Applying the Theoretical Domains Framework to Develop an Intervention to ‘Re-implement’ Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT)

Abstract

AbstractParent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) is an empirically supported treatment for childhood conduct problems, with increasing numbers of clinicians being trained in Aotearoa/New Zealand. However, ensuring sustained delivery of effective treatments by trained clinicians in routine care environments is notoriously challenging. The aims of this qualitative study were to (1) systematically examine and prioritise PCIT implementation barriers and facilitators, and (2) develop a well specified and theory-driven ‘re-implementation’ intervention to support already-trained clinicians to resume or increase their implementation of PCIT. To triangulate and refine existing understanding of PCIT implementation determinants from an earlier cross-sectional survey, we integrated previously unanalysed qualitative survey data (54 respondents; response rate 60%) with qualitative data from six new focus groups with 15 PCIT-trained clinicians and managers in Aotearoa/New Zealand. We deductively coded data, using a directed content analysis process and the Theoretical Domains Framework, resulting in the identification of salient theoretical domains and belief statements within these. We then used the Theory and Techniques Tool to identify behaviour change techniques, possible intervention components, and their hypothesised mechanisms of action. Eight of the 14 theoretical domains were identified as influential on PCIT-trained clinician implementation behaviour (Knowledge; Social/Professional Role and Identity; Beliefs about Capabilities; Beliefs about Consequences; Memory, Attention and Decision Processes; Environmental Context and Resources; Social Influences; Emotion). Two of these appeared to be particularly salient: (1) ‘Environmental Context and Resources’, specifically lacking suitable PCIT equipment, with (lack of) access to a well-equipped clinic room appearing to influence implementation behaviour in several ways. (2) ‘Social/Professional Role and Identity’, with beliefs relating to a perception that colleagues view time-out as harmful to children, concerns that internationally-developed PCIT is not suitable for non-Māori clinicians to deliver to Indigenous Māori families, and clinicians feeling obligated yet isolated in their advocacy for PCIT delivery. In conclusion, where initial implementation has stalled or languished, re-implementation may be possible, and makes good sense, both fiscally and practically. This study suggests that re-implementation of PCIT in Aotearoa/New Zealand may be facilitated by intervention components such as ensuring access to a colleague or co-worker who is supportive of PCIT delivery, access to suitable equipment (particularly a time-out room), and targeted additional training for clinicians relating to the safety of time-out for children. The feasibility and acceptability of these intervention components will be tested in a future clinical trial.