intervention suited for early years services. Although a full-scale effectiveness trial is not yet warranted, a future randomised feasibility trial is recommended to investigate the acceptability of randomisation and recruitment across a broader range of services.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Randell et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: