Individual and Group Based Parenting for Improving Psychosocial Outcomes for Teenage Parents and Their Children

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of individual and/or group based parenting programmes in improving psychosocial and developmental outcomes in teenage mothers and their children. The findings of the review are based on four randomised controlled trials, and are therefore limited. The results suggest, however, that parenting programmes may be effective in improving a range of psychosocial and developmental outcomes for teenage mothers and their children. Further research is needed, particularly that which includes long‐term follow‐up of the children of teen parents and the role of young fathers as well as young mothers. Synopsis There is evidence from a range of studies which suggests adverse child outcomes for the children of teenage parents. Parenting programmes are increasingly being used to promote the well‐being of parents and children, and this review aims to establish whether they can improve outcomes for teenage parents and their children. The findings of the review are based on a small number of studies, and are therefore limited. The results suggest, however, that parenting programmes may be effective in improving a range of psychosocial and developmental outcomes for teenage mothers and their children. Further research is needed, particularly that which includes long‐term follow‐up of the children of teen parents and the role of young fathers as well as young mothers. Abstract BackgroundThe rate of births to teenage parentsRates of births to teenage parents are high and there is also a high incidence of poor outcomes among the children of teenage parents including developmental and learning problems, and child maltreatment. Parenting programmes may have an important role to play in improving outcomes for both teenage parents and their children. ObjectivesThe aim of this review was to examine the effectiveness of individual and/or group based parenting programmes in improving psychosocial and developmental outcomes in teenage mothers and their children. Search strategyA range of biomedical and social science databases were searched including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychLIT, Sociofile, Social Science Citation Index, ASSIA, the Cochrane Library including SPECTR, CENTRAL, National Research Register (NRR) and ERIC. Selection criteriaOnly randomised controlled trials were included in which participants had been randomly allocated to an experimental and a control group, the latter being a waiting‐list, no‐treatment or a placebo control group. Studies had to include at least one standardised instrument measuring maternal psychosocial health or infant health and development. Data collection & analysisThe included studies were critically appraised using a number of criteria including the method of allocation concealment. The treatment effect for each outcome in each study was standardised by dividing the mean difference in post‐intervention scores for the intervention and treatment group, by the pooled standard deviation, to produce an effect size. Due to the presence of signif...

Using Methodological Search Filters to Facilitate Evidence-Based Social Work Practice

“…In combination with the methodological filters, results were also varied. In Medline, hits ranged from 14 (Littell et al 2005) to 27,178 (Scher et al 2006); in PsycINFO they ranged from 50 (Coren and Barlow 2004) to 6,239 (Scher et al 2006). …”

“…Sensitivity ranged from 0 (Coren and Barlow 2004) to 0.88 (Scher et al 2006) in PsycINFO and from 0.67 (Barlow and Parsons 2005;Ekeland et al 2005) to 1.00 (Barlow and Parsons 2005;Coren and Barlow 2004;Littell et al 2005) in Medline. The EFFECTS filter had the best sensitivity scores in PsycINFO, achieving the highest in 5 out of 7 reviews, with an average of 0.67.…”

“…The total number of articles that could possibly be found in PsycINFO ranged from two (Coren and Barlow 2004) to 20 (Ekeland et al 2005;Littell et al 2005) with an average of 11. In Medline, possible hits ranged from one (Coren and Barlow 2004) to 18 (Scher et al 2006) with an average of seven. Once the number of possible studies was found, content terms were combined with each of the filters.…”

“…Once the number of possible studies was found, content terms were combined with each of the filters. Hits from the combination of filters and review search terms in PsycINFO ranged from zero (Coren and Barlow 2004) to 16 (Littell et al 2005) and, in Medline, from one (Coren and Barlow 2004) to 16 (Scher et al 2006). …”

“…Thus, there were 12 systematic reviews which met our inclusion criteria. Five were used as pilot studies (Barlow et al 2003;Kristjansson et al 2007;MacDonald and Turner 2007;Smedslund et al 2007;Zwi et al 2007) and the remaining seven were used to test the filters (Barlow and Parsons 2005;Coren and Barlow 2004;Ekeland et al 2005;Littell et al 2005;MacDonald and Turner 2007;Mayo-Wilson et al 2008;Scher et al 2006).…”