↓ Skip to main content

Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of parenting programmes in improving maternal psychosocial health.

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, March 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of parenting programmes in improving maternal psychosocial health.
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, March 2002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Barlow, Esther Coren, Sarah Stewart-Brown

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether group-based parenting programmes are effective in improving maternal psychosocial health. Data sources used were English and non-English language articles published between January 1970 and July 2000, retrieved using a keyword search of a number of biomedical, social science, educational, and general reference electronic databases. Two independent reviewers selected the relevant abstracts and articles. Only controlled trials were included in which participants had been randomly allocated to an experimental and a control group, the latter being a waiting-list, no-treatment or a placebo control group. Studies had to include at least one group-based parenting programme and one standardised instrument measuring maternal psychosocial health. Means, standard deviations, and information regarding study quality were selected from the included studies by two independent reviewers. The treatment effect for each outcome in each study was standardised by dividing the mean difference in post-intervention scores for the intervention and treatment group, by the pooled standard deviation, to produce an effect size. The results were then combined in a meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. A total of 23 studies met all the inclusion criteria and 17 of these provided sufficient data with which to calculate effect sizes. Fifteen of these studies provided data on the five main outcomes of interest: depression, anxiety/stress, self-esteem, social support, and relationship with partner. The meta-analyses show statistically significant results favouring the intervention group for depression (-0.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.4 to -0.1), anxiety/stress (-0.5, 95% CI = -0.7 to -0.3), self-esteem (-0.4, 95% CI = -0.6 to -0.1), and relationship with partner (-0.4, 95% CI = -0.7 to -0.2). However, the meta-analysis of the social support data showed no evidence of effectiveness (-0.04, 95% CI = -0.3 to 0.2). Follow-up data were available for only three of the five outcomes. The results show that there were changes favouring the intervention group for self-esteem (-0.4, 95% CI = -0.7 to -0.2), the mother's relationship with her partner (-0.3, 95% CI = -0.8 to 0.1), and depression (-0.2, 95% CI = -0.4 to 0.002), although the confidence intervals for the mother's relationship with her partner and depression both cross zero. It is concluded that parenting programmes can make a significant contribution to the short-term psychosocial health of mothers. While the limited follow-up data are promising, further evidence of their effectiveness in improving maternal mental health is required. It is also suggested that some caution should be exercised before the results are generalised to parents irrespective of the level of pathology present.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Australia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 163 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 21%
Researcher 26 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 37 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 47 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 18%
Social Sciences 22 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 45 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2021.
All research outputs
#456,867
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#193
of 4,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262
of 45,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 45,890 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them