Abstract
Background
Universal parenting programmes aim to strengthen parent-child relationships and support parental well-being during the transition to parenthood. While these programmes can improve parental confidence, self-efficacy, and child social-emotional development, achieving sustained delivery in routine practice remains a major challenge. Understanding the factors that facilitate or hinder their implementation is essential for optimizing their public health impact. This review synthesizes qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to the implementation and sustainability of universally accessible parental training interventions.
Methods
We conducted a systematic qualitative review following PRISMA guidelines. Ten databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, SocIndex, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, Sociological Abstracts, ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched in May 2024, and updated in July 2025, for peer-reviewed qualitative studies published after 2003 in English. Studies were eligible if they evaluated universal parenting interventions in high-income countries and explored aspects of implementation or sustainability. Interventions targeting specific clinical populations were excluded. Data extraction was conducted by multiple authors, and reporting transparency was assessed using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ). Findings were synthesized using Normalization Process Theory (NPT) to identify how interventions become embedded in practice.
Results
Eight studies from six countries were included, covering interventions delivered in primary care, community health, and web-based settings. Across NPT constructs, key facilitators included strong stakeholder engagement, peer and managerial support among participants, and flexible delivery models that fit local contexts. Recurrent barriers were limited time and resources, insufficient training and weak managerial or policy support. Parent engagement was sometimes constrained by perceptions of limited programme relevance or logistical obstacles, highlighting the importance of clear communication and iterative adaptation to local needs.
Conclusions
Universal parenting interventions can contribute to improved parental and child outcomes when effectively integrated into routine practice. Sustainable implementation depends on early co-design with stakeholders, alignment with existing health services, and sustained managerial and policy support. Embedding feedback loops and mechanisms for adaptation can strengthen engagement and ensure that interventions remain feasible and relevant over time. Future research should focus on strategies to enhance reach and to assess long-term population-level effects on child well-being.
Systematic Review Registration
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024559474, identifier CRD42024559474
Keywords: child health, implementation science, mental health, parent-child relations, primary health care
Introduction
In many countries, increasing rates of mental health problems are a major concern, and in high income countries, an estimated one in eight children aged eighteen or younger have been diagnosed with a mental disorder (1). Research shows a protective effect of positive parent-infant interaction against childhood psychological problems (2–6), and that parental mental well-being is a major determinant of children's healthy social and emotional development (7, 8). The early parent-infant relationship plays a crucial role in nurturing the child's emotional well-being and supporting healthy development (9–11). Healthy early relationships are also the key to healthy brain development and long-term well-being (12). The transition to parenthood can be experienced as overwhelming and stressful. Interventions focusing on strengthening parenting knowledge and skills through parental training have been shown to help parents adjust to their new life circumstances and to improve parent-infant relationships (13, 14). Implementing interventions that support parents in early parenthood and enhance both parental mental health and the parent-child relationship are therefore important strategies to promote child development and represent valuable public health interventions (15, 16).
Much research supports the success of targeted parenting programmes for families experiencing challenges (16, 17). Universal parenting programmes are public health interventions offered to all parents regardless of risk status. In universally offered programmes even small average effects can yield substantial population-level benefit—the prevention paradox. The effectiveness of universal parenting programmes is debated, as some studies find no evidence for positive effects of universal parenting interventions (18), whereas other indicates increased positive parenting behaviours, parental confidence, and parental self-efficacy, while simultaneously reducing harsh disciplinary practices, punitive behaviours, and parental stress (19, 20). In addition, some universal parenting interventions have demonstrated potential benefits in improving children's emotional regulation and social skills, as well as reducing their problematic behaviours (19, 20). Universal parenting programmes are perceived as less stigmatizing, given their inclusive approach to family support and have the capability to engage families who may otherwise remain undetected (19–21). The impact of parenting programmes is contingent upon the quality of their implementation. Little is known, however, about how parenting programmes are implemented in real-world settings (22), which underscores the importance of understanding the barriers and facilitators to implementation. Implementation phases can be viewed through different frameworks and theories (23). In this review, we understand sustainability as the continued delivery of an intervention as part of routine practice after the initial implementation period, encompassing both maintenance of core components and integration into existing workflows. Qualitative systematic reviews can be used to collect and summarize existing knowledge of implementation processes and challenges (24). The aim of this qualitative systematic review is to examine barriers and facilitators to implementation and sustainability of universally accessible parental training interventions for parents of children aged 0–6 years.
Methods
The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024559474).
Search strategy and sources
A systematic and comprehensive search was conducted 12th May 2024 and updated 30th July 2025 in the following 10 databases: PubMed, PsycInfo, SocIndex, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, Sociological abstract, ERIC, Scopus and Web of Science. The search strategy (see full search string in Supplementary File 1) was constructed using a combination of terms across three distinct conceptual categories, linked by the Boolean operators OR (within categories) and AND (between categories). The categories comprised: 1) Population (e.g., parent), 2) Phenomena of Interest (e.g., interaction) and 3) Context (e.g., primary care) (25). Terms were applied to searches in both titles and abstracts, and, where applicable, supplemented by database-specific thesauruses to enhance precision. When applicable, filters for children in the database were used.
Study selection
Three authors (MLP, HRD, GO) performed the study selection following PRISMA guidelines. First, titles and abstracts were screened by two authors and disagreements were resolved jointly. Selected articles were screened as full texts and data were extracted accordingly.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
In addition to exploring elements of implementation or sustainability for interventions promoting parent-child relationships, search criteria included interventions with potential to be universally accessible (offered to all parents in a defined population, regardless of economic and health risk status). Interventions accessible within larger demographic groups were included. Furthermore, the following exclusion criteria were applied: middle- and low-income countries, interventions targeting parents or children with specific and/or severe illness, cognitive disabilities etc. (e.g., postpartum depression, cancer), interventions targeting children, families considered at-risk, and quantitative studies. The studies had to be peer-reviewed, published within the last 20 years (2004–2025) and available in English. See Table 1 for inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 1.
Inclusion- and exclusion criteria.
| Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
|---|---|
| Population | |
|
|
| Design | |
|
|
| Publication type | |
|
|
Quality assessment
Two authors (MLP and HRD) applied the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research checklist (COREQ) to perform an assessment of the quality of transparency in the included studies (26). Uncertainties arising during this process were discussed and resolved in collaboration with a third author (GO).
Data extraction
For all included studies, we extracted data on study characteristics including country, number of respondents and data collection methods, characteristics of the parental training programme and findings about facilitators and barriers to implementation. In mixed-methods studies, we only extracted the available qualitative data. The qualitative synthesis was based on the findings (results) sections of the included articles—author-reported results and participant quotations—while descriptive characteristics were extracted separately for Table 2. This included country, number of respondents and data collection methods, and characteristics of the parental training programme.
Table 2.
Overview of the characteristics of the eight included studies.
| Author, country | Aim | Name and details of intervention study | Accessibility, target group | Study setting (health professionals) | Respondents and data collection method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baldwin et al. (29), UK | The study aimed to explore health visitors' use of the programme Promotional Guide with fathers, their assessment of father's mental health and facilitators and barriers when using the programme in practice. | Promotional Guide (PG)
|
Universal, mothers and fathers | Through the national Healthy Child Programme (health visitors) | 18 health visitors from four London districts served by two National Health Service organizations were included through 11 interviews and 7 observations using PG in practice |
| Callejas et al. (30), Canary Isles, Spain | The study has a qualitative and a quantitative aim, whereas the qualitative aim is to explore facilitators' perspectives of the initial implementation of the hybrid version of the GH&W programme. | Gaining health and wellbeing from birth to three (GH&W)
|
Universal and selective, parents | Public primary healthcare centres (nurses, paediatricians and social workers) | 50 healthcare professionals from 17 public primary healthcare centres completed a survey* and of those 31 participated in 6 focus group (L2 = 12 healthcare professionals, L3 = 19 healthcare professionals) |
| Connor et al. (31), Baltimore | The aim was to assess stakeholder perspectives on facilitators and barriers, as a measure of the feasibility of implementing CP in FQHCs in Baltimore. | Centering Parenting (CP)
|
Low-income population, mother and infant | Federally qualified health centres (FQHC) (two clinicians at each CP, e.g., paediatrician, family physician, nurse practitioner, and e.g., social worker, lactation consultant) | Interviews with 26 mothers and 16 clinicians, staff and administrators |
| Hickey et al. (32), Ireland | The aim of the study is to provide an overview of the development and setting up of the PIN programme including identification of the facilitating and inhibitive factors influencing both its roll-out and the partnership working in the initial phases of implementation | Parent and Infant Programme (PIN)
|
Universal, parents | Primary health care and community-based services | Documentary review* and interviews with 19 key informants involved in programme development and implementation planning and including community-based service managers (n = 4), Public Health Nurses and Nurse Managers (n = 6), family support workers and community-based practitioners (n = 9) |
| Hickey et al. (33), Ireland | The aim of the study was to explore the successes and challenges of implementing the PIN programme-in real-world, community-based settings. | Parent and Infant Programme (PIN) The intervention is the same as Hickey et al. (32) |
Universal, parents | Primary health care and community-based services | Documentary analysis*, Interviews (Mothers (n = 22), Community-based service managers (n = 4), Public health nurses and nurse managers (n = 6), family support workers and community-based practitioners/volunteers (n = 12) Focus group with parents (n = 1) and with programme implementers (n = 6) including (Mothers (n = 5), fathers (n = 1), programme facilitators and implementers (n = 18) |
| Patterson et al. (34), UK | The aim is to report the usefulness of the programme to the parents, aspects they found helpful and why, and the extent to which they had observed changes in their own and their children's mental health and behaviour as a result of the programme. | Webster-Stratton Parents and Children Series parenting programme courses
|
Parents with children who scored in the worst half of the distribution in the Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory. Children with learning difficulties or who were receiving treatment for behaviour problems were excluded. | General practice | Questionnaire, tape recordings of supervision meetings and interviews with parents (n = 26) |
| Saxild et al. (35), Denmark | The aim of the study was to explore the attitudes and experience of general practice clinicians who directed their patients to the Resilience Programme web-portal. | Resilience Programme (FamilieTrivsel)
|
Universal, mothers | Web-based intervention, informed at primary preventive antenatal consultation in general practice | Interviews with clinicians; general practitioners (n = 11), practice midwives (n = 3), practice nurse (n = 1) |
| Westerlund et al. (36), Sweden | The overall aim was to investigate the involved actors' views on factors likely to affect the initial implementation of ICDP and strategies used to manage them. | International Child Development Programme (ICDP)
|
Universal, mothers and fathers | A county council with 40 health centres providing tax-funded healthcare services | Questionnaires* Interviews (n = 21) with preschool teachers (n = 3), child health nurses (n = 2), midwife (n = 1), social worker (n = 1), HC managers (n = 6), CHC managers (n = 2), CHC psychologists (n = 4), Salut facilitators (n = 4) |
Data not used in this review due to lack of availability or data being quantitative.
Data analysis
We used a directed (deductive) qualitative content analysis with the Normalization Process Theory (NPT) constructs as the coding frame (27, 28). NPT provides a robust lens for understanding how complex interventions become embedded and sustained in routine practice by examining four key constructs: coherence (how stakeholders understand and make sense of the intervention, e.g., staff understanding the programme's purpose), cognitive participation (how stakeholders engage with the intervention, e.g., staff and parents choosing to engage), collective action (how the intervention is enacted in practice, e.g., the practical work of delivering it), and reflexive monitoring (how the intervention is appraised and adapted over time) (27).
The initial coding of data was performed through a directed (deductive) qualitative content analysis (28) with the four NPT constructs as a priori categories. One author (MLP) conducted the coding using NVivo 14, and the process was iteratively refined through discussions with a second author (GO) to ensure consistency and reflexivity in the analytical approach. Data segments that did not clearly align with the four core constructs were discussed collaboratively and re-interpreted within the NPT framework. Coded segments were additionally classified as facilitators or barriers. This approach enabled a theory-informed synthesis of the barriers and facilitators to implementation and sustainability across diverse intervention contexts.
Results
Study characteristics
As shown in the PRISMA flow diagram below (Figure 1), 20,124 studies were identified after the removal of duplicates. 20,066 studies were excluded after title/abstract screening and 50 studies were excluded after full-text screening, primary due to wrong aim, wrong study design or wrong patient population. Eight studies were selected for inclusion in this qualitative systematic review. The small number of eligible studies itself reflects the scarcity of qualitative implementation research on genuinely universal programmes: most records were excluded for reporting only quantitative outcomes or targeting at-risk populations. The included studies were conducted across the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, and the United States and published between 2005 and 2024. The interventions included conversational tools, group-based parenting programmes, hybrid digital-in-person models and fully web-based psychoeducational programmes. Across studies, the programmes targeted parents of infants and young children and were typically delivered by health visitors, public health nurses, general practice clinicians or community practitioners. Data collection methods were predominantly qualitative, often based on interviews or focus groups with health professionals and parents. Several studies supplemented qualitative data with surveys or documentary analyses. Respondents included a wide range of stakeholders involved in programme delivery or participation, such as health visitors, nurses, midwives, general practitioners, programme facilitators and parents themselves. The characteristics of the eight included studies are shown in Table 2.
Figure 1.
The PRISMA flow diagram for the qualitative systematic review.
Quality assessment
The COREQ scores ranged from 4 to 19, with a mean of 15.5 and a median of 17. Although the COREQ scores indicate variability in reporting quality, all studies were included in the synthesis.
Results of the qualitative synthesis
The results are presented according to the four constructs of NPT: Coherence, Cognitive Participation, Collective Action and Reflexive Monitoring. The construct Collective Action is most comprehensively covered and is further described with the four sub-components which are part of the original NPT formulation of Collective Action (27): Interactional Workability (the everyday work of using the intervention in interactions between professionals and parents), Relational Integration (the work of building and sustaining the knowledge and trust that hold the new practice together), Skill Set Workability (provider skills and competence) and Contextual Integration (organisational resources and support) (27). Table 3 provides an overview of the most covered facilitators and barriers in each NPT-construct.
Table 3.
The most covered facilitators and barriers in each NPT component.
| NPT construct | Facilitator | Barrier |
|---|---|---|
| Coherence | ||
| Cognitive participation | ||
| Collective action | ||
| Reflexive monitoring |
Coherence
The studies presented few findings about how professionals and parents initially made sense of the interventions. Some studies explicitly reported acceptability and sense-making of the interventions among health professionals (30, 33, 35, 36), e.g., in Saxild et al. where a health professional stated: “I believe that there exists a general lack of focus on mental well-being in families with children—not just in general practice, throughout the healthcare system” (p. 3) (35). Some health professionals requested sufficient initial information about the programmes (30, 36). For example, some practitioners only received information about the programme on the first day of training, stating: “We really do not know what is going to happen next because we felt from the beginning that we had not received any information” (p. 134) (36). Some studies reported that health professionals experienced better communication with the parents after introducing the intervention (29, 30, 33). For instance, in the study of Callejas et al. health professionals stated how the intervention had positively affected their professional development, e.g., through improvements in the collaboration with the parents and more awareness of the parents' needs (30).
Cognitive participation
Securing stakeholder buy-in was identified as essential in multiple studies (29–36). The delivery mode (e.g., group-based formats) was often highlighted as a facilitator or barrier to engagement by both parents and health professionals (29–35). Most health professionals found the group-based format beneficial and parents expressed a sense of being acknowledged and supported by peers, feeling less isolated in their role as parents, learning from others in similar situations, or obtaining answers to questions one might not feel comfortable asking oneself, but were raised by others (33, 34). Some mothers were enthusiastic about the diversity of the group (31), while discomfort with group settings and stigma around parenting programmes limited engagement for others (33). The health professionals' ability to establish a warm, non-judgmental and supportive group environment improved parents' engagement and satisfaction (33, 34). Hickey et al. reported some minor differences between health professionals and parents; where health professionals found the programme relevant for all parents, some experienced parents felt the content was less relevant (33) and Saxild et al. found that the programme appealed more to first-time, resourceful mothers than to broader target groups (35). Callejas et al. reported low enrolment rates and low commitment to sessions (30), while Baldwin et al. reported not having a clear system to invite fathers specifically (29) as potential recruitment barriers. Setting influenced experience: a home setting was described as ideal for privacy and more relaxed parents according to the health professionals (29), while transport and lack of childcare support limited attendance (33) and family practice was seen as a supportive setting for conversations (35).
Allocated time and managerial support was crucial for professionals' willingness to commit to the programme (29, 32, 33, 35, 36). Perceived lack of time hindered engagement in delivering the programme (29, 33, 35), and when preparatory time was provided, it reduced stress and enhanced commitment (33). This is stated in Saxild et al. as: “Clinicians were initially enthusiastic about introducing the website. However, the level of motivation started to diminish in part because introducing the interventions content was time-consuming” (p. 3) (35). Ongoing support improved stakeholder's confidence and helped address early fears or challenges and the importance of system-level buy-in for effective implementation was stated in Hickey et al.: “If you don't have that buy-in from the top, that's what kind of hinders it” (33).
Collective action
Interactional workability
Improved communication, supported by specific elements of the interventions, supported implementation (29, 32, 34, 35). The inclusion of fathers was positively noted and the use of topic cards helped guide conversations and facilitate involvement, which were perceived as motivating and supportive for good dialogue (29). Signposting to a website supporting parental mentalization skills might be a helpful conversation starter in general practice, however, Saxild et al. emphasized the importance of sensitive communication when addressing mental health to avoid implying parental inadequacy: “(…) it became apparent that the clinicians' approach and phrasing was crucial to the outcome of such conversations” (p. 4) (35). It was also explained that health professionals modified their language based on their perception of the resourcefulness of mothers (35).
Relational integration
Open, nonjudgmental dialogue and focus on positive group dynamics promoted relevance, trust and peer support, helping parents realize that others faced similar challenges and learning from each other (33–35) and engaging quiet parents required specific facilitation skills (34). Difficulties in gaining access to fathers and lack of continuity in provider contact was a barrier to implementation (29).
Skill set workability
Sufficient training and ongoing support were identified as important for strengthening skill development, and proper training before and during implementation was highly valued (29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36). Saxild et al. found the intervention feasible and that most professionals could integrate the intervention into routine care, implying they had the relevant skills (35). Baldwin et al. (29) highlighted reliance on clinical judgment for deciding whether to include both parents when discussing certain themes. In several studies, however, health professionals called for additional or more in-depth training (29, 30, 33, 36), e.g., due to them not feeling adequately prepared for the introduced programme as in Westerlund et al., where health professionals expressed ambiguity transferring their new knowledge to their work practice without support (36). Hickey et al. identified insufficient practice as a group facilitators as a barrier, while practical experience of running the groups was helpful to promoting adoption (33).
Contextual integration
Most studies described the organisational work needed to fit the intervention into existing routines, including managerial support, time allocation and recognition of workload (29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36). Resource constraints, costs and policy conflicts made prioritization difficult (33, 36). However, some strategies were effective, such as involving management early (32), inter-organisational collaboration (33), considering how the intervention aligns with the existing practice before deciding to implement the intervention (36), ensuring leadership support (29, 30, 33) and peer support from colleagues not directly involved in the intervention (33). Time constraints emerged as a consistent barrier affecting content depth, participation, and balance with other responsibilities (29, 30, 33, 35, 36). Baldwin et al. illustrated this tension: “.We understand the values of the promotional guide, (..), but we also have to come back to the office and tick boxes, (..), and it is that balance which is tricky” (p. 105) (29).
Reflexive monitoring
Satisfaction and concerns about the interventions were described across the included studies (29, 30, 32–36). In Patterson et al. parents expressed a need for more support or follow-up sessions after the course ended (34) and in Callejas et al. professionals appraised the programme as valuable, but expressed concern about sustainability as many felt the intervention would be more feasible if activities were embedded in existing schedules (30). Similarly, staff in the PIN studies described how involving key decision-makers, gathering regular feedback from both professionals and parents, and proactive implementation planning supported feasibility and long-term integration (32, 33). In Saxild et al. health professionals appraised the fit and value of the intervention, however they questioned whether the early antenatal visit was the optimal time to introduce the website (35). Some health professionals voiced frustration about the lack of systematic follow-up and evaluation (29, 36). As one participant in Westerlund et al. noted: “If you never evaluate, you can never know. How can someone put so much money, time, and effort into something, an education or programme or whatever, and not make sure they get what they expect out of it?” (p. 134) (36).
Discussion
This review identified a set of interrelated factors influencing the successful implementation and sustainability of universal parenting interventions. Applying Normalization Process Theory (NPT) highlighted that stakeholder engagement, peer and managerial support, and flexible delivery models consistently facilitated embedding interventions in practice. Conversely, structural barriers—such as insufficient time, inadequate training, and weak managerial or policy support—recurrently undermined sustainability. These findings closely mirror insights from broader implementation reviews, including Jürgensen et al., who emphasise the central role of facilitator preparedness, organisational support, and clarity of roles in shaping implementation quality (37). Similarly, Pinto et al. demonstrate that real-world implementation of parenting programmes is often underreported, particularly regarding sustainability, feasibility, and adoption—an issue also apparent in our included studies, where descriptions of implementation processes varied widely (22). This gap underscores the importance of strengthening reflexive monitoring processes and establishing systematic feedback loops to support ongoing adaptation without compromising programme integrity, a point also highlighted in foundational implementation literature (38, 39).
Although universal intervention effect sizes are typically smaller than in targeted interventions—likely due to the lower baseline risk in the general population—universal approaches can offer distinct public health benefits (the prevention paradox) (19, 20, 40). Notably, they have the capacity to engage families who may otherwise remain undetected and are less likely to seek assistance independently (19, 20). In addition, universal preventive programmes are also perceived as less stigmatizing, given their inclusive and non-selective approach to family support, normalising participation (19, 21). In line with existing literature (41, 42), our findings identified logistical barriers, such as transport, lack of childcare support and difficulty in involving fathers, was limiting attendance and creating challenges in parent recruitment. The studies provided limited insight into the initial sense-making (coherence) among parents, e.g., understanding of the programme's purpose and how it could be relevant to them. This absence of detailed reporting on participants' understanding aligns with Pinto et al., who note that implementation outcomes mostly involve fidelity and acceptability, making it difficult to ascertain why programmes succeed in some settings but not in others (22). Our findings are also consistent with those of Jürgensen et al., who observed that facilitators frequently struggle with recruitment, retention, and parents' perceived relevance of programme content (37). To facilitate engagement, flexible delivery methods and clear communication of the benefits of attending the intervention could be highlighted.
Universal programmes, by design, must engage a more diverse parent population and often operate with limited dedicated resources, which can constrain fidelity and adaptation. Evidence demonstrates that certain subpopulations—including ethnic minorities and parents with low literacy levels—may require culturally and linguistically tailored adaptations to fully benefit from these interventions (43). In our analysis, some health professionals modified their language based on their perception of the resourcefulness of the mother, and stakeholders reported difficulty in engaging, for example, fathers. Jürgensen et al. similarly note that facilitators often adapt content to improve cultural fit and accessibility, although such adaptations can unintentionally dilute core components if not guided by a clear logic model (37). Pinto et al. further emphasise that insufficient documentation of adaptations makes it difficult to assess their impact on programme outcomes (22). The same flexibility that lets universal programmes fit local contexts can, if ungoverned by a clear logic model, dilute the core components responsible for effect. Sustaining them therefore requires distinguishing adaptable surface features from non-negotiable core elements. This reinforces the need for flexible delivery methods combined with structured implementation support, enabling stakeholders to accommodate individual circumstances while maintaining programme coherence. Other systematic reviews using NPT-informed analysis of implementation facilitators and barriers have shown similar findings; with facilitators such as practitioner buy-in and adequate professional skills and barriers such as lack of support and competing workloads (44, 45).
Taken together, our findings contribute to a growing body of evidence suggesting that the sustainability of universal parenting programmes depends on a combination of organisational alignment, facilitator competence, and parent-centred communication strategies. While universal programmes can offer substantial population-level benefits, they require consistent managerial and policy support to be embedded effectively in routine practice. Sustainably delivered universal programmes matter precisely because of their role in early intervention to improve children's mental health.
Strengths and limitations
We applied a robust, theory-informed synthesis using NPT and systematically assessed reporting transparency with COREQ. The average COREQ score were 15.5 with a median of 17, which is about equal to what is found in other qualitative systematic reviews (46). The application of NPT enabled a theory-informed synthesis, however, categorizing specific findings was at times challenging, as some spanned multiple constructs. Similar issues of overlap in NPT analysis have been noted previously (47). Inclusion of studies across multiple countries and settings strengthened the transferability of findings. However, heterogeneity in intervention formats and the limited representation of parent perspectives in several studies reduce generalisability. Furthermore, the small number of studies highlights the need for continued research on implementation and long-term sustainability of universal programmes as most studies targeted high-risk populations or studied outcomes quantitatively. As the aim (to synthesise experiential and process accounts of how universal programmes become embedded in routine practice) was qualitative by nature, eligibility was restricted to qualitative data; we acknowledge that implementation can also be studied quantitatively, which may be a limitation of this review.
Implications for research and practice
To enhance sustainability, universal parenting interventions should be co-designed with local stakeholders, integrated with existing health services, and supported by ongoing training and managerial commitment. Routine collection of parent feedback and structured monitoring of adaptations over time could strengthen programme fit and longevity. Future research should focus on:
Mechanisms that foster parent engagement across diverse populations,
Managerial action—protected time, role clarity and recognition of workload—to support both initial commitment and sustained delivery.
Preparing and supporting the workforce to deliver universal programmes within complex, multi-agency service settings
Embedding feasible, routine evaluation mechanisms in real-world practice.
Conclusion
Universal parenting programmes hold promise as scalable public health strategies to strengthen early parent-child relationships and promote family well-being. However, their long-term integration in existing health care settings depends on careful implementation that prioritizes stakeholder engagement, contextual adaptation, and sustained organizational support. By embedding mechanisms for feedback, co-design, and continuous training, these interventions can move beyond pilot phases and deliver meaningful benefits at the population level. Future studies should address persistent engagement barriers and explore strategies for scaling universal interventions while maintaining equity.
Funding Statement
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The study was funded by the TRYG foundation grant number 125227.
Footnotes
Edited by: Federica Mauro, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Reviewed by: Julie Showich Lundgren, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden
Bruna Gomes De Souza, Hospital Universitário Cassiano Antonio Moraes, Brazil
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/supplementary material.
Author contributions
MP: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Software, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Methodology, Project administration, Conceptualization, Validation, Visualization. HD: Writing – review & editing, Software, Conceptualization, Validation, Methodology, Data curation. SS: Writing – review & editing, Validation. IR: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Methodology. MP: Validation, Writing – review & editing. RE: Validation, Writing – review & editing. PW: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Methodology. GO: Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Supervision, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Software, Data curation, Validation, Conceptualization, Project administration, Methodology, Visualization.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fped.2026.1802287/full#supplementary-material
References
- 1.Barican JL, Yung D, Schwartz C, Zheng Y, Georgiades K, Waddell C. Prevalence of childhood mental disorders in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis to inform policymaking. Evid Based Ment Health. (2022) 25(1):36–44. 10.1136/ebmental-2021-300277 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Allely CS, Johnson PCD, Marwick H, Lidstone E, Kočovská E, Puckering C, et al. Prediction of 7-year psychopathology from mother-infant joint attention behaviours: a nested case-control study. BMC Pediatr. (2013) 13(1):147. 10.1186/1471-2431-13-147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Marwick H, Doolin O, Allely CS, McConnachie A, Johnson P, Puckering C, et al. Predictors of diagnosis of child psychiatric disorder in adult–infant social-communicative interaction at 12 months. Res Dev Disabil. (2013) 34(1):562–72. 10.1016/j.ridd.2012.09.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Puckering C, Allely CS, Doolin O, Purves D, McConnachie A, Johnson PCD, et al. Association between parent-infant interactions in infancy and disruptive behaviour disorders at age seven: a nested, case-control ALSPAC study. BMC Pediatr. (2014) 14(1):223. 10.1186/1471-2431-14-223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Scott S, Lewsey J, Thompson L, Wilson P. Early parental physical punishment and emotional and behavioural outcomes in preschool children. Child: Care, Health Dev. (2014) 40(3):337–45. 10.1111/cch.12061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Wilson P, Bradshaw P, Tipping S, Henderson M, Der G, Minnis H. What predicts persistent early conduct problems? Evidence from the growing up in Scotland cohort. J Epidemiol Community Health. (2013) 67(1):76–80. 10.1136/jech-2011-200856 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Shepard SA, Guthrie IK, Murphy BC, Reiser M. Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions: longitudinal relations to quality of children’s social functioning. Child Dev. (1999) 70(2):513–34. 10.1111/1467-8624.00037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Tough SC, Siever JE, Leew S, Johnston DW, Benzies K, Clark D. Maternal mental health predicts risk of developmental problems at 3 years of age: follow up of a community based trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. (2008) 8(1):16. 10.1186/1471-2393-8-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Knudsen EI. Sensitive periods in the development of the brain and behavior. J Cogn Neurosci. (2004) 16(8):1412–25. 10.1162/0898929042304796 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Bowlby J. The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. Int J Psychoanal. (1958) 39(5):350–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Apter G, Devouche E, Gratier M. Early Interaction and Developmental Psychopathology: Volume I: Infancy. 1st ed. Cham: Springer International Publishing; (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kundakovic M, Champagne FA. Early-life experience, epigenetics, and the developing brain. Neuropsychopharmacology. (2015) 40(1):141–53. 10.1038/npp.2014.140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Landry SH, Smith KE, Swank PR, Guttentag C. A responsive parenting intervention: the optimal timing across early childhood for impacting maternal behaviors and child outcomes. Dev Psychol. (2008) 44(5):1335–53. 10.1037/a0013030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Love JM, Kisker EE, Ross C, Raikes H, Constantine J, Boller K, et al. The effectiveness of early head start for 3-year-old children and their parents: lessons for policy and programs. Dev Psychol. (2005) 41(6):885–901. 10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.885 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Poobalan AS, Aucott LS, Ross L, Smith WCS, Helms PJ, Williams JHG. Effects of treating postnatal depression on mother infant interaction and child development: systematic review. Br J Psychiatry. (2007) 191(5):378–86. 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.032789 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Rayce SB, Rasmussen IS, Klest SK, Patras J, Pontoppidan M. Effects of parenting interventions for at-risk parents with infants: a systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ open. (2017) 7(12):e015707. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015707 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Rayce SB, Rasmussen IS, Væver MS, Pontoppidan M. Effects of parenting interventions for mothers with depressive symptoms and an infant: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJPsych Open. (2020) 6(1):e9. 10.1192/bjo.2019.89 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Pontoppidan M, Klest S, Patras J, Rayce S. Effects of universally offered parenting interventions for parents with infants: a systematic review. BMJ Open. (2016) 6:e011706. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011706 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Sanders MR, Kirby JN, Tellegen CL, Day JJ. The triple P-positive parenting program: a systematic review and meta-analysis of a multi-level system of parenting support. Clin Psychol Rev. (2014) 34(4):337–57. 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.04.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Branco MSS, Altafim ERP, Linhares MBM. Universal intervention to strengthen parenting and prevent child maltreatment: updated systematic review. Trauma Violence Abuse. (2022) 23(5):1658–76. 10.1177/15248380211013131 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.De Voss S, Wilson P, Saxild S, Overbeck G. Increasing the psychosocial focus in child developmental assessments: a qualitative study. BMC Pediatr. (2023) 23(1):44. 10.1186/s12887-023-03849-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Pinto R, Canário C, Leijten P, Rodrigo MJ, Cruz O. Implementation of parenting programs in real-world community settings: a scoping review. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. (2024) 27(1):74–90. 10.1007/s10567-023-00465-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. (2015) 10:53. 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. (2009) 26(2):91–108. 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Stern C, Jordan Z, McArthur A. Developing the review question and inclusion criteria. Am J Nurs. (2014) 114(4):53–6. 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000445689.67800.86 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. (2007) 19(6):349–57. 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.May CR, Mair F, Finch T, MacFarlane A, Dowrick C, Treweek S, et al. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization process theory. Implement Sci. (2009) 4(1):29. 10.1186/1748-5908-4-29 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. (2005) 15(9):1277–88. 10.1177/1049732305276687 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Baldwin S, Malone M, Sandall J, Bick D. A process evaluation of promotional guides used by health visitors to support men’s transition to fatherhood: a qualitative study. Perspect Public Health. (2024) 144(2):98–110. 10.1177/17579139221118243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Callejas E, Byrne S, Rodrigo MJ. Introducing parenting support in primary care: professionals’ perspectives on the implementation of a positive parenting program. J Prev. (2022) 43(2):241–55. 10.1007/s10935-021-00664-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Connor KA, Duran G, Faiz-Nassar M, Mmari K, Minkovitz CS. Feasibility of implementing group well baby/well woman dyad care at federally qualified health centers. Acad Pediatr. (2018) 18(5):510–5. 10.1016/j.acap.2017.09.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Hickey G, McGilloway S, Leckey Y, Stokes A. A universal early parenting education intervention in community-based primary care settings: development and installation challenges. Educ Sci. (2018) 8(4):178. 10.3390/educsci8040178 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Hickey G, McGilloway S, Leckey Y, Stokes A, Bywater T, Donnelly M. Putting meat on the bones”: understanding the implementation of a community-based early intervention and prevention programme—contextual, person, and programme influences. Prev Sci. (2021) 22(1):113–29. 10.1007/s11121-020-01170-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Patterson J, Mockford C, Stewart-Brown S. Parents’ perceptions of the value of the Webster-Stratton parenting programme: a qualitative study of a general practice based initiative. Child: Care, Health Dev. (2005) 31(1):53–64. 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2005.00479.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Saxild S, Wilson PMJ, Strøyer de Voss S, Overbeck G. Clinicians’ experiences in signposting an online mental health resource to expectant mothers: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. (2023) 23:336. 10.1186/s12884-023-05671-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Westerlund A, Garvare R, Nyström ME, Eurenius E, Lindkvist M, Ivarsson A. Managing the initiation and early implementation of health promotion interventions: a study of a parental support programme in primary care. Scand J Caring Sci. (2017) 31(1):128–38. 10.1111/scs.12329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Jürgensen R, Altafim ERP, Linhares MBM. Group-based parenting programs implementation and facilitators’ perspectives: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. Child Youth Serv Rev. (2025) 171:108201. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2025.108201 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. (2008) 41(3-4):327–50. 10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Fixsen DL, Naoom S, Blase K, Friedman R, Wallace F. Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature, Florida: The National Implementation Research Network; (2005). [Google Scholar]
- 40.Menting AT, Orobio de Castro B, Matthys W. Effectiveness of the incredible years parent training to modify disruptive and prosocial child behavior: a meta-analytic review. Clin Psychol Rev. (2013) 33(8):901–13. 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Koerting J, Smith E, Knowles MM, Latter S, Elsey H, McCann DC, et al. Barriers to, and facilitators of, parenting programmes for childhood behaviour problems: a qualitative synthesis of studies of parents’ and professionals’ perceptions. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2013) 22(11):653–70. 10.1007/s00787-013-0401-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Eisner M, Meidert U. Stages of parental engagement in a universal parent training program. J Prim Prev. (2011) 32(2):83–93. 10.1007/s10935-011-0238-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Schilling S, Mebane A, Perreira KM. Cultural adaptation of group parenting programs: review of the literature and recommendations for best practices. Fam Process. (2021) 60(4):1134–51. 10.1111/famp.12658 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Overbeck G, Davidsen AS, Kousgaard MB. Enablers and barriers to implementing collaborative care for anxiety and depression: a systematic qualitative review. Implement Sci. (2016) 11(1):165. 10.1186/s13012-016-0519-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Okeowo DA, Zaidi STR, Fylan B, Alldred DP. Barriers and facilitators of implementing proactive deprescribing within primary care: a systematic review. Int J Pharm Pract. (2023) 31(2):126–52. 10.1093/ijpp/riad001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.de Jong Y, Van Der Willik EM, Milders J, Voorend CGN, Morton RL, Dekker FW, et al. A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake. BMC Med Res Methodol. (2021) 21(1):184. 10.1186/s12874-021-01363-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.McEvoy R, Ballini L, Maltoni S, O'Donnell CA, Mair FS, Macfarlane A. A qualitative systematic review of studies using the normalization process theory to research implementation processes. Implement Sci. (2014) 9:2. 10.1186/1748-5908-9-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/supplementary material.