ArticleBMC psychology2026
Acceptability of Circle of Security-Parenting groups in NHS community perinatal mental health services in England: parent and practitioner perspectives.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPerinatal mental health (PMH) difficulties are prevalent and often accompanied by parent-infant relationship difficulties. National Health Service community PMH services (PMHS) support birthing parents (typically mothers) experiencing moderate-to-severe and complex mental health difficulties. While PMHS primarily address maternal mental health, treatment can include interventions targeting parent-infant relationships. The Circle of Security-Parenting (COS-P) programme is widely used within PMHS in England and offers a potential solution to the evidence gaps for interventions that: i) target both parental mental health and parent-infant relationship quality; (ii) are transdiagnostic; and iii) delivered in groups. This study evaluates the acceptability of COS-P, an attachment-informed, group intervention delivered in PMHS in ten 90-min sessions, predominantly online.
methodsThis qualitative study analysed the perspectives of parents (COS-P recipients) and practitioners (COS-P providers) in the intervention arm of a wider randomised controlled trial. Data collection involved interviews (58 parents, 7 practitioners) and focus groups (6 practitioners). Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted by a team including co-researchers with lived experience and interdisciplinary academics and practitioners.
resultsFour themes were constructed: (1) ‘Flamingos’, capturing the power of the group in normalising and validating demands relating to motherhood and PMH; (2) ‘Practise Babies’, highlighting the universal necessity and benefit of practising relationship skills, without expectations of perfection and with opportunities for repair; (3) ‘the Dark Things’, describing the emotional intensity for parents and practitioners arising from current and past relationships, occasionally necessitating extra support; and (4) ‘the Ripples’, illustrating shifts in understanding and compassion that may extend beyond the parent-infant relationship and interact with other interventions. These themes encompass both positive and negative experiences for parents and practitioners, as well as practical considerations for implementing COS-P within PMHS.
conclusionsAlthough COS-P is positively regarded by many parents and practitioners in PMHS, attention to individual and service-specific factors remains crucial. Findings underscore the importance of trauma-informed approaches, particularly regarding intervention timing, sequencing, and ensuring personal agency in treatment decisions. Moreover, the effective facilitation of parent-infant psychological group interventions demands significant skill and resource allocation before, during, and outside sessions, impacting workforce planning, practitioner training, and supervision.
trial registrationISRCTN18308962. Registered 18/02/2022.
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.