↓ Skip to main content

A Randomized Effectiveness Trial of Brief Parent Training in Primary Care Settings

Overview of attention for article published in Prevention Science, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
3 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
Title
A Randomized Effectiveness Trial of Brief Parent Training in Primary Care Settings
Published in
Prevention Science, September 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11121-012-0289-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Kjøbli, Terje Ogden

Abstract

Brief Parent Training (BPT) is a short-term intervention (3-5 sessions) delivered by regular staff in municipal child and family services. BPT is based on social interaction learning theory and Parent Management Training, the Oregon model (PMTO) and promotes parenting skills in families with children who either are at an early stage of problem behavior development or have developed conduct problems. This study examined the effectiveness of BPT compared to regular services in primary care settings at post assessment. Participants were 216 children (3-12 years) and their parents who were randomly assigned to BPT or the comparison group. Data were collected from parents and teachers. Significant intervention effects emerged for caregiver assessments of parenting practices, child conduct problems, and social competence. The results suggested that BPT had beneficial effects for families, although the generalization of the effects to school was limited.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 103 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 23%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 27 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 34%
Social Sciences 21 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 29 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 01 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,300,033
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#152
of 1,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,984
of 168,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,022 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 168,854 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.