ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2017
Addendum to "Four-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Triple P Group for Parent and Child Outcomes".
Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Living Scoping Review of Universal Interventions for Promoting Relational Health in Childhood, Adolescence and Young Adulthood.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2026Article
- Opportunities to Improve the Implementation of Relational Health Interventions for Children and Families: A Secondary Analysis of a Scoping Review.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A previous article published in Prevention Science 3 years ago (Heinrichs et al. 2014) presented the results of a randomized controlled trial of the Triple P group program 4 years (FU4) after administration as a universal prevention approach in preschools. The present addendum resolves inconsistencies in outcome reporting (e.g., total scores of scales versus subscale scores) and provides information on measures that were additionally available to analyze further potential effects of the intervention. Effects in secondary outcome domains not reported in Heinrichs et al. (2014) are furthermore analyzed and reported. The original data analyses were varied using a different statistical model in this addendum. Re-analyses supported the original results, including changes in self-reported maternal and paternal positive parenting, in maternal dysfunctional parenting behavior as well as in maternal reports of child behavior. In addition, when analyzing the externalizing and internalizing dimensions, analysis revealed a statistically significant change in externalizing but not internalizing child symptoms. No significant intervention effects were found for secondary outcome domains. Considering important limitations in the study design [such as baseline differences at pre-assessment with mothers from intervention preschools reporting more child behavioral problems prior to introducing the intervention and predominantly non-significant effects from (a) fathers perspective, (b) teacher ratings at 1-year follow up (FU1), and (c) behavioral observations at FU1], we believe that this trial alone cannot be taken as sufficient evidence for a significant and meaningful change in child behavioral problems, which is the ultimate goal of child prevention programs. Therefore, future studies need to replicate and extend upon these results by including larger sample sizes and overcome the discussed limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28389746What 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.