Accessible summary Despite the benefits of parenting interventions for parents and children, there are few documented programmes for parents who have a mental illness, with older children. Interviewing clinicians responsible for programmes specifically developed for parents with a mental illness identifies what clinicians believe is important for these parents and is one way of developing an evidence base. According to clinicians, programmes need to be responsive to parents with a mental illness through flexibility in programme content, time and/or follow‐up with case management or house visits. Providing opportunities to learn from and with other parents who have a mental illness is also important. Clinicians require support in articulating a sound theoretical basis for their programmes and when implementing evaluation strategies. Abstract Parents with a mental illness experience the same parenting stressors that other parents do, and at the same time need to manage their mental illness. However, few programmes are designed for parents who have a mental illness, with older children (as opposed to interventions for mothers with infants). This study identified the common components across six programmes developed for parents with a mental illness who have older children. Australian clinicians, responsible for six parenting programmes for those with a mental illness, participated in individual, semi‐structured interviews, during 2008. Programme manuals and evaluation reports were also sourced. Analyses involved thematic analysis, inter‐rater reliability and respondent validation. Data were organized in three main areas: (1) programme description (format, goals, length and participants' inclusion criteria); (2) theoretical framework (including clinicians' beliefs and evidence underpinning programmes); and (3) evaluation designs and methodologies. It was found that clinicians facilitated education and support via a peer intervention model for parents with various mental illness diagnoses, responsive to the needs of parents and in a time flexible manner. At the same time, clinicians found it difficult to articulate the theoretical framework of their programmes and employed mostly simplistic evaluation strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reupert et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: