Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31820298›Full record

SynthesisClinical child and family psychology review2020

Parents' Perceptions and Experiences of Parenting Programmes: A Systematic Review and Metasynthesis of the Qualitative Literature.

J Butler, L Gregg, R Calam, A Wittkowski

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical child and family psychology review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 11 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. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Perceived Need and Social Relatedness Contribute to Change in Selective Prevention for Mental Illness: a Mixed Methods Study.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2025
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

J ButlerDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Zochonis Building, Brunswick Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, England, UK.
L GreggDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Zochonis Building, Brunswick Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, England, UK.
R CalamDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Zochonis Building, Brunswick Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, England, UK.
A WittkowskiDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Zochonis Building, Brunswick Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, England, UK. anja.wittkowski@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3806-0183

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Supporting parents to meet the challenges of their caregiving role is identified as a public health concern and a priority in policies internationally. Quantitative research has established the efficacy of parenting programmes but less is understood about the key aspects that make interventions meaningful and helpful to families. We aimed to explore parents' experiences and perceptions of parenting programmes in order to highlight the parent voice and identify key factors that parents perceive to be meaningful and improve our understanding of the acceptability and perceived benefits of parenting programmes. Six key electronic databases were searched systematically for qualitative research and eligibility for inclusion was established. A thematic synthesis was undertaken. Twenty-six studies were included, spanning 17 years of parenting research and involving 822 parents. Three main themes and nine subthemes were identified: (1) a family's journey (prior to the parenting programme, outcomes (including changes in the parent, child and wider family) and post-intervention), (2) aspects perceived to be important or valuable (group leader or facilitator, programme content and delivery and value of the group) and (3) challenges or difficulties (barriers to engagement or attendance, programme content and suggestions for improvement). Reported outcomes of parenting programmes included changes in the parent alongside changes in the child and family more widely. Key recommendations to improve provision of accessible, clinically and cost-effective interventions for parents include ensuring high-quality training and supervision of facilitators, balancing flexibility and fidelity to ensure tailored content to meet individual needs, a sensitivity to parental adversity, the need for wider familial support and the availability of ongoing support following the end of a parenting programme.

Indexed as

Education, NonprofessionalOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareParentingParentsProgram EvaluationAdultChildHumansAcceptabilityFeasibilityMetasynthesisParentingParent trainingQualitativeThematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID31820298
PMCPMC7192883

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.