Trial reportJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
A 12-Month Trial-Based Economic Evaluation Comparing Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) and Circle of Security Parenting Program (COSP) Versus Treatment as Usual for Families With Young Children (2-6 Years).
Trial report in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA 12-month trial economic evaluation was conducted to compare the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) versus treatment as usual (TAU) and the Circle of Security Parenting Program (COSP) versus TAU from a societal perspective.
methodsTrial data were used to determine the costs of delivering the interventions and the 12-month costs associated with children's health and social care service use based on the Child and Adolescent Service Use Schedule questionnaire, which was completed by caregivers of children aged 2-6. All costs were expressed in 2024 Canadian dollars. To calculate quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs), caregivers documented their children's quality of life using the Health Status Classification System Preschool Version (HSCSPV) and the Health Utility Index 3 for children less or more than 5 years of age, respectively. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were used to represent the uncertainty. Several sensitivity analyses were conducted (e.g., change in Triple P intervention costs).
resultsThe trial recruited 502 caregivers (93% female, mean age [standard deviation] of 36 years [6.7]) of 502 children (41% female, mean age of 3.8 years [SD = 1.4]). The differences in 12-month societal costs and QALYs between Triple P and TAU were $121 (95% Confidence interval [CI]: -$258, $486) and 0.009 (95% CI: -0.018, 0.039), respectively. The differences in 12-month societal costs and QALYs between COSP and TAU were -$253 (95% CI: -$552, $40) and 0.004 (95% CI: -0.026, 0.035), respectively. Assuming that society was willing to spend up to $100,000 for each additional QALY gained, the probabilities that Triple P and COSP were cost-effective compared to TAU were 0.71 and 0.68, respectively. The results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main analyses.
conclusionsThe trial results suggest that compared to TAU, Triple P and COSP represent efficient use of public resources.
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.