Next Article in Journal
Large Numbers for Small Children—Up to What Age Do Infants Benefit from a Longer Echo Time in Cerebral T2 MRI Sequences?
Previous Article in Journal
Klinefelter Syndrome: A Genetic Disorder Leading to Neuroendocrine Modifications and Psychopathological Vulnerabilities in Children—A Literature Review and Case Report
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 11
Issue 5
10.3390/children11050510
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mellow Babies: A Randomised Feasibility Trial of an Intervention to Improve the Quality of Parent–Infant Interactions and Parental Mental Wellbeing

by
Lucy Thompson
1 and
Philip Wilson
1,2,*
1
Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3FX, UK
2
Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, 1165 Copenhagen, Denmark
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2024, 11(5), 510; https://doi.org/10.3390/children11050510
Submission received: 29 February 2024 / Revised: 17 April 2024 / Accepted: 18 April 2024 / Published: 24 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Pediatric Mental Health)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mellow Babies aims to improve mothers’ mental wellbeing and the quality of their interactions with their baby. The feasibility of a definitive trial of Mellow Babies was assessed using a waiting-list randomised pilot trial (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02277301). Mothers with substantial health/social care needs and a child aged <13 months were randomly allocated either to a 14-week Mellow Babies programme or to receive usual care whilst on a waiting list for the intervention. Rates of recruitment and retention as well as participants’ views of their experience in this study were recorded. Outcomes were parenting behaviour, assessed by the blind-rated Mellow Parenting Observation System (primary) and self-report maternal wellbeing pre- and post-intervention/waiting period. We recruited 38 eligible participants: 36 (95%; 18 intervention, 18 control) completed baseline measures, and 28 (74%; 15 intervention, 13 control) provided post-intervention data. Two practitioners took part in feedback interviews. Intervention participants had significantly more positive interactions with their babies at post-intervention compared to those in the control group (p = 0.019), adjusted for pre-intervention scores. There was no significant improvement in mothers’ mental wellbeing on any measure. A definitive trial of Mellow Babies is feasible and should include longer follow up of mothers and the opportunity for fathers to take part.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Psychologically informed very early intervention programmes across the ante- and postnatal period have shown promise in delivering cost-effective positive outcomes [1]. There is robust support for the view that early intervention to prevent and manage difficulties in the parent–infant relationship may produce benefits in improved parental psychosocial wellbeing, with a supporting impact on child development outcomes, such as attachment, language and social development, and a reduction in externalising and internalising behaviours [2,3,4]. O’Connor et al. [5] demonstrated that parental sensitivity in the early years has an enduring effect on attachment representation into adolescence, regardless of current parenting relationship quality. In their ground-breaking longitudinal work, Olds and colleagues [6,7,8] showed promising long-term impact in a reduction in rates of criminality, substance abuse, educational underachievement, chronic disease, and all-cause mortality in offspring from families who had taken part in an early intervention programme, compared to no treatment.
Group-based parenting interventions are a popular option and can be effective in improving outcomes for children [3], but more robust research is needed, specifically involving large, randomised groups and long-term follow-up. A seminal meta-analysis of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood has shown that the most effective interventions use a moderate number of sessions (n = 5–16) and are focused on parental sensitivity [9]. There are a number of small trials of parenting interventions with young preschool children reporting impact upon parental sensitivity and attachment [10,11,12,13] and a number of useful systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field [9,14,15,16,17,18]. Barlow and colleagues’ 2012 updated Cochrane review of postnatal parenting interventions designed to improve child emotional and behavioural adjustment [19] identified no eligible trials with families whose children had a mean age of less than two years, though a more recent review, also led by Barlow, of parent–infant psychotherapy [17] presented equivocal findings. Pontoppidan et al. (2016) also found equivocal results for universal interventions in infancy [20]. Kohlhoff and Cibralic (2022) showed evidence in their review of an impact of early-years (age 1–5 years) interventions on children’s externalising behaviour, with some evidence of sustained change at follow-up [21]. In their 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis, Barlow et al. concluded there was tentative support for the use of group-based parenting interventions in the under threes, with the evidence being limited by the lack of long-term follow-up data [3]. Goyder et al. (2022) confirmed this gap in the evidence remains, and called for more trial-level research into programmes which have already been developed and successfully implemented [1].
Mellow Babies is one such programme. It is a group-based intervention drawing on attachment theory and social learning theory designed for mothers with substantial problems in their relationships with their infants [22]. Typically, participating mothers have mental health difficulties, drug use problems, learning difficulties, forensic issues, or children already looked after on a statutory basis. The intervention consists of 14 whole-day sessions with a joint focus on maternal wellbeing and the parent–infant interaction. Transport and crèche facilities are provided and are integral to the intervention.
Although Mellow Parenting interventions (Mellow Babies is probably the best-evidenced among the Mellow Parenting suite) are quite widely used in a number of countries, no definitive randomised trials have been carried out. One small waiting-list controlled trial (n = 17) has shown improvement in mothers’ mood and quality of parent–infant interaction compared to the control [22]. Our meta-analysis [23] found Mellow Parenting programmes showed medium effects on maternal wellbeing and child behaviour problems, but there was a degree of heterogeneity and methodological weakness in the included studies. To date, there has been a single small waiting-list trial of Mellow Babies suggesting improvement in maternal mood and mother–child interaction [22], and a large pre–post evaluation (n = 91) showed completion of the intervention to be associated with significant improvements in anxiety and overall wellbeing, parenting confidence, and perceived closeness of the parent–child relationship (although parenting confidence was not significant in intention-to-treat analysis) [24]. A subsample of the same cohort took part in qualitative interviews, where thematic analysis characterised positive parental perceptions of Mellow Babies, including the opportunity to reshape interpersonal interactions [25].
We aimed to conduct a feasibility study to inform the design of a definitive RCT for Mellow Babies. Our primary purpose was to ascertain the rates of recruitment and retention in the trial and to gain feedback on participants’ experiences with taking part in a randomised trial. A secondary aim was to examine the outcomes of the intervention itself, specifically whether participation in Mellow Babies provides improvements in the quality of mother–infant interaction post-intervention and/or improvements in mother’s wellbeing and sense of parenting self-efficacy post-intervention.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

We chose a prospective randomised open-label, blinded end-point (PROBE) clinical trial with a waiting-list control group. Outcome measures were taken at two time points: baseline (pre-intervention) and 20 weeks (post-intervention). We also sought permission to obtain follow-up information through routine health data records (such as child health screening contacts). The trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02277301.

2.2. Participants

Women with infants less than 13 months of age who were experiencing substantial problems in developing a good relationship with their baby were eligible to take part. Participants would be expected to have significant health/social care needs including, but not limited to, mental health difficulties, problem drug use, learning difficulties, forensic issues, or children already looked after on a statutory basis. We aimed to recruit at least 50 women with infants under 13 months old. Retention rates in Mellow Babies groups are around 70% [23]. We therefore expected to have approximately 35 women with evaluable data. This would give adequate power to detect a moderate effect size on the principal outcome measure with reasonable likelihood [26].

2.3. Intervention

Mellow Babies is an attachment-based group parenting support programme that has been used widely throughout the U.K. and internationally. It has been used with women experiencing postnatal depression and other social and psychological difficulties [22] and retention figures are high, even among those facing the greatest adversity. Although there are CBT-based elements within MB which aim to improve anxiety and depressive symptoms, addressing parental psychological problems may be insufficient to improve parent–child relationships [27], so MB aims to enhance close parent–infant attunement directly using a combination of video feedback and hands-on practice in baby massage, interaction coaching, and infant-focused speech. Video material of mealtime interactions is shared, and mothers are encouraged to discuss solutions to parenting difficulties. The Mellow Babies programme involves attendance for 14 consecutive weeks for about 5 h per session, within usual school hours, and there is a reunion 1–3 months later. Groups can be offered on weekends, and transport, meals, and a crèche are provided.
Usual care in the present study included standard support from health and social care staff, including health visitor routine contacts and social work involvement where applicable. This was not formally recorded and would have varied across the sample but was likely to have been similar in both the intervention and waiting-list control group.

2.4. Mother–Infant Interaction

The primary prespecified outcome measure was direct observation of the mother–child relationship using the Mellow Parenting Observation Scale [22,28], a systematic observation of a 15 min mealtime interaction. The MPOS is an event-sampled observational system in which the frequency of positive and negative parenting behaviours is recorded and rates per minute calculated. MPOS is focused specifically on the interaction quality observed, rather than on separate behaviours of the parent or child. The scenario recorded is a normal care-taking routine, which involves the parent having to negotiate an agenda (e.g., a nappy/diaper change or mealtime), which is more reflective of a normal day-to-day parenting interaction than child-led play. Positive and negative elements are coded separately and have been shown to be statistically independent [29]. MPOS has also shown promise as a tool (using overall positive/negative interactions) for predicting future psychopathology. Previous research using banked video data of one-year-olds interacting with their parent/caregiver has shown that each increase in one positive parental behaviour per minute of observed interaction predicted 15% lower odds of a child later (age 7 years) receiving a disruptive behaviour disorder diagnosis [28]. Our previous analysis of video-recorded interactions has demonstrated moderate reliability, with an interclass correlation of 53% for positive behaviours and a Kendall’s τ of 0.6 for (non-normally distributed) negative behaviours [22]. We also showed there to be reasonable agreement between different coders for overall positive and negative behaviours, although agreement within the separate categories was less good [28].

2.5. Maternal Wellbeing

The Adult Wellbeing Scale (AWS) [30] is part of the U.K. Department of Health Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families, and it has been used in a number of evaluations (e.g., Wilson, et al., 2012 [31]). It is an 18-item questionnaire using 4-point Likert-type responses. Scores are generated for 4 subscales: depression, anxiety, and inwardly and outwardly directed irritability, each with a clinical cut-off (6, 8, 7, and 6, respectively). The depression and anxiety subscales are identical to those used in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [32].
The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) [33] is a standard clinical screening tool for postnatal depression that is widely used by health visitors. It is a 10-item questionnaire using Likert-type responses. The maximum possible score is 30, and a cut-off score of 14 or more is taken to indicate depressive illness, with anything over 10 indicating possible depression.

2.6. Background Information and Interview Feedback

We devised a brief questionnaire for obtaining demographic information, data on family background, and reason for referral to the group (baseline only). We also developed a practitioner interview topic guide asking about their role, experience with delivering the Mellow Babies Programme, the challenges with delivering the programme, what worked well, and what did not work well. All practitioners were invited to interview, with a view to ceasing participant interviews once saturation (i.e., no new themes arising) was achieved.

2.7. Setting and Procedure

This study was conducted in three areas of Northern Ireland: Lisburn, North Down and Ards, and Downpatrick, and recruitment took place between September 2014 and December 2015. Eligible participants were identified by a practitioner in the Child and Family team, which included social work, mental health, and visiting health (public health nurse) practitioners. The Mellow Babies practitioner asked participants if they were happy for a university-based research nurse to contact them to hear more about this study. The research nurse was trained in appropriate procedures (including Good Clinical Practices training) and was experienced in working with research participants with a range of health and social care needs. Consenting women were given information on this study, specifically being informed that participation would involve either receiving the intervention the following month or waiting for the next group to begin, after a delay of approximately 20 weeks. Signed consent was sought by the research nurse after an interval of at least 24 h to allow the women to arrive at an informed decision. Women agreeing to participate were asked to complete baseline measures, including a 15 min video of a mealtime (recorded by the Mellow Babies practitioner after the mother had become comfortable with her presence in the home). This is the standard setting for a video made at the beginning of all Mellow Babies groups, and the use of a caregiving scenario is ideal for using the Mellow Parenting Observation System (see below). Videos were burned onto two DVDs, one to give to the mother and another to be sent by secure mail with a study identifier number only to the university research office. Videos were assessed by an independent coder blind to group allocation and trained to research reliability level in MPOS. Following completion of the baseline measures, the Child and Family team member telephoned the university research office to obtain a study code and a group allocation. The study code was transferred to the paperwork and later to the burned DVD. At the end of the intervention/waiting-list period, all the baseline measures were repeated for the intervention and control groups. Finally, semistructured interviews were carried out by the research nurse with a sample of mothers and practitioners working in two different regions. Practitioners and mothers were invited to give feedback during one-to-one phone interviews lasting approximately 30 min. Feedback from practitioners on the experience of running groups within a research trial is reported here.
This study was approved by the North of Scotland Research Ethics Service, reference 14/NS/1007.

2.8. Analysis

Differences in all quantitative measures between the intervention and control conditions at the end of the study period were assessed using one-way between-subjects analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), accounting for baseline scores, using IBM SPSS Statistics 24 software. Checks were carried out to ensure homogeneity of regression and linear relationship between the covariate (baseline ratings) and dependent variable (post-intervention ratings). Feedback interviews were digitally recorded following informed consent, transcribed verbatim, coded, and analysed descriptively using thematic analysis [34,35].

3. Results

3.1. Feasibility

This study eventually ran over two years and three rounds of interventions (whilst it had originally been planned for one year and one round of intervention). With reference to Figure 1, of the 45 women referred to the research, 7 were ineligible to take part. The remaining 38 were eligible and gave consent to take part in the study. Of these, 1 did not complete baseline (T1) research measures, 7 completed baseline measures but dropped out before post-assessment (T2), and 28 (74% of those randomised; 15 intervention/13 control) completed the study and returned both baseline and post-assessment questionnaires, 21 of whom returned all questionnaires and video data at both time points. A further two returned videos only (no questionnaires). Table 1 below summarises the demographic characteristics of the participants at baseline. There were no statistically significant differences between the two randomisation arms.

3.2. Parent–Infant Interaction

Twenty-three participants returned both baseline and post-intervention videos. The baseline positive interaction rating was significantly related to the post-intervention positive rating: F(1,22) = 17.627; p < 0.001; partial η2 = 0.45. Adjusting for this covariate resulted in a statistically significant effect of the between-subjects factor group (intervention/control): F(1,22) = 6.434; p = 0.019; partial η2 = 0.23. The adjusted mean score for the intervention group was 0.111 compared to 0.088 for the waiting-list group. There was no significant change in negative parenting behaviours, but few negative behaviours were observed.

3.3. Maternal Wellbeing

There were no significant differences from pre- to post-intervention for either the intervention or control groups on any of the questionnaires (Table 2).

3.4. Interview Feedback

The practitioner interviews highlighted significant challenges in recruiting mothers to the trial. One problematic feature was the need to recruit twice as many mothers to populate two arms of the study (as opposed to the usual practice of only recruiting enough for the intervention group). However, the most difficult aspect of recruitment was that most of the mothers did not want to be randomised into the (waiting-list) control group; they were unwilling to wait another four months before receiving the Mellow Babies programme. Some mothers declined to be part of the research because of this, and some withdrew when they were randomised to the waiting-list arm.

4. Discussion

The feasibility pilot study showed that conducting a larger trial of Mellow Babies (vs. no intervention) is feasible, providing learning from this study is taken into account. We achieved good recruitment and reasonable retention rates, positive feedback from practitioners, as well as useful feedback on challenges and barriers to participation. There was an indication of improvement in the quality of mother–infant interactions, although the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions. No statistically significant difference in either the frequency of negative interaction behaviours or in maternal wellbeing scores was observed.
The application of these findings to the design of a larger RCT is limited due to the use of a waiting list design, meaning that all participants received the intervention eventually. This made long-term follow-up, essential in a definitive trial, of little value, and it is possible that natural improvement among those mothers allocated to the waiting-list condition was curtailed until they joined a group [36]. The reasons for using a waiting0list design were both practical/financial and ethical. The disadvantage to this approach is that, as the Mellow Babies programme was already being offered in the area with no alternative intervention available, not to offer the intervention to all participants would be considered as withholding access to usual care. This is the nature of research of this type: the need to generate better-quality evidence about already established interventions leads to debate as to what constitutes appropriate ‘usual care’ and whether withholding of a potentially promising intervention could be considered ethically unsound.
The positive change in parent–infant interaction scores is encouraging and in keeping with earlier research on Mellow Babies [22]. However, both the present study and the previous RCT were based on relatively small samples with complete data (17 and 28, respectively) and both employed waiting-list designs. Recent reviews and meta-analyses were not able to examine the impact on parent–infant interaction as too few of the included studies collected observation data [23,37]. It was difficult to assess the impact on negative interactive behaviours as these tended not to occur with sufficient frequency to allow assessment. Whether a sustained positive impact on parent–infant interaction can be attributed to Mellow Babies will require a larger RCT with long-term follow-up and consideration of the impact of the research process on the objective observation of behaviour. Embedding such an RCT within a comprehensive and pragmatic evaluation context such as that outlined in the MRC Complex Interventions Model will be essential [38].
A previous meta-analysis has been able to demonstrate some impact on maternal and child mental health outcomes, although findings have been mixed and subject to methodological bias [37]. We found no impact on maternal wellbeing measured immediately post-intervention, which was surprising given previous findings. During a dissemination event in the area where this study was conducted, there was considerable discussion regarding a local culture of mistrust, which could mean that participants were highly likely to understate any mental wellbeing concerns at baseline, whereas by the post-intervention stage, following several weeks of an intervention with trust-building and nurturing explicitly built in, responses were likely to have been more truthful. This can only be considered speculation at this stage.
Whilst the present study has provided useful information regarding the practical reality of conducting a definitive trial of the Mellow Babies intervention, there are some methodological limitations which need to be highlighted. The reliance on the existing services context and concomitant reliance on a waiting-list control design have been discussed above. In addition, the main inclusion criterion was that mothers had ‘substantial problems in developing a bond with their baby’, but this factor was not measured directly (rather, referral was made according to proxy criteria and practitioner professional opinion). The lack of long-term follow-up means we could not assess the feasibility and likely retention to final follow up. Finally, this was a mother-only sample. Mellow Babies is designed to be conducted in single-sex groups, and there is a version adapted for fathers. Whether they would readily engage in a research trial has not been assessed.

5. Conclusions

Conducting a randomised trial of Mellow Babies is feasible and acceptable, but there remain significant difficulties in recruiting critical numbers from this population, which need to be addressed in the design of any future trial. Participants in Mellow Babies showed significant improvement in the quality of their interaction with their babies, but no improvement in self-reported maternal mental wellbeing.

Author Contributions

Both authors worked on all aspects of this study, with P.W. providing supervision and L.T. conducting formal analysis and original draft preparation. All other contributions were equal. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Aberdeen Development Trust (HH016 RGB4378) via a donation from the Infant Mental Health Research Fund (Endowment) at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Yorkhill, Glasgow, UK.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the North of Scotland Research Ethics Service, reference 14/NS/1007, on 18 July 2014.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to limited resources precluding placement in a public repository.

Acknowledgments

We are extremely grateful to the late Pam Sherriff for administrative support to the study, and to Gerry King, who worked as a research assistant to the study and no longer works in academic research. We are also most grateful to the Mellow Babies practitioners for helping facilitate the research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Goyder, E.; on behalf of the Public Health Research Review Team. Parenting Engagement and Support Interventions for High Risk Groups: Short Report on Topic Scoping by the Public Health Research Review Team; University of Sheffield/NIHR: Sheffield, UK, 2022; Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Obf-VbnkPtY2lsbX68GhTyJmehtvc99H/view (accessed on 22 February 2024).
  2. Barlow, J.; Coren, E. The Effectiveness of Parenting Programs: A Review of Campbell Reviews. Res. Soc. Work Pract. 2018, 28, 99–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Barlow, J.; Bergman, H.; Kornør, H.; Wei, Y.; Bennett, C. Group-based parent training programmes for improving emotional and behavioural adjustment in young children. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 2016, Cd003680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jeong, J.; Franchett, E.E.; Ramos de Oliveira, C.V.; Rehmani, K.; Yousafzai, A.K. Parenting interventions to promote early child development in the first three years of life: A global systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2021, 18, e1003602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. O’Connor, T.G.; Woolgar, M.; Humayun, S.; Briskman, J.A.; Scott, S. Early caregiving predicts attachment representations in adolescence: Findings from two longitudinal studies. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2019, 60, 944–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Conti, G.; Smith, J.; Anson, E.; Groth, S.; Knudtson, M.; Salvati, A.; Olds, D. Early Home Visits and Health Outcomes in Low-Income Mothers and Offspring: 18-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw. Open 2024, 7, e2351752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Olds, D.L.; Kitzman, H.; Knudtson, M.D.; Anson, E.; Smith, J.A.; Cole, R. Effect of home visiting by nurses on maternal and child mortality: Results of a 2-decade follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2014, 168, 800–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Olds, D.L.; Sadler, L.; Kitzman, H. Programs for parents of infants and toddlers: Recent evidence from randomized trials. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Allied Discip. 2007, 48, 355–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J.; Van Ijzendoorn, M.H.; Juffer, F. Less is more: Meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychol. Bull. 2003, 129, 195–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kalinauskiene, L.; Cekuoliene, D.; Van Ijzendoorn, M.H.; Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J.; Juffer, F.; Kusakovskaja, I. Supporting insensitive mothers: The Vilnius randomized control trial of video-feedback intervention to promote maternal sensitivity and infant attachment security. Child Care Health Dev. 2009, 35, 613–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Barlow, J.; Davis, H.; McIntosh, E.; Jarrett, P.; Mockford, C.; Stewart-Brown, S. Role of home visiting in improving parenting and health in families at risk of abuse and neglect: Results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. Arch. Dis. Child. 2007, 92, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cooper, P.J.; Tomlinson, M.; Swartz, L.; Landman, M.; Molteno, C.; Stein, A.; McPherson, K.; Murray, L. Improving quality of mother-infant relationship and infant attachment in socioeconomically deprived community in South Africa: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2009, 338, b974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Hepworth, A.D.; Berlin, L.J.; Salas, K.; Pardue-Kim, M.; Martoccio, T.L.; Jones Harden, B. Increasing maternal sensitivity to infant distress through attachment-based intervention: A randomized controlled trial. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2021, 23, 953–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J.; Van, I.M.H.; Juffer, F. Disorganized infant attachment and preventive interventions: A review and meta-analysis. Infant Ment. Health J. Off. Publ. World Assoc. Infant Ment. Health 2005, 26, 191–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Barlow, J.; Parsons, J. Group-based parent-training programmes for improving emotional and behavioural adjustment in 0–3 year old children. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2003, CD003680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Barlow, J.; McMillan, A.S.; Kirkpatrick, S.; Ghate, D.; Barnes, J.; Smith, M. Health-Led Interventions in the Early Years to Enhance Infant and Maternal Mental Health: A Review of Reviews. Child Adolesc. Ment. Health 2010, 15, 178–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Barlow, J.; Bennett, C.; Midgley, N.; Larkin, S.K.; Wei, Y.H. Parent-infant psychotherapy for improving parental and infant mental health. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 11, 1–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Mountain, G.; Cahill, J.; Thorpe, H. Sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Infant Behav. Dev. 2017, 46, 14–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Barlow, J.; Smailagic, N.; Huband, N.; Roloff, V.; Bennett, C. Group-based parent training programmes for improving parental psychosocial health. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2012, 8, 1–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pontoppidan, M.; Klest, S.K.; Patras, J.; Rayce, S.B. Effects of universally offered parenting interventions for parents with infants: A systematic review. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e011706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Kohlhoff, J.; Cibralic, S. The Impact of Attachment-Based Parenting Interventions on Externalizing Behaviors in Toddlers and Preschoolers: A Systematic Narrative Review. Child Youth Care Forum 2022, 51, 1005–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Puckering, C.; McIntosh, E.; Hickey, A.; Longford, J. Mellow Babies: A group intervention for infants and mothers experiencing postnatal depression. Couns. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 25, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. MacBeth, A.; Law, J.; McGowan, I.; Norrie, J.; Thompson, L.; Wilson, P. Mellow Parenting: Systematic review and meta-analysis of an intervention to promote sensitive parenting. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2015, 57, 1119–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Raouna, A.; Malcolm, R.; Ibrahim, R.; MacBeth, A. Promoting sensitive parenting in ‘at-risk’ mothers and fathers: A UK outcome study of Mellow Babies, a group-based early intervention program for parents and their babies. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Davidson, C.; Raouna, A.; Malcolm, R.; Ibrahim, R.; MacBeth, A. “There’s more love between us”: The parental experience of attending Mellow Babies, a targeted, early intervention program for parents and their babies. Infant Ment. Health J. 2023, 44, 100–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Coyne, J.C.; Kwakkenbos, L. Triple P-Positive Parenting programs: The folly of basing social policy on underpowered flawed studies. BMC Med. 2013, 11, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Murray, L.; Cooper, P.J.; Wilson, A.; Romaniuk, H. Controlled trial of the short- and long-term effect of psychological treatment of post-partum depression: 2. Impact on the mother-child relationship and child outcome. Br. J. Psychiatry J. Ment. Sci. 2003, 182, 420–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Puckering, C.; Allely, C.; Doolin, O.; Purves, D.; McConnachie, A.; Johnson, P.; Marwick, H.; Heron, J.; Golding, J.; Gillberg, C.; et al. Association between parent-infant interactions in infancy and disruptive behaviour disorders at age seven: A nested, case-control ALSPAC study. BMC Pediatr. 2014, 14, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Thomson, R.; Allely, C.S.; Purves, D.; Puckering, C.; McConnachie, A.; Johnson, P.; Golding, J.; Gillberg, C.; Wilson, P. Predictors of Positive and Negative Parenting Behaviours. Evidence from the ALSPAC cohort. BMC Pediatr. 2014, 14, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Snaith, R.P.; Constantopoulos, A.A.; Jardine, M.Y.; McGuffin, P. A clinical scale for the self-assessment of irritability. Br. J. Psychiatry 1978, 132, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Wilson, C.; Thompson, L.; McConnachie, A.; Wilson, P. Matching parenting support needs to service provision in a universal 13-month child health surveillance visit. Child Care Health Dev. 2012, 38, 665–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zigmond, A.S.; Snaith, R.P. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 1983, 67, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Cox, J.L.; Holden, J.M.; Sagovsky, R. Detection of postnatal depression. Development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br. J. Psychiatry 1987, 150, 782–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health 2019, 11, 589–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cunningham, J.A.; Kypri, K.; McCambridge, J. Exploratory randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of a waiting list control design. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2013, 13, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Levi, D.; Ibrahim, R.; Malcolm, R.; MacBeth, A. Mellow Babies and Mellow Toddlers: Effects on maternal mental health of a group-based parenting intervention for at-risk families with young children. J. Affect. Disord. 2019, 246, 820–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Skivington, K.; Matthews, L.; Simpson, S.A.; Craig, P.; Baird, J.; Blazeby, J.M.; Boyd, K.A.; Craig, N.; French, D.P.; McIntosh, E.; et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: Update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2021, 374, n2061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Children 11 00510 g001
Figure 1. CONSORT diagram.
Figure 1. CONSORT diagram.
Children 11 00510 g001
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
All (n = 38)Intervention (n = 20)Control (n = 18)p
Age of mother, years; mean (SD)24.0 (5.6)23.5 (4.9)24.5 (6.5)0.6
Sex of baby; n (%)
Female15 (39.5)7 (35.0)8 (44.4)0.4
Male19 (50.0)11 (55.0)8 (44.4)
Missing4 (10.5)2 (10.0)2 (11.1)
Age of baby, months; mean (SD)5.44 (4.44)4.39 (3.50)6.63 (5.4)0.2
Number of other children at home; n (%)
030 (78.9)17 (85.0)13 (72.2)0.8
12 (5.3)02 (11.1)
21 (2.6)1 (5.0)0
31 (2.6)01 (5.6)
Missing4 (10.5)2 (10.0)2 (11.1)
Reason for referral; n (%)
Mental health17 (44.7)10 (50.0)7 (38.9)0.4
Leaving care6 (15.8)4 (20.0)2 (11.1)0.6
Child protection16 (42.1)8 (40.0)8 (44.4)1.0
Homeless2 (5.3)12 (60.0)2 (11.1)0.5
Domestic violence5 (13.2)3 (15.0)2 (11.1)1.0
Complex social needs12 (31.6)6 (30.0)6 (33.3)1.0
Criminal justice5 (13.2)3 (15.0)2 (11.1)1.0
Substance misuse7 (18.4)4 (20.0)3 (16.7)1.0
Missing14 (36.8)8 (40.0)6 (33.3)
Reasons for referral—number endorsed; n (%)
01 (2.6)01 (5.6)0.5
15 (13.2)3 (15.0)2 (11.1)
25 (13.2)1 (5.0)4 (22.2)
34 (10.5)2 (10.0)2 (11.1)
44 (10.5)3 (15.0)1 (5.6)
54 (10.5)3 (15.0)1 (5.6)
6000
71 (2.6)01 (5.6)
Missing14 (36.8)8 (40.0)6 (33.3)
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and analysis outcomes for primary and secondary measures.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and analysis outcomes for primary and secondary measures.
BaselinePostBetween-Subjects Factor
Mean (SD)Mean (SD) Partial
MeasureSubscaleMBWLMBWLFpη2
MPOSPositive0.081 (0.042)0.099 (0.048)0.107 (0.031)0.092 (0.025)6.4340.0190.226
Negative0.002 (0.005)0.005 (0.011)0.004 (0.006)0.011 (0.015)1.8270.1900.077
EPDSTotal10.42 (5.98)11.67 (6.80)9.98 (6.46)14.00 (7.35)0.1130.7410.006
AWBSDepression5.50 (3.06)5.44 (2.79)5.50 (3.21)5.33 (2.74)0.1370.7140.006
Anxiety5.42 (3.63)6.89 (3.92)7.58 (3.09)7.22 (4.09)0.7510.3950.030
Irritability-I2.25 (2.01)2.33 (3.57)3.17 (2.73)2.44 (3.01)0.9800.3320.038
Irritability-O2.67 (1.97)4.33 (2.65)3.67 (2.67)4.22 (3.67)0.9520.3390.037
MPOS: Mellow Parenting Observation Scale; EPDS: Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; AWBS: Adult Wellbeing Scale; Irritability-I: inwardly directed irritability; Irritability-O: outwardly directed irritability. Bold text indicates statistically significant difference.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Thompson, L.; Wilson, P. Mellow Babies: A Randomised Feasibility Trial of an Intervention to Improve the Quality of Parent–Infant Interactions and Parental Mental Wellbeing. Children 2024, 11, 510. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11050510

AMA Style

Thompson L, Wilson P. Mellow Babies: A Randomised Feasibility Trial of an Intervention to Improve the Quality of Parent–Infant Interactions and Parental Mental Wellbeing. Children. 2024; 11(5):510. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11050510

Chicago/Turabian Style

Thompson, Lucy, and Philip Wilson. 2024. "Mellow Babies: A Randomised Feasibility Trial of an Intervention to Improve the Quality of Parent–Infant Interactions and Parental Mental Wellbeing" Children 11, no. 5: 510. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11050510

APA Style

Thompson, L., & Wilson, P. (2024). Mellow Babies: A Randomised Feasibility Trial of an Intervention to Improve the Quality of Parent–Infant Interactions and Parental Mental Wellbeing. Children, 11(5), 510. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11050510

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop