Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21412881›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011

Individual and group based parenting programmes for improving psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents and their children.

Jane Barlow, Nadja Smailagic, Cathy Bennett, Nick Huband, Hannah Jones, Esther Coren

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jane BarlowHealth Sciences Research Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbett Hill Road, Coventry, UK, CV4 7AL.
Nadja Smailagic
Cathy Bennett
Nick Huband
Hannah Jones
Esther Coren

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParenting programmes are a potentially important means of supporting teenage parents and improving outcomes for their children, and parenting support is a priority across most Western countries. This review updates the previous version published in 2001.

objectivesTo examine the effectiveness of parenting programmes in improving psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents and developmental outcomes in their children. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched to find new studies for this updated review in January 2008 and May 2010 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ASSIA, CINAHL, DARE, ERIC, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts and Social Science Citation Index. The National Research Register (NRR) was last searched in May 2005 and UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database in May 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials assessing short-term parenting interventions aimed specifically at teenage parents and a control group (no-treatment, waiting list or treatment-as-usual). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the risk of bias in each study. We standardised the treatment effect for each outcome in each study by dividing the mean difference in post-intervention scores between the intervention and control groups by the pooled standard deviation. MAIN

resultsWe included eight studies with 513 participants, providing a total of 47 comparisons of outcome between intervention and control conditions. Nineteen comparisons were statistically significant, all favouring the intervention group. We conducted nine meta-analyses using data from four studies in total (each meta-analysis included data from two studies). Four meta-analyses showed statistically significant findings favouring the intervention group for the following outcomes: parent responsiveness to the child post-intervention (SMD -0.91, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.30, P = 0.04); infant responsiveness to mother at follow-up (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.25 to -0.06, P = 0.03); and an overall measure of parent-child interactions post-intervention (SMD -0.71, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.11, P = 0.02), and at follow-up (SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.30, P = 0.004). The results of the remaining five meta-analyses were inconclusive. AUTHORS'

conclusionsVariation in the measures used, the included populations and interventions, and the risk of bias within the included studies limit the conclusions that can be reached. The findings provide some evidence to suggest that parenting programmes may be effective in improving a number of aspects of parent-child interaction both in the short- and long-term, but further research is now needed.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentAdolescentAge FactorsChildFemaleHumansMother-Child RelationsParentingProgram EvaluationRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID21412881
PMCPMC4164375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.