↓ Skip to main content

Group-based parent training programmes for improving emotional and behavioural adjustment in young children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
27 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
301 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Group-based parent training programmes for improving emotional and behavioural adjustment in young children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003680.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Barlow, Hanna Bergman, Hege Kornør, Yinghui Wei, Cathy Bennett

Abstract

Emotional and behavioural problems in children are common. Research suggests that parenting has an important role to play in helping children to become well-adjusted, and that the first few months and years are especially important. Parenting programmes may have a role to play in improving the emotional and behavioural adjustment of infants and toddlers, and this review examined their effectiveness with parents and carers of young children. 1. To establish whether group-based parenting programmes are effective in improving the emotional and behavioural adjustment of young children (maximum mean age of three years and 11 months); and2. To assess whether parenting programmes are effective in the primary prevention of emotional and behavioural problems. In July 2015 we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), and 10 other databases. We also searched two trial registers and handsearched reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. Two reviewers independently assessed the records retrieved by the search. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of group-based parenting programmes that had used at least one standardised instrument to measure emotional and behavioural adjustment in children. One reviewer extracted data and a second reviewer checked the extracted data. We presented the results for each outcome in each study as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, we combined the results in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach to assess the overall quality of the body of evidence for each outcome. We identified 22 RCTs and two quasi-RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of group-based parenting programmes in improving the emotional and behavioural adjustment of children aged up to three years and 11 months (maximum mean age three years 11 months).The total number of participants in the studies were 3161 parents and their young children. Eight studies were conducted in the USA, five in the UK, four in Canada, five in Australia, one in Mexico, and one in Peru. All of the included studies were of behavioural, cognitive-behavioural or videotape modelling parenting programmes.We judged 50% (or more) of the included studies to be at low risk for selection bias, detection bias (observer-reported outcomes), attrition bias, selective reporting bias, and other bias. As it is not possible to blind participants and personnel to the type of intervention in these trials, we judged all studies to have high risk of performance bias. Also, there was a high risk of detection bias in the 20 studies that included parent-reported outcomes.The results provide evidence that group-based parenting programmes reduce overall emotional and behavioural problems (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.25; 5 studies, 280 participants, low quality evidence) based on total parent-reported data assessed at postintervention. This result was not, however, maintained when two quasi-RCTs were removed as part of a sensitivity analysis (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.43 to 0.09; 3 studies, 221 participants). The results of data from subscales show evidence of reduced total externalising problems (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.01; 8 studies, 989 participants, moderate quality evidence). Single study results show very low quality evidence of reductions in externalising problems hyperactivity-inattention subscale (SMD -1.34; 95% CI -2.37 to -0.31; 19 participants), low quality evidence of no effect on total internalising problems (SMD 0.34; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.81; 73 participants), and very low quality evidence of an increase in social skills (SMD 3.59; 95% CI 2.42 to 4.76; 32 participants), based on parent-reported data assessed at postintervention. Results for secondary outcomes, which were also measured using subscales, show an impact on parent-child interaction in terms of reduced negative behaviour (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.06; 7 studies, 941 participants, moderate quality evidence), and improved positive behaviour (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.79; 4 studies, 173 participants, moderate quality evidence) as rated by independent observers postintervention. No further meta-analyses were possible. Results of subgroup analyses show no evidence for treatment duration (seven weeks or less versus more than eight weeks) and inconclusive evidence for prevention versus treatment interventions. The findings of this review, which relate to the broad group of universal and at-risk (targeted) children and parents, provide tentative support for the use of group-based parenting programmes to improve the overall emotional and behavioural adjustment of children with a maximum mean age of three years and 11 months, in the short-term. There is, however, a need for more research regarding the role that these programmes might play in the primary prevention of both emotional and behavioural problems, and their long-term effectiveness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 301 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 298 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 71 24%
Unspecified 45 15%
Researcher 44 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 15%
Student > Bachelor 27 9%
Other 70 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 70 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 67 22%
Unspecified 66 22%
Social Sciences 37 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 11%
Other 28 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 31 January 2019.
All research outputs
#797,157
of 13,515,188 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,527
of 10,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,232
of 263,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#51
of 153 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,515,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,621 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 263,806 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 153 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.