Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42343469›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2026

Remote versus face-to-face delivery of the Group Triple P parenting programme: a feasibility non-randomised trial.

Elinor Coulman, Susan Channon, Lauren Copeland, Myrsini Gianatsi, Nina Jacob, Ben Karatas, Stavros Petrou, Rebecca Playle, Michael Robling, Elizabeth-Ann Schroeder and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Elinor CoulmanCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. johne1@cardiff.ac.uk.
Susan ChannonCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Lauren CopelandCardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, UK.
Myrsini GianatsiCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Nina JacobCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Ben KaratasCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Stavros PetrouNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Rebecca PlayleCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Michael RoblingCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Elizabeth-Ann SchroederNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Rory SheppardCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Laura Winney-JonesCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Linda AdaraCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Jeremy SegrottCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany well-designed parenting interventions have demonstrated effectiveness in improving outcomes for parents and children. During the COVID pandemic, many group-based parenting interventions were rapidly transferred to remote delivery using online videoconferencing platforms. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of remotely delivered group-based parenting programmes, compared to face-to-face programmes, remains inconclusive. This trial aimed to assess the feasibility of delivering the Group Triple P intervention to parents/caregivers of young children to inform a potential, definitive trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Group Triple P delivered remotely compared to face-to-face delivery.

methodsThis study was a feasibility non-randomised trial, with embedded process evaluation. Parents/caregivers of a child (up to 12 years old) were recruited by Local Authority or independent provider research sites and self-selected remote or face-to-face delivery of the Group Triple P intervention. Data were collected at baseline and 16 weeks follow-up. The following feasibility outcomes were assessed: site recruitment, participant recruitment rates and retention at the 16-week follow-up, intervention adherence, fidelity and reach, feasibility of trial processes and outcome measures (including resource use, cost and health-related quality of life) and Local Authority and independent service provider willingness to participate in a definitive trial.

resultsAll sites utilised a multi-point participant recruitment strategy, relying on existing pathways to identify families. Only two sites reached participant recruitment targets. Participants' self-selected remote delivery (23 participants) or face-to-face delivery (19 participants) and baseline demographics, except for education level, were balanced across arms. A 66.7% retention rate was observed at 16 weeks. Most trial processes were acceptable to participants and site staff. However, randomisation was not considered acceptable to site staff or 37.5% of participants, due to the removal of participant choice. The intervention was delivered to high fidelity, except for some intervention adaptations. Participant engagement in the remote arm was hampered by inconsistent use of cameras and little interaction between parents and facilitators.

conclusionsA number of barriers to using a randomised trial design were identified. Ongoing research should consider a potential non-randomised definitive trial to assess the use of remotely delivered group-based parenting interventions and to overcome these barriers.

trial registrationISRCTN81494090, 19/09/2023.

Indexed as

FeasibilityGroup Triple PInterventionParentingRemote deliveryTrial

Identifiers

PMID42343469
PMCPMC13374339

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.