ArticleBMC medicine2013
Triple P-Positive Parenting programs: the folly of basing social policy on underpowered flawed studies.
Article in BMC medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Disclosure of Financial Conflicts of Interests in Interventions to Improve Child Psychosocial Health: A Cross-Sectional Study.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Impact of Pathways Triple P on Pediatric Health-Related Quality of Life in Maltreated Children.Journal of developmental and behavioral pediatrics : JDBP · 2018Trial
- Effectiveness of Primary Care Triple P on child psychosocial problems in preventive child healthcare: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medicine · 2013Trial
- Mellow Babies: A Randomised Feasibility Trial of an Intervention to Improve the Quality of Parent-Infant Interactions and Parental Mental Wellbeing.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Modelling the potential for parenting skills interventions to reduce inequalities and population prevalence of children's mental health problems: Evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study.SSM - population health · 2021Article
- Article
- Cost-Benefit Analysis of Two Child Abuse and Neglect Primary Prevention Programs for US States.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2018Article
- Replication initiatives will not salvage the trustworthiness of psychology.BMC psychology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wilson et al. provided a valuable systematic and meta-analytic review of the Triple P-Positive Parenting program in which they identified substantial problems in the quality of available evidence. Their review largely escaped unscathed after Sanders et al.'s critical commentary. However, both of these sources overlook the most serious problem with the Triple P literature, namely, the over-reliance on positive but substantially underpowered trials. Such trials are particularly susceptible to risks of bias and investigator manipulation of apparent results. We offer a justification for the criterion of no fewer than 35 participants in either the intervention or control group. Applying this criterion, 19 of the 23 trials identified by Wilson et al. were eliminated. A number of these trials were so small that it would be statistically improbable that they would detect an effect even if it were present. We argued that clinicians and policymakers implementing Triple P programs incorporate evaluations to ensure that goals are being met and resources are not being squandered.Please see related articles http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/130 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/145.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.