Could scale-up of parenting programmes improve child disruptive behaviour and reduce social inequalities? Using individual participant data meta-analysis to establish for whom programmes are effective and cost-effective

Abstract

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full PHR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/phr. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Public Health Research journalReports are published in Public Health Research (PHR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the PHR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Public Health Research are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. PHR programmeThe Public Health Research (PHR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), evaluates public health interventions, providing new knowledge on the benefits, costs, acceptability and wider impacts of non-NHS interventions intended to improve the health of the public and reduce inequalities in health. The scope of the programme is multi-disciplinary and broad, covering a range of interventions that improve public health. The Public Health Research programme also complements the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme which has a growing portfolio evaluating NHS public health interventions.For more information about the PHR programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/phr This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the PHR programme as project number 12/3070/04. The contractual start date was in November 2013. The final report began editorial review in February 2016 and was accepted for publication in September 2016. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The PHR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the PHR programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the PHR programme or the Department of Health. © Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO 2017. This work was produced by Gardner et al. under the terms of a comm...

Parenting Programs for Underserved Populations in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Issues of Scientific Integrity and Social Justice

“…One important caveat in this definition, however, is that much of the research done to establish the effectiveness of the interventions have been conducted with relatively few disadvantage persons in the trials; and with the majority of the trials in the U.S. (Blinded for review-4; Yancey, Glenn, Ford, & Bell-Lewis, 2017; Yancey, Ortega, & Kumanyika, 2006). As such, implementing these interventions in LMIC represent challenges in that the effect of EBPIs are not the same for everyone (Gardner et al, 2017;Leitjen et al, 2018;vab Aar et al, 2017). With such drawbacks, we would like to warn the potential assumption that if an intervention has evidence in HIC, it can be implemented in LMIC without previously examining the context.…”

“…However, data has shown that a third of the families exposed to parenting interventions fail to show improvement (REF). While much needs to be known about which components from the interventions help whom, some scholars have hypothesized that variables such as contextual factors may play a role (Gardner et al, 2017). For example, time out may be received differently by White American parents used to this technique in the US compared to immigrant parents or parents in LMIC (Blinded for review-7; .…”

An overview of reviews on strategies to reduce health inequalities

“…Sixty two LRs were included in the implementation strategies domain, of which six were of high quality [ 18 , 22 – 24 , 58 , 59 ]. The category of interventions targeting specific practices and conditions was the most frequent (Table 2 ).…”

Advancing mental health equality: a mapping review of interventions, economic evaluations and barriers and facilitators

“…The inclusion criteria were met by 128 studies; 115 were primary studies and 13 were systematic reviews [147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159]. Relevant data were extracted and tabulated to map the studies (additional file 2); separate tables summarised relevant systematic reviews (see Table 2 and additional file 3).…”

“…For research question 2, only 6 economic evaluations were included (Table 7); these were cost-effectiveness studies of which 3 were also identified in research question 1 [100,119,152]. Five studies examined population variables related to socioeconomic factors: 3 studies were of children [100,108,152], 1 looked at pregnant women [79] and another at adults eligible for Medicaid in the USA [119]. The last study examined the cost-effectiveness of a healthcheck intervention for people with learning disabilities [121].…”