Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39648194›Full record

ArticleChild psychiatry and human development2026

Practitioners' Use and Acceptability of Time-Out.

Samantha Jugovac, David J Hawes, Lucy A Tully, Dave S Pasalich

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Child psychiatry and human development, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Samantha JugovacSchool of Medicine and Psychology, The Australian National University, Building 39, Science Rd, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia. samantha.jugovac@anu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3212-9581
David J HawesSchool of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3260-1225
Lucy A TullySchool of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2066-7609
Dave S PasalichSchool of Medicine and Psychology, The Australian National University, Building 39, Science Rd, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3083-6696

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Time-out is an empirically supported component of parenting interventions for child conduct problems; however, it is receiving increasing criticism among parents and some practitioners. This study aimed to investigate practitioners' use and acceptability of time-out for child conduct problems; examine whether perceived effectiveness and knowledge of evidence-based parameters of time-out implementation influence use and acceptability of time-out; and explore practitioners' perceptions about alternatives to time-out. One hundred and ten Australian and New Zealand practitioners who have worked with children and families completed an online survey investigating their use and acceptability of time-out for children with conduct problems. Results showed that 55.5% of the sample have used timeout, with 38.0% considered current TO users. Acceptability of the strategy varied, with some practitioners critical of time-out. Increased knowledge of evidence-based parameters of time-out implementation was associated with increased frequency of time-out use and acceptability, while perceived effectiveness was associated with increased acceptability only. Practitioners perceived a number of other parenting strategies as effective alternatives to time-out. These findings have important implications for improving practitioners' implementation of time-out with parents of children with conduct problems.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelConduct DisorderParent-Child RelationsParentingAdultAustraliaChildFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNew ZealandBehavior problemsParent–child relationshipParenting interventionParent management training

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.