Table 4.

Sensitivity and moderator analyses

	Publication bias		Control type
Outcome	Egger’s probability	Study design (experimental/quasi-experimental)1	Control type (active/inactive)2	Inactive control3	Parent sex (male/female)4	Degree of support (unguided/partially guided)5
Anxiety	0.267	N/A	t = − 1.816, p = 0.148	N/A	t = 0.067, p = 0.954	t = 1.667, p = 0.13
Depression	0.352	t = 0.926, p = 0.418	t = − 0.418, p = 0.691	N/A	t = 0.242, p = 0.841	t = 0.926, p = 0.418
Parent satisfaction	0.127	t = − 5.561, p = 0.021	N/A	N/A	t = -0.729, p = 0.562	t = − 5.561, p = 0.021
Parent self-efficacy	0.44	t = − 0.435, p = 0.685	t = 2.96, p = 0.021	d = 0.71, p = 0.013	t = 0.436, p = 0.714	t = − 0.435, p = 0.685
Parent–child interaction	0.096	t = 0.512, p = 0.665	t = 0.421, p = 0.697	N/A	t = − 0.236, p = 0.834	t = 0.512, p = 0.665
Social support	0.701	N/A	t = 5.252, p = 0.003	d = 0.407, p = 0.038	t = − 4.218, p = 0.008	t = − 1.066, p = 0.335
Stress	0.341	t = − 0.361, p = 0.729	t = − 0.488, p = 0.641	N/A	t = − 0.266, p = 0.825	t = − 0.361, p = 0.729

Bold values denote statistical significance at the p < 0.05 level

¹Sensitivity analyses compared experimental to quasi-experimental study designs

²Sensitivity analyses for control type compared active to inactive controls. Some outcomes included only experimental designs, indicated by N/A (i.e., not assessed)

³For analyses sensitive to the inclusion of active controls, analyses were rerun for only inactive control studies

⁴To assess the relationship between sex and intervention efficacy a meta-regression, was performed with female proportion as the independent variable

⁵To assess the impact of guidance during intervention, a meta-regression was performed with guidance type (fully self-guided or partially self-guided) as the independent variable