Patty Leijten,G J Melendez-Torres,Sophia Backhaus,Frances Gardner,Annabeth P Groenman,Tycho J Dekkers,Barbara J van den Hoofdakker,Liina Björg Laas Sigurðardóttir,Danni Liu,Marjolein Luman,Lara Mansur,Merlin Nieterau,Saskia van der Oord,Geertjan Overbeek,Constantina Psyllou,Karen Rienks,Susanne Schulz,John R Weisz
{"title":"Have parenting programs for disruptive child behavior become less effective?","authors":"Patty Leijten,G J Melendez-Torres,Sophia Backhaus,Frances Gardner,Annabeth P Groenman,Tycho J Dekkers,Barbara J van den Hoofdakker,Liina Björg Laas Sigurðardóttir,Danni Liu,Marjolein Luman,Lara Mansur,Merlin Nieterau,Saskia van der Oord,Geertjan Overbeek,Constantina Psyllou,Karen Rienks,Susanne Schulz,John R Weisz","doi":"10.1111/jcpp.70049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nBehavioral parenting programs have been exhaustively studied over the past five decades. We used this wealth of research to examine how estimates of parenting program effects have evolved over time, and if any time trends in effect estimates can be explained by trial, sample, or intervention characteristics.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nWe based our meta-analysis on a systematic search of 22 international and regional databases, gray literature, and 4 trial registries for randomized controlled trials of behavioral parenting programs.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nWe identified 244 eligible trials (1,100 effect sizes; 28,916 families) from 36 countries. Parenting program effects initially reduced and then stabilized. More recent trials used more rigorous methods (e.g., more active control conditions and less risk of bias), samples that were generally older and included more girls, and evaluated interventions that on average had fewer sessions, were more often delivered by independent staff and made less use of time-out. However, none of these developments explained the initial reduction in effect size estimates during the first decades.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nOur findings suggest that estimates of parenting program effects are currently stable: Effect sizes are no longer reducing but there is also no evidence of increases over time. Experimentation with the content, delivery, and personalization of parenting programs is needed to identify ways to increase program effects.","PeriodicalId":187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.70049","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Behavioral parenting programs have been exhaustively studied over the past five decades. We used this wealth of research to examine how estimates of parenting program effects have evolved over time, and if any time trends in effect estimates can be explained by trial, sample, or intervention characteristics.
METHODS
We based our meta-analysis on a systematic search of 22 international and regional databases, gray literature, and 4 trial registries for randomized controlled trials of behavioral parenting programs.
RESULTS
We identified 244 eligible trials (1,100 effect sizes; 28,916 families) from 36 countries. Parenting program effects initially reduced and then stabilized. More recent trials used more rigorous methods (e.g., more active control conditions and less risk of bias), samples that were generally older and included more girls, and evaluated interventions that on average had fewer sessions, were more often delivered by independent staff and made less use of time-out. However, none of these developments explained the initial reduction in effect size estimates during the first decades.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that estimates of parenting program effects are currently stable: Effect sizes are no longer reducing but there is also no evidence of increases over time. Experimentation with the content, delivery, and personalization of parenting programs is needed to identify ways to increase program effects.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (JCPP) is a highly regarded international publication that focuses on the fields of child and adolescent psychology and psychiatry. It is recognized for publishing top-tier, clinically relevant research across various disciplines related to these areas. JCPP has a broad global readership and covers a diverse range of topics, including:
Epidemiology: Studies on the prevalence and distribution of mental health issues in children and adolescents.
Diagnosis: Research on the identification and classification of childhood disorders.
Treatments: Psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological interventions for child and adolescent mental health.
Behavior and Cognition: Studies on the behavioral and cognitive aspects of childhood disorders.
Neuroscience and Neurobiology: Research on the neural and biological underpinnings of child mental health.
Genetics: Genetic factors contributing to the development of childhood disorders.
JCPP serves as a platform for integrating empirical research, clinical studies, and high-quality reviews from diverse perspectives, theoretical viewpoints, and disciplines. This interdisciplinary approach is a key feature of the journal, as it fosters a comprehensive understanding of child and adolescent mental health.
The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry is published 12 times a year and is affiliated with the Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health (ACAMH), which supports the journal's mission to advance knowledge and practice in the field of child and adolescent mental health.