Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30170577›Full record

ReviewBMC public health2018

Supporting parenting to address social inequalities in health: a synthesis of systematic reviews.

Annabelle Pierron, Laurence Fond-Harmant, Anne Laurent, François Alla

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. [Research advances in assessment tools for feeding problems in children].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Annabelle PierronUniversité de Lorraine, EA4360 APEMAC, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France. annabelle.pierron@univ-lorraine.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8926-4736
Laurence Fond-HarmantLuxembourg Institute of Health, Department of Population Health, 1 A-B Rue Thomas Edison, Strassen, 1445, Luxembourg.
Anne LaurentSociété Française de Santé Publique, 1 rue de la forêt, Laxou, 54520, France.
François AllaCHU INSERM. Bordeaux Population Health Research Center. UMR 1219 CIC-EC 1401, Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2009, the World Health Organization's Commission on Social Determinants of Health set out its recommendations for action, which included establishing equity from early childhood onwards by enabling all children and their mothers to benefit from a comprehensive package of quality programmes. In order to address social inequalities in health, it is recommended that action be taken from early childhood, and actions providing support for parenting are an effective lever in this respect. The aim of this review of systematic reviews is to analyse, on the one hand, the components and characteristics of effective interventions in parenting support and, on the other, the extent to which the reviews took into account social inequalities in health.

methodsA total of 796 reviews were selected from peer-reviewed journals published between 2009 and 2016 in French or English. Of these, 21 reviews responding to the AMSTAR and selected ROBIS criteria were retained. These were analysed in relation to the consideration they gave to social inequalities in health according to PRISMA-equity.

resultsThe reviews confirmed that parenting support programmes improved infants' sleep, increased mothers' self-esteem and reduced mothers' anger, anxiety and stress levels. The mainly authors noted that the contexts in which the interventions had taken place were described either scantly or not at all, making it difficult to evaluate them. Only half of the reviews had addressed the question of social inequalities in health. In particular, there had been little research conducted on the relational aspect and the social link.

conclusionIn terms of addressing social inequalities in perinatal health, the approach remains both modest and reductive. Understanding how, for whom and in what conditions interventions operate is one way of optimising their results. Further research is needed to study the interactions between the interventions and their contexts.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesSocial SupportFemaleHumansInfantMothersParentingReview Literature as TopicSocial Determinants of HealthSocioeconomic FactorsDisparityHealthcare disparitiesHealth promotionHealth status disparitiesParentingPerinatologySocial determinants of health

Identifiers

PMID30170577
PMCPMC6119337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.