Previous research on the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and child and adolescent antisocial behaviour has produced mixed findings showing variation in the strength of association. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarise evidence on the relationship between socioeconomic status and broadly conceptualised antisocial behaviour, investigating variation across a range of antisocial subtypes and other potential moderators, including age, sex and informant. We identified 133 studies containing data suitable for effect size calculation, and 139 independent effect sizes were analysed (total N=339868). The global meta-analysis showed that lower family socioeconomic status was associated with higher levels of antisocial behaviour. Moderation analyses revealed this relationship was stronger where callous-unemotional traits were the outcome, and where antisocial behaviour was reported by parents or teachers rather than self-reported. The relationship between family SES and antisocial behaviour, however, was independent of higher-level constructs such as national income inequality. These results indicate that SES can be considered a robust correlate of broadly conceptualised antisocial behaviour but the strength of this relationship may depend on the antisocial subtype under investigation and the design of the study.

BackgroundEarly childhood interventions can have both immediate and long-term positive effects on cognitive, behavioural, health and education outcomes. Fathers are underrepresented in interventions focusing on the well-being of children. However, father participation may be critical for intervention effectiveness, especially for parenting interventions for child externalising problems. To date, there has been very little research conducted to understand the low rates of father participation and to facilitate the development of interventions to meet the needs of fathers. This study examined fathers’ experiences of, and preferences for, parenting interventions as well as perceptions of barriers to participation. It also examined how these factors were associated with child externalising behaviour problems, and explored the predictors of participation in parenting interventions.MethodsA community sample of 1001 fathers of children aged 2–16 years completed an online survey about experiences with parenting interventions, perceived barriers to participation, the importance of different factors in their decision to attend, and preferred content and delivery methods. They also completed ratings of their child’s behaviour using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.ResultsOverall, 15% of fathers had participated in a parenting intervention or treatment for child behaviour, with significantly higher rates of participation for fathers of children with high versus low levels of externalising problems. Fathers rated understanding what is involved in the program and knowing that the facilitator is trained as the two most important factors in their decision to participate. There were several barriers to participation that fathers of children with high-level externalising problems were more likely to endorse, across practical barriers and help-seeking attitudes, compared to fathers of children with low-level externalising problems. Almost two-thirds of fathers of children with high-level externalising behaviour had not participated in a parenting intervention or treatment. The only significant predictors of intervention participation were severity of child externalising behaviour problems and child age.ConclusionsThe findings have important implications for services seeking to increase father engagement and highlight a number of strategies to enhance the promotion and delivery of parenting interventions to fathers. These strategies include more public health messaging about parenting programs and the importance of father participation.

Parenting programmes are one of the best researched and most effective interventions for reducing child mental health problems. The success of such programmes, however, is largely dependent on their reach and parental engagement. Rates of parental enrolment and attendance are highly variable, and in many cases very low; this is especially true of father involvement in parenting programmes. This paper proposes a conceptual model of parental engagement in parenting programmes—the CAPE model (Connect, Attend, Participate, Enact) that builds on recent models by elaborating on the interdependent stages of engagement, and its interparental or systemic context. That is, we argue that a comprehensive model of parental engagement will best entail a process from connection to enactment of learned strategies in the child’s environment, and involve consideration of individual parents (both mothers and fathers) as well as the dynamics of the parenting team. The model provides a framework for considering parent engagement as well as associated facilitators and mechanisms of parenting change such as parenting skills, self-efficacy, attributions, and the implementation context. Empirical investigation of the CAPE model could be used to further our understanding of parental engagement, its importance for programme outcomes, and mechanisms of change. This will guide future intervention refinement and developments as well as change in clinical practice.

Evidence-based parenting interventions have been developed and evaluated largely with mothers. This study examined practitioner reports of rates of father attendance, barriers to engagement, organizational support for father-inclusive practice, participation in training in father engagement, and competencies in working with fathers. It also explored predictors of practitioner competence and rates of father attendance. Practitioners (N = 210) who delivered parenting interventions completed an online survey. Participants reported high levels of confidence in engaging fathers, but only one in three had participated in training and levels of father attendance in parenting interventions were low. Logistic regressions showed that high levels of practitioner competence were predicted by participation in training. Moderate levels of father attendance (vs. low levels) were predicted by greater number of years of experience while high levels of attendance (vs. low levels) were predicted by greater experience, higher levels of competence and higher levels of organizational support. The implications of the findings to informing policy and practice for enhancing father engagement are discussed.

Objective: Given the increasing research and practice interest in father engagement, this article aimed to develop a clinical narrative integrating the extant research literature to distil key practice recommendations for enhancing father engagement in parenting interventions for child wellbeing. Method: A narrative review of research on father engagement in interventions for child wellbeing was conducted, to identify and distil evidence-based policies and practices to enhance father engagement for practitioners and organisations. Results: Six broad policy and practice recommendations are provided that pertain to: engaging the parenting team, avoiding a father deficit model, increasing father awareness of parenting interventions, ensuring father-inclusive program content and delivery, increasing organisational support for father-inclusive practice, and increasing professional father engagement training. Conclusion: This review provides practitioners with guidelines for enhancing father engagement based on the available research. It also provides recommendations for further research regarding the effectiveness of strategies to enhance father engagement.