Time-out is a component of many evidence-based parent training programmes for the treatment of childhood conduct problems. Existing comprehensive reviews suggest that time-out is both safe and effective when used predictably, infrequently, calmly and as one component of a collection of parenting strategies—i.e., when utilised in the manner advocated by most parent training programmes. However, this research evidence has been largely oriented towards the academic community and is often in conflict with the widespread misinformation about time-out within communities of parents, and within groups of treatment practitioners. This dissonance has the potential to undermine the dissemination and implementation of an effective suite of treatments for common and disabling childhood conditions. The parent-practitioner relationship is integral to the success of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT), an evidence-based treatment which involves live coaching of parent(s) with their young child(ren). Yet this relationship, and practitioner perspectives, attitudes and values as they relate to time-out, are often overlooked. This practitioner review explores the dynamics of the parent-practitioner relationship as they apply to the teaching and coaching of time-out to parents. It also acknowledges factors within the clinical setting that impact on time-out’s use, such as the views of administrators and professional colleagues. The paper is oriented toward practitioners of PCIT but is of relevance to all providers of parent training interventions for young children.

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 < 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.

Background: Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) is a parent training intervention for childhood conduct problems, distinctive in its use of live clinician coaching of the parent–child dyad via a one-way mirror and discrete earpiece. However, despite a compelling evidence base, uptake of evidence-based parent training programmes such as PCIT by clinicians in routine care settings remains poor. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesise implementation interventions that have sought to increase clinician adoption of PCIT in usual care settings. Methods: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, and Web of Science Core Collection from inception to October 2020. Articles were included if they tested (by way of randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, interrupted time series and controlled before and after trials) implementation interventions across any and all of the patient, clinician, clinic, system or policy domains. Two independent reviewers screened and selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data – summarising implementation intervention components according to items from the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist ( Hoffmann et al., 2014 ). Results: Of the 769 articles identified once duplicates were removed, 13 papers relating to three studies met the inclusion criteria – all were quantitative or mixed-methods examinations of the effectiveness of different PCIT clinician training or training-related consultation methods. A narrative description of interventions was provided, as quantitative synthesis was not possible. Conclusions: Research attention has to date been focussed on the establishment of an evidence-base for PCIT's effectiveness, with relatively little attention to the dissemination, implementation and sustainment of this treatment. Those studies that do exist have focused on training methods and training-related expert consultation. Research attention could usefully turn to both adoption and sustainment of this effective treatment in usual care settings. Plain language summary: In this review, we aimed to summarise what is already known about how to implement PCIT in community settings after clinicians have received training in the approach. While research relating to the implementation of other parent training programmes is interesting and informative, implementation efforts are most effective when tailored to a specific programme in a specific context. As such, it was important to review published studies relating to PCIT specifically. We identified three relevant studies, one of which is yet to publish its main implementation findings. The three studies have focused on how best to train clinicians in PCIT, including how best to provide post-training support from expert trainers. We concluded that a fruitful line for future research would be to focus on the post-training period, particularly how best to support clinicians to adopt and sustain PCIT in their practice. Systematic review registration: The study was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 01/10/2020 (CRD42020207118).

Background: Despite a number of clinicians having been trained in Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) in Aotearoa/New Zealand, few are regularly delivering the treatment, with barriers to use including a lack of suitable equipment and lack of professional support. This pragmatic, parallel-arm, randomised, controlled pilot trial includes PCIT-trained clinicians who are not delivering, or only rarely utilising, this effective treatment. The study aims to assess the feasibility, acceptability and cultural responsivity of study methods and intervention components and to collect variance data on the proposed future primary outcome variable, in preparation for a future, larger trial. Methods: The trial will compare a novel ‘re-implementation’ intervention with a refresher training and problem-solving control. Intervention components have been systematically developed to address barriers and facilitators to clinician use of PCIT using implementation theory, and a draft logic model with hypothesised mechanisms of action, derived from a series of preliminary studies. The intervention includes complimentary access to necessary equipment for PCIT implementation (audio-visual equipment, a ‘pop-up’ time-out space, toys), a mobile senior PCIT co-worker and an optional weekly PCIT consultation group, for a 6-month period. Outcomes will include the feasibility of recruitment and trial procedures; acceptability of the intervention package and data collection methods to clinicians; and clinician adoption of PCIT. Discussion: Relatively little research attention has been directed at interventions to resurrect stalled implementation efforts. Results from this pragmatic pilot RCT will refine and shape knowledge relating to what it might take to embed the ongoing delivery of PCIT in community settings, providing more children and families with access to this effective treatment. Trial registration: ANZCTR, ACTRN12622001022752, registered on July 21, 2022.

Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) is an evidence-based manualised parent training programme for parents of two to seven year old children with conduct problems and/or other complex needs that features in vivo (“live”) skills coaching of parents, with immediate feedback from a clinician through a discrete ear piece and one-way mirror. This paper describes a clinical audit of a series of 35 families seen for PCIT in a community Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) in New Zealand. The cohort was distinct from the extant PCIT literature in three ways – it included a disproportionately high rate of parental mental health issues, of children aged seven years or over, and it featured a relatively low attrition rate – a notoriously challenging area for parent training approaches. Results indicated that despite the majority of mothers (74%) in the case series having a formal psychiatric diagnosis, and having previously unsuccessfully undertaken at least one parenting intervention (71%), average duration of treatment (17 sessions, range: 9-25) was within established international norms (12-20 sessions). The attrition rate (26%) was lower than is typical internationally for parent training approaches. There was a positive correlation between a child’s age and the number of sessions to graduation, albeit not statistically significant in this small study (r=0.34, p=0.10). With minimal modification, PCIT remained an effective treatment in a real world setting for parents with mental health issues and their young children. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.