How evidence-based is an ‘evidence-based parenting programme’?

A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis of Triple P

Philip Wilson, Robert Rush, Susan Hussey, Christine Puckering, Fiona Sim, Clare S Allely, Paul Doku, Alex McConnachie, Christopher Gillberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

72 Citations (Scopus)
4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background
Interventions to promote positive parenting are often reported to offer good outcomes for children but they can consume substantial resources and they require rigorous appraisal.

Methods
Evaluations of the Triple P parenting program were subjected to systematic review and meta-analysis with analysis of biases. PsychInfo, Embase and Ovid Medline were used as data sources. We selected published articles reporting any child-based outcome in which any variant of Triple P was evaluated in relation to a comparison condition. Unpublished data, papers in languages other than English and some book chapters were not examined. Studies reporting Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory or Child Behavior Checklist scores as outcomes were used in the meta-analysis.

Results
A total of 33 eligible studies was identified, most involving media-recruited families. Thirty-one of these 33 studies compared Triple P interventions with waiting list or no-treatment comparison groups. Most papers only reported maternal assessments of child behavior. Twenty-three papers were incorporated in the meta-analysis. No studies involved children younger than two-years old and comparisons of intervention and control groups beyond the duration of the intervention were only possible in five studies. For maternally-reported outcomes the summary effect size was 0.61 (95%CI 0.42, 0.79). Paternally-reported outcomes following Triple P intervention were smaller and did not differ significantly from the control condition (effect size 0.42 (95%CI -0.02, 0.87)). The two studies involving an active control group showed no between-group differences. There was limited evidence of publication bias, but there was substantial selective reporting bias, and preferential reporting of positive results in article abstracts. Thirty-two of the 33 eligible studies were authored by Triple-P affiliated personnel. No trials were registered and only two papers contained conflict of interest statements.

Conclusions
In volunteer populations over the short term, mothers generally report that Triple P group interventions are better than no intervention, but there is concern about these results given the high risk of bias, poor reporting and potential conflicts of interest. We found no convincing evidence that Triple P interventions work across the whole population or that any benefits are long-term. Given the substantial cost implications, commissioners should apply to parenting programs the standards used in assessing pharmaceutical interventions.

Original languageEnglish
Article number130
JournalBMC medicine
Volume10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Nov 2012

Fingerprint

Parenting
Child Behavior
Meta-Analysis
Conflict of Interest
Mothers
Publication Bias
Control Groups
Waiting Lists
Information Storage and Retrieval
Checklist
Population
Volunteers
Language
Costs and Cost Analysis
Equipment and Supplies
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • parenting
  • public health
  • child psychology
  • behavioral family intervention
  • systematic review
  • meta-analysis

Cite this

How evidence-based is an ‘evidence-based parenting programme’? A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis of Triple P. / Wilson, Philip; Rush, Robert; Hussey, Susan; Puckering, Christine; Sim, Fiona; Allely, Clare S; Doku, Paul; McConnachie, Alex; Gillberg, Christopher .

In: BMC medicine , Vol. 10, 130, 02.11.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wilson, Philip ; Rush, Robert ; Hussey, Susan ; Puckering, Christine ; Sim, Fiona ; Allely, Clare S ; Doku, Paul ; McConnachie, Alex ; Gillberg, Christopher . / How evidence-based is an ‘evidence-based parenting programme’? A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis of Triple P. In: BMC medicine . 2012 ; Vol. 10.
@article{5df62da0d3a14e8ebd4c664438688e23,
title = "How evidence-based is an ‘evidence-based parenting programme’?: A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis of Triple P",
abstract = "Background Interventions to promote positive parenting are often reported to offer good outcomes for children but they can consume substantial resources and they require rigorous appraisal. Methods Evaluations of the Triple P parenting program were subjected to systematic review and meta-analysis with analysis of biases. PsychInfo, Embase and Ovid Medline were used as data sources. We selected published articles reporting any child-based outcome in which any variant of Triple P was evaluated in relation to a comparison condition. Unpublished data, papers in languages other than English and some book chapters were not examined. Studies reporting Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory or Child Behavior Checklist scores as outcomes were used in the meta-analysis. Results A total of 33 eligible studies was identified, most involving media-recruited families. Thirty-one of these 33 studies compared Triple P interventions with waiting list or no-treatment comparison groups. Most papers only reported maternal assessments of child behavior. Twenty-three papers were incorporated in the meta-analysis. No studies involved children younger than two-years old and comparisons of intervention and control groups beyond the duration of the intervention were only possible in five studies. For maternally-reported outcomes the summary effect size was 0.61 (95{\%}CI 0.42, 0.79). Paternally-reported outcomes following Triple P intervention were smaller and did not differ significantly from the control condition (effect size 0.42 (95{\%}CI -0.02, 0.87)). The two studies involving an active control group showed no between-group differences. There was limited evidence of publication bias, but there was substantial selective reporting bias, and preferential reporting of positive results in article abstracts. Thirty-two of the 33 eligible studies were authored by Triple-P affiliated personnel. No trials were registered and only two papers contained conflict of interest statements. Conclusions In volunteer populations over the short term, mothers generally report that Triple P group interventions are better than no intervention, but there is concern about these results given the high risk of bias, poor reporting and potential conflicts of interest. We found no convincing evidence that Triple P interventions work across the whole population or that any benefits are long-term. Given the substantial cost implications, commissioners should apply to parenting programs the standards used in assessing pharmaceutical interventions.",
keywords = "parenting, public health, child psychology, behavioral family intervention, systematic review, meta-analysis",
author = "Philip Wilson and Robert Rush and Susan Hussey and Christine Puckering and Fiona Sim and Allely, {Clare S} and Paul Doku and Alex McConnachie and Christopher Gillberg",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1186/1741-7015-10-130",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
journal = "BMC medicine",
issn = "1741-7015",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How evidence-based is an ‘evidence-based parenting programme’?

T2 - A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis of Triple P

AU - Wilson, Philip

AU - Rush, Robert

AU - Hussey, Susan

AU - Puckering, Christine

AU - Sim, Fiona

AU - Allely, Clare S

AU - Doku, Paul

AU - McConnachie, Alex

AU - Gillberg, Christopher

PY - 2012/11/2

Y1 - 2012/11/2

N2 - Background Interventions to promote positive parenting are often reported to offer good outcomes for children but they can consume substantial resources and they require rigorous appraisal. Methods Evaluations of the Triple P parenting program were subjected to systematic review and meta-analysis with analysis of biases. PsychInfo, Embase and Ovid Medline were used as data sources. We selected published articles reporting any child-based outcome in which any variant of Triple P was evaluated in relation to a comparison condition. Unpublished data, papers in languages other than English and some book chapters were not examined. Studies reporting Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory or Child Behavior Checklist scores as outcomes were used in the meta-analysis. Results A total of 33 eligible studies was identified, most involving media-recruited families. Thirty-one of these 33 studies compared Triple P interventions with waiting list or no-treatment comparison groups. Most papers only reported maternal assessments of child behavior. Twenty-three papers were incorporated in the meta-analysis. No studies involved children younger than two-years old and comparisons of intervention and control groups beyond the duration of the intervention were only possible in five studies. For maternally-reported outcomes the summary effect size was 0.61 (95%CI 0.42, 0.79). Paternally-reported outcomes following Triple P intervention were smaller and did not differ significantly from the control condition (effect size 0.42 (95%CI -0.02, 0.87)). The two studies involving an active control group showed no between-group differences. There was limited evidence of publication bias, but there was substantial selective reporting bias, and preferential reporting of positive results in article abstracts. Thirty-two of the 33 eligible studies were authored by Triple-P affiliated personnel. No trials were registered and only two papers contained conflict of interest statements. Conclusions In volunteer populations over the short term, mothers generally report that Triple P group interventions are better than no intervention, but there is concern about these results given the high risk of bias, poor reporting and potential conflicts of interest. We found no convincing evidence that Triple P interventions work across the whole population or that any benefits are long-term. Given the substantial cost implications, commissioners should apply to parenting programs the standards used in assessing pharmaceutical interventions.

AB - Background Interventions to promote positive parenting are often reported to offer good outcomes for children but they can consume substantial resources and they require rigorous appraisal. Methods Evaluations of the Triple P parenting program were subjected to systematic review and meta-analysis with analysis of biases. PsychInfo, Embase and Ovid Medline were used as data sources. We selected published articles reporting any child-based outcome in which any variant of Triple P was evaluated in relation to a comparison condition. Unpublished data, papers in languages other than English and some book chapters were not examined. Studies reporting Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory or Child Behavior Checklist scores as outcomes were used in the meta-analysis. Results A total of 33 eligible studies was identified, most involving media-recruited families. Thirty-one of these 33 studies compared Triple P interventions with waiting list or no-treatment comparison groups. Most papers only reported maternal assessments of child behavior. Twenty-three papers were incorporated in the meta-analysis. No studies involved children younger than two-years old and comparisons of intervention and control groups beyond the duration of the intervention were only possible in five studies. For maternally-reported outcomes the summary effect size was 0.61 (95%CI 0.42, 0.79). Paternally-reported outcomes following Triple P intervention were smaller and did not differ significantly from the control condition (effect size 0.42 (95%CI -0.02, 0.87)). The two studies involving an active control group showed no between-group differences. There was limited evidence of publication bias, but there was substantial selective reporting bias, and preferential reporting of positive results in article abstracts. Thirty-two of the 33 eligible studies were authored by Triple-P affiliated personnel. No trials were registered and only two papers contained conflict of interest statements. Conclusions In volunteer populations over the short term, mothers generally report that Triple P group interventions are better than no intervention, but there is concern about these results given the high risk of bias, poor reporting and potential conflicts of interest. We found no convincing evidence that Triple P interventions work across the whole population or that any benefits are long-term. Given the substantial cost implications, commissioners should apply to parenting programs the standards used in assessing pharmaceutical interventions.

KW - parenting

KW - public health

KW - child psychology

KW - behavioral family intervention

KW - systematic review

KW - meta-analysis

U2 - 10.1186/1741-7015-10-130

DO - 10.1186/1741-7015-10-130

M3 - Article

VL - 10

JO - BMC medicine

JF - BMC medicine

SN - 1741-7015

M1 - 130

ER -