Abstract
The purpose of this review was to better understand the impact of universal campaign interventions with a media component aimed at preventing child physical abuse (CPA). The review included 17 studies featuring 15 campaigns conducted from 1989 to 2011 in five countries. Seven studies used experimental designs, but most were quasi-experimental. CPA incidence was assessed in only three studies and decreased significantly in two. Studies also found significant reductions in relevant outcomes such as dysfunctional parenting, child problem behaviors and parental anger as well as increases in parental self-efficacy and knowledge of concepts and actions relevant to preventing child abuse. The following risk factors were most frequently targeted in campaigns: lack of knowledge regarding positive parenting techniques, parental impulsivity, the stigma of asking for help, inadequate social support and inappropriate expectations for a child’s developmental stage. The evidence base for universal campaigns designed to prevent CPA remains inconclusive due to the limited availability of rigorous evaluations; however, Triple-P is a notable exception. Given the potential for such interventions to shift population norms relevant to CPA and reduce rates of CPA, there is a need to further develop and rigorously evaluate such campaigns.
Introduction
Child maltreatment is a major public health problem that places children at an increased risk for acute injury as well as long-term negative mental, social, behavioral and physical health outcomes. For example, victims of child maltreatment report significantly higher rates of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, suicide, behavior problems, interpersonal challenges, decreased productivity, cognitive deficits and chronic diseases compared with non-victims [1–10]. Brain imaging and epigenetic studies speak to the damaging biological effects child maltreatment has on a child’s developing brain and DNA [5, 11]. The economic burden of child maltreatment is estimated to cost an average of $210 012 per victim in the United States [12]. Early toxic stress and adverse experiences in childhood can set trajectories for poor health into adulthood that are linked with pervasive health disparities and public health problems, such as smoking, obesity, heart disease and stroke [2, 8, 10, 13, 14]. In 2011 in the United States, there were over 1500 fatalities from child maltreatment and nearly 700 000 substantiated cases [15, 16]. However, because so many cases go unreported, the true prevalence of child maltreatment is unknown.
To date, most child physical abuse and neglect prevention programs target select populations of high-risk individuals, outnumbering population-level or universal target programs by about two to one [17]. There is a strong evidence base for the effectiveness of such programs targeting selected populations, such as the Nurse Family Partnership home visitation program for first time Medicaid eligible mothers [18] and the Incredible Years Parenting Training Program for parents of children with conduct disorders [19], both of which have shown significant reductions in harsh parenting for program participants. However, the most effective of these programs are highly resource intensive and require high levels of participant involvement [20]. Less resource intensive population-level prevention strategies that target universal populations can serve as important complements to these programs.
According to a seminal article by Rose [21], population-level interventions have some advantages over strategies targeting selected or high-risk populations. First, they tend to focus on root causes of a problem that are highly prevalent in a population. Second, because behavior is contagious, population-level strategies help to enhance and ease the efforts of interventions targeting selected populations. Third, by focusing on highly prevalent risks in a population, they have the potential to have a large impact on population attributable risk. The usefulness of population-level educational strategies, such as media campaigns, for addressing and improving public health problems is well documented. They are frequently utilized for increasing awareness of important health issues as well as decreasing the prevalence of or preventing a behavior [22, 23]. Physical activity campaigns have raised public awareness of the issue and increased levels of physical activity [22]. Smoking [24, 25], drunk driving and alcohol-related crashes [26] have also declined as a result of media campaigns. Other examples include the VERB campaign to promote physical activity among ‘tweens’ [27], campaigns to impact eating habits [28] and the Truth campaign designed to reduce smoking among teens [29].
To be most effective, such prevention strategies should focus on reducing risk factors that are highly prevalent and modifiable. The Social Ecological Model (SEM) posits that such factors exist at multiple levels, ranging from the individual and interpersonal to broader community and societal levels [30]. Klevens and Whitaker [17] identified a number of risk factors addressed in primary prevention interventions for child physical abuse (CPA) and neglect and categorized them by SEM levels. At the individual level, they identified some key modifiable parent characteristics commonly addressed such as: emotional arousal/reactivity/impulsivity, attributional biases, inappropriate expectations, lack of empathy, substance abuse, poor parenting skills, lack of knowledge of parenting techniques and use of harsh discipline. Key modifiable family level factors reviewed included family conflict, stress and isolation. Neighborhood factors identified mostly tied in with social isolation perceived at the individual and family level including social disorganization, low social cohesion and lack of access to needed services and support. Just one risk factor was covered at the societal level: social tolerance or acceptance of abuse—or use of corporal punishment (CP) for purposes of child discipline. However, Klevens and Whitaker considered that this factor ‘… may be the most prevalent risk factor for child abuse in the United States (p. 371)’. Indeed, CP is a strong risk factor for CPA [31–33] as well as other poor outcomes in children [34, 35]. Further, a majority of children have experienced CP [36, 37] and most adults believe it is a necessary form of discipline [38]. Aligned with Klevens and Whitaker’s review, and written nearly four decades before, Garbarino identified two necessary conditions for child maltreatment to occur: parental isolation from support systems and cultural support for the use of physical force and discipline with children [39]. Based on these reviews as well as the unique ability of universal campaigns to address societal level risk factors, we included in our review those campaigns that address the use of CP as well as CPA. With these prior works as a guide, we sought to identify key, modifiable and prevalent risk factors that were addressed by the campaigns in our review.
Within the field of child maltreatment prevention, many of these individual and family level risk factors have been addressed successfully within programs focused on selective or high-risk populations [e.g. 18, 40, 41], but less is known about the ability of programs focused on universal populations to address these factors. Further, the majority of media campaigns within child abuse prevention have focused on child sexual abuse [42, 43]. Yet, population-level strategies to prevent CPA can help to overcome some barriers often associated with selective parenting programs such as transportation issues, time conflicts, costs and limited capacity to reach all parents in need. The use of media in particular could provide help to normalize parenting challenges, to model appropriate behaviors and for parents to learn anonymously [23]. Hence, there is a need to better understand what risk factors are targeted and how successfully, specifically in universal campaigns for CPA prevention.
This review will be the first to focus solely on the prevention of CPA via population-level interventions (i.e. focused on universal targets) with a media component. Reviews by Klevens and Whitaker [17], Mikton and Butchart [44] and MacLeod and Nelson [20], all differed from the current review in their inclusion of selective and/or indicated interventions and by addressing multiple types of abuse. Although maltreatment types are certainly correlated, etiologies and prevention strategies can vary substantially and hence are worth examining separately for each type of abuse. Similarly, although interventions targeting universal and selective or indicated populations might address some overlapping risk factors, approaches and strategies for these intervention types are likely to be quite different.
Our systematic review of universal CPA prevention interventions with a media component has two primary aims. The first aim is to examine existing evidence from outcome evaluations to assess the effectiveness of these interventions. As we anticipate a paucity of rigorous evaluation studies [e.g. randomized control trials (RCTs)], we expect a systematic review to be more appropriate than a meta-analysis. The second aim is to examine and assess key risk factors addressed, campaign messages used and formative and process data to provide formative research that can be used to inform and improve future universal CPA prevention campaigns. As the application of evidence-informed, universal interventions to CPA prevention is a relatively young and underdeveloped field, we anticipate that this review will yield preliminary but modest evidence of program effectiveness (aim 1). At this stage of field development, we expect our formative research to be of particular use to public health practitioners and researchers engaged in the development and testing of such universal interventions for CPA prevention (aim 2).
Methods
Search for relevant literature
A thorough systematic review was conducted through online search engines and journal databases between June 2012 and September 2012. We sought evaluation studies of interventions with a media campaign component focused on the prevention of CPA and/or CP among universal target populations. Keywords searched include: ‘child physical abuse, corporal punishment, physical discipline, harsh parenting, harsh discipline, child maltreatment, shaken baby syndrome (SBS), physical punishment, spanking, smacking, child, violence, media, public campaign, positive parenting, intervention, program, prevention, and/or campaign’. Keywords were entered individually or in combination with others. During the search process, the term ‘Triple P’ was added to the list of keywords, given its large presence in this literature. (Triple P is a five-level intervention dedicated to providing parents with positive parenting skills and ways to manage child behavior problems [45]).
Two research assistants utilized five search methods to locate relevant evaluation studies. First, keyword(s) were entered into the following journal databases: PubMed, PsycINFO and a Tulane ‘Cross Search’ of the Social Science database consisting of ABI/INFORM Global, Academic Search Complete, Anthropology Plus, ERIC (EBSCO), JSTOR, PsycINFO, PubMed, Science Direct (Elsevier), SocINDEX and Sociological Abstracts and Health + Science database consisting of AGRICOLA, Biological Abstracts, Biological Sciences, CINAHL Plus, EMBASE (Elsevier), Global Health (Ovid Technologies), PsycINFO, Pubmed, Science Direct (Elsevier) and Web of Science (ISI). Second, a similar approach was used in Google rather than a journal database. Third, literature reviews of general child abuse campaigns were examined for additional campaigns or evaluations. Fourth, health or public health organizations were entered into Google search engine and organization websites were scanned for relevant campaigns, including Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute of Health (NIH) and World Health Organization (WHO). Finally, we contacted 11 authors and/or sponsoring organizations for which we identified campaigns but no evaluations via our search methods. Three of the 11 responded and two new evaluations were identified. However, neither of them met our inclusion criteria. Primary study authors and/or sponsoring organizations of the campaigns also were contacted by phone and email to obtain campaign materials and additional information regarding the campaigns. Internet searches through Google and YouTube were conducted to locate campaign materials.
Eligibility criteria
First, the intervention had to focus on reducing or preventing CPA or CP. Second, the intervention had to be a population-level strategy such as a mass media campaign or other educational efforts focused on universal targets. Interventions included various forms of mass communication (e.g., TV, radio, billboards, posters, report cards) or were delivered via community services with broad population access (e.g. hospitals, pediatric offices or schools). Studies of Triple P were eligible only if they included an examination of the Level 1 media component of Triple P designed for universal targets. Finally, the study had to report outcome evaluation results.
Exclusion criteria
Interventions dedicated solely to sexual, verbal or emotional abuse and/or neglect were excluded as were all parent training and home visitation programs without a ‘campaign’ (i.e. media or mass communications) component or focus on universal targets (i.e. interventions targeting selected or indicated populations were excluded).
Article selection
Method 1 identified 24 articles and 16 campaigns. Method 2 identified four more articles and 10 other campaigns. Method 3 identified three additional articles and three more campaigns. Method 4 yielded no additional reports or campaigns. One more article was obtained using Method 5. In all, 29 different campaigns were identified and fully reviewed. After review, 17 articles that reported on evaluations of 15 campaigns, met our study criteria and were included in our final analysis [46–62]. As this is a formative review and not a formal meta-analysis, multiple evaluations of the same intervention were permitted and counted as separate articles.
Data extraction
Information relevant to this review was extracted from campaign materials and evaluation articles and entered into a ‘data extraction table’ (e.g. see [22]). The following information was retrieved for each campaign: name, purpose and/or mission, description, program theory, specific campaign messages, format, materials used, links to materials and any additional information. For each evaluation study, the following information was extracted: author, year, title, name of sponsoring organization, organization/author contact information, source with corresponding link, evaluation design, sample size, sample characteristics, relevant outcomes to CPA or CP, evaluation tools, findings and any additional information.
All studies were analyzed to identify risk factors that were targeted to meet campaign goals. In a systematic review of primary prevention interventions for CPA and neglect, 30 risk factors were identified that have been targeted in previous CPA interventions [17]. This framework was used in our review of risk factors. However, new constructs emerged from a thorough investigation of program theories in these studies. The intervention was considered to have addressed a risk factor if it was explicitly stated or addressed in the evaluation article, in another article that described the campaign (e.g. [45, 63]), or in the actual campaign materials.
Results
Campaign descriptions
In total, 17 evaluation articles, featuring 15 separate campaigns, were analyzed and reviewed (Table I). The evaluated interventions were carried out in five countries, including the United States (n = 9), Australia (n = 2), United Kingdom (n = 2), New Zealand (n = 2), Canada (n = 1) and Japan (n = 1). Target audiences ranged from the general public to adults over the age of 18 years, parents, parents and caregivers with children of a certain age and caregivers. Implementation of the campaigns spanned a period of 12 years with the first campaign beginning in 1989 and the most recent campaign ending in 2011. Campaign durations ranged from 6 weeks to 4 months (n = 3), 1–2 years (n = 11) and 3–9 years (n = 3). Although all campaigns focused on reducing or preventing CPA or CP, some were dedicated to specific issues such as SBS or positive parenting. Five campaigns included at least the universal, Level 1 media component of Triple P [45].
Table I.
Description of campaign designs and implementation
| Author name (references) | Campaign location | Name of campaign | Target audience | Campaign delivery | Media used | Evaluation design(s) | Sampling strategy | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrews et al. [46] | South Carolina, United States | ‘Alcohol abuse. Drug abuse. Child abuse. One thing leads to another’ | General public, families affected by drug and alcohol abuse | 1995 |
|
Time series | Track toll-free phone line activity | All calls per month for 20 months |
| Survey at pre- and mid- intervention | Random digit dialing of SC numbers | n = 792 | ||||||
| Calam et al. [47] | United Kingdom | ‘Driving Mum and Dad Mad’ (Triple P model) | General public, parents | 2 years, 2005–07 |
|
RCT (two intervention groups: standard and enhanced; both groups saw improvements, so findings for both groups were combined) | Convenience sample of parents via International TV website | n = 723 at baseline; n = 274 at post-test; n = 259 at 6-month follow-up |
| Deyo et al. [48] | Central Ohio, United States | ‘Love Me … Never Shake Me’ | Parents of newborn babies | 4 months, 2008 |
|
Simple pre- and post-test | Convenience sample of biological mothers of newborns via one of five hospitals | n = 7051 at baseline; n = 5936 at pre- and post-test; n = 321 at 3- to 4-month follow-up |
| Post-test only | ||||||||
| Dias et al. [49] | Western New York, United States | ‘Prevent Shaken Baby Syndrome’ | Parents with newborns in eight county region of New York State | 5.5 years, 1998–2004 |
|
Time series with comparison group | Track incidence of abusive head trauma, infants and children <36 months, 126 months in intervention region plus 6 years in comparison region of PA | Regional incidence of abusive head trauma |
| Convenience sample of parents of newborns from 16 hospitals in western NY; captured 69% of live-births in region | n = 65 205 baseline; 10% of baseline at 7-month follow-up | |||||||
| Evans et al. [50] | Florida, United States | Florida Winds of Change | General public | May 2009-June 2009 |
|
RCT | Convenience sample of FL residents at least 19 years of age with a child under 18 living in home obtained via eRewards, an online opinion panel | n = 805 baseline; n = 591 at 30-day follow-up |
| Fujiwara et al. [51] | Greater Tokyo (Kanagawa and Saitama), Japan | ‘The Period of Purple Crying’ | Mothers of newborn babies | July 2009–January 2010 |
|
RCT | Convenience sample of parents via maternity wards in two hospitals | n = 230 at baseline; n = 201 at follow-up |
| Mandell [52] | Baltimore, MD, United States | ‘STOP, LOOK, AND LISTEN’ | Parents of school-aged children from 180 schools in Baltimore area | Four times a year at report card time for 9 years, 1990–99 |
|
Time series | All students in Baltimore City Public Schools | n = 180 schools (∼110 000 homes) |
| McLaren [54] | Communities in New Zealand | ‘Campaign for Action on Family Violence’ | General public above 18 years age | 2007–09 |
|
Single survey at mid-intervention | Not reported | n = 2444 |
| McLaren [53] | Christchurch, Porirua, Te Tairawhiti and Waitakere, New Zealand | ‘Campaign for Action on Family Violence’ | General public | 2007–09 |
|
Single survey at mid-intervention | Convenience sample of adults via intercept interviews | n = 233 |
| Norton et al. [55] | Bexar County, TX, United States | ‘Any Baby Can (ABC)’ | General public | 1996–2003 | Not reported | Two surveys (timing in relation to campaign ambiguous) | Random sample of adults living in Bexar County/San Antonio | n = 477 in 2001; n = 457 in 2002 |
| Prinz et al. [56] | Southeastern state, United States | ‘Triple P—Positive Parenting Program’ | Families with kids who have a child between ages 0 and 12 years | 2 years, 2009–11 | Triple P—Level 1 media components:
|
RCT | Eighteen medium sized counties (50 000 to 175 000 people), controlling for county population size, poverty rate and child abuse rate | n = 18 counties |
| Sanders et al. [57] | United Kingdom | ‘Driving Mum and Dad Mad’ (Triple P model) | General public, parents | 2 years, 2005–07 |
|
RCT (standard versus enhanced intervention groups; statistical findings reflect improvement of enhanced over standard condition) | Convenience sample of parents of children ages 2–9 years recruited via the International TV website, other mass media strategies and word of mouth | n = 454 at baseline; n = 174 at post-test n = 174 at 6-month follow-up |
| Sanders et al. [58] | Metropolitan area in Australian capital city, Australia | ‘Families’ (Triple P model) | Parents of young children | 6 weeks |
|
RCT | Convenience sample of parents of children aged 2–8 years via daily newspapers and brochures at child care centers | n = 56 |
| Sanders et al. [59] | Brisbane, Australia (intervention); Melbourne, Sydney, Australia (control) | ‘Every Family’ (Triple P model) | Parents of young children | 2005 | Triple P—Level 1 media components:
|
Non-equivalent groups, pre- and post-test | Random sample of parents of children aged 4–7 years from 20 communities (10 intervention and 10 control) | n = 2999 at baseline; n = 3004 at 2-year follow-up |
| Scholer et al. [60] | Nashville, TN, United States | ‘Play Nicely’ | Caregivers of children aged 12 months to 5 years | 2 months, 2010 |
|
RCT | Convenience sample of parents of children aged 12 months to 5 years via well child visits | n = 259 at baseline; n = 258 at immediate follow-up |
| Showers [61] | Franklin County, OH, United States | ‘Don't Shake the Baby’ | Parents of newborn babies | August 1989–July 1990 |
|
Single survey at post-intervention | Convenience sample of parents of newborns from six hospitals | n = 3293 (21% of all eligible) |
| Stewart et al. [62] | London, Ontario, Canada | ‘The Period of PURPLE Crying’ | Parents of newborn babies | 2008–10 |
|
Simple pre- and post-intervention | Convenience sample (assumed) of RNs trained at birthing centers | n = not reported |
| Single survey at post-intervention | Convenience sample of parents of newborns at birthing centers | n = 10 520 | ||||||
a‘Portrait of Promise’: a video dedicated to raising awareness of shaken baby syndrome (SBS); b‘Driving Mum and Dad Mad’: a TV series featuring families who are participating in Triple P-Positive Parenting Program; cFamilies: A TV series featuring families who are participating in Triple P- Positive Parenting Program; dEvery Family: A TV series featuring families who are participating in Triple P- Positive Parenting Program; eCrying: What Should I Do? Card: A card with tips on positive ways to deal with infant crying; fPURPLE materials: A set of materials from The Period of Purple Crying campaign to prevent SBS.
A wide range of media was used in the campaigns including print, broadcast and online sources. Print media was widely used through billboards, newsletters, publications, posters, work books, compliance statements, pamphlets, resource guides, balloons, press releases, newspapers, handouts, postcards, street posters or bus advertisements (n = 14). Most campaigns used broadcast media such as public service announcements (PSAs) on TV, TV segments/episodes, videos, PSA videos, radio segments or PSAs on the radio (n = 14). Online media such as email, websites, web videos, online support or access to online resources was less common (n = 3). Several campaigns provided telephone support and toll-free helplines for fast access to counseling services and parent tips and to report cases of CPA (n = 3). Both pre-existing and novel materials were utilized by the campaigns. For example, two SBS campaigns used ‘The Period of PURPLE Crying’ materials that had already been implemented in healthcare settings [51, 62]. Other campaigns developed novel materials such as the ‘STOP. LOOK. LISTEN’ card that was attached to children’s report cards [52].
Formative evaluation
Six studies (35.3%) reported formative evaluation procedures (Table II). Reported formative strategies included pre-testing of campaign messages with focus groups [46, 52, 62], meetings/discussions with key informants [46, 52, 61], review of literature and resources relevant to the intervention and message development [50, 54, 61] and tailoring materials to the sample population such as via matching literacy levels and pre-campaign surveys of attitudes [46, 52].
Table II.
Evaluation procedures and relevant outcomes
| Author | Formative evaluation | Process evaluation | Outcome evaluation |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design | Indicator | Findings | Statistical significance | |||
| Andrews et al. [46] |
|
|
Simple time series |
|
|
None reported for this study |
| Survey at pre- and mid-intervention | ||||||
| Calam et al. [47] |
|
|
RCT (two intervention groups: standard and enhanced; both groups saw improvements, so findings for both groups were combined) |
|
|
|
| Deyo et al. [48] | Not reported |
|
Simple pre- and post-test |
|
|
|
| Post-test only | ||||||
| Dias et al. [49] | Not reported |
|
Time series with comparison group |
|
|
P = 0.02 |
| Evans et al. [50] |
|
|
RCT |
|
|
|
| Fujiwara et al. [51] | Not reported |
|
RCT |
|
|
|
| Mandell [52] |
|
|
Simple time series |
|
|
Not reported |
| McLaren [54] |
|
|
Single survey at mid- intervention |
|
|
|
| McLaren [53] | Not reported |
|
Single survey at mid- intervention |
|
|
N/A |
| Norton et al. [55] | Not reported | Not reported | Two surveys (timing in relation to campaign ambiguous) |
|
|
|
| Prinz et al. [56] | Not reported |
|
RCT |
|
|
|
| Sanders et al. [57] |
|
RCT (standard versus enhanced intervention groups; statistical findings reflect improvement of enhanced over standard condition) |
|
|
|
|
| Sanders et al. [58] | Not reported |
|
RCT |
|
|
|
| Sanders et al. [59] | Not reported |
|
Non-equivalent groups, pre- and post- test |
|
|
|
| Scholer et al. [60] | Not reported |
|
RCT |
|
|
|
| Showers [61] |
|
|
Single survey at post-intervention |
|
|
N/A |
| Stewart et al. [62] |
|
|
Simple pre-post Single survey at post-intervention |
|
|
|
aECBI, Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: questionnaire that measures parents’ perceptions of their child’s behavior; bPS, Parenting Scale: questionnaire on dysfunctional parenting; cPTC, Parenting Tasks Checklist: checklist on confidence in parenting skills; dDASS, Depression Anxiety Stress Scales: assessment of adults’ depression, anxiety and stress levels; ePAI, Parenting Anger Inventory: questionnaire on the intensity and frequency of parental anger during child-related scenarios; fPPC, Parenting Problem Checklist: measure of parental conflict regarding child-rearing issues; gRQI, Relationship Quality Index: measure of relationship quality and satisfaction; hd = effect sizes calculated as Cohen’s d; iCS, commitment statement: pledge to practice positive parenting; jSTOP LOOK LISTEN, card contained positive parenting tips and helpful resources; kNS, Difference is not statistically significant; lParenting Sense of Competence (PSOC): questionnaire for parents on their competence as a parent; mSDQ, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: survey of parental perception of child’s emotional and behavioral problems.
CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; RN, registered nurse.
Process evaluation
Nearly all studies (94.1%) reported at least one form of process evaluation, such as the distribution of campaign materials, procedures such as trainings of professionals and measures for monitoring reach. Two of the most commonly assessed process evaluation methods were awareness of the campaign and recall of receiving intervention materials. Over 40% assessed awareness or recall of the campaigns at mid- or post-intervention. Rates of campaign awareness or recall ranged from a high of 85% [54] to a low of 17.1% [56]. Nearly all participants (92–98%) in two of the SBS studies [48, 49] confirmed that they received information about SBS.
Risk factors addressed in campaigns
Among the 17 studies, eight key risk factors were identified and definitions were established for each (Table III). Sample campaign messages also were selected to exemplify how campaigns targeted each risk factor. The most frequent risk factors addressed by the campaigns were lack of knowledge or skills regarding positive parenting techniques (82.4%), parental impulsivity (76.5%), lack of knowledge regarding child development or inappropriate expectations for a child’s developmental stage (64.7%), inadequate social support (64.7%) and the stigma of asking for help (64.7%). Less commonly targeted risk factors included lack of knowledge about the consequences of hitting, CP or infant shaking (52.3%), parents’ negative attribution biases (i.e. parents misinterpreting a child’s difficult behavior as meaning to purposefully anger or disrespect the parent) (47.1%) and parents’ lack of self-care (41.2%).
Table III.
Campaign goals, messages and targeted risk factors
| Risk factor # | Descriptions of major risk factors addressed in campaigns | Risk factors |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||
| Andrews et al. [46] |
|
|
X | X | ||||||
| Calam et al. [47] | Triple P—Level 1 goals:b
|
|
X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Deyo et al. [48] |
|
|
X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Dias et al. [49] |
|
|
X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Evans et al. [50] |
|
|
X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Fujiwara [51] |
|
|
X | X | X | X | ||||
| Mandell[52] |
|
|
X | X | X | X | ||||
| McLaren[54] |
|
|
X | X | X | X | ||||
| McLaren[53] |
|
(Same as above) | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Norton et al.[55] |
|
Not reportedf | X | X | ||||||
| Prinz et al.[56] |
|
Not reported | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Sanders et al. [57] | Triple P—Level 1 goals:b [see top half of Prinz et al. (2009) above] |
|
X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Sanders et al. [58] | Triple P—Level 1 goals: • [see top half of Prinz et al. (2009) above] | Not reported | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Sanders et al. [59] | Triple P—Level 1 goals:b
|
Not reported | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Scholer et al. [60] |
|
|
X | |||||||
| Showers [61] |
|
|
X | X | X | X | X | |||
| Stewart et al. [62] |
|
|
X | X | X | X | ||||
| Column totals n (%) | ||||||||||
| 1 | Negative attribution biases: campaign helps parents understand that most child behaviors are not based on bad intentions or ill will toward to the parent. Although a certain behavior may anger the parent, it is unlikely that the child intended to do so. | 8 (47.1) | ||||||||
| 2 | Parental impulsivity: Campaign teaches parents ways to control anger that may lead to CP/CPA and the importance of taking a break when parenting becomes frustrating. | 13 (76.5) | ||||||||
| 3 | Lack of knowledge regarding child development or inappropriate expectations for child’s developmental stage: campaign helps to prevent parents from over or underestimating a child’s abilities for his/her developmental age. | 11 (64.7) | ||||||||
| 4 | Lack of knowledge on the consequences of hitting, corporal punishment or infant shaking: campaign helps to increase parents’ knowledge of how hitting can damage a child’s mental and physical health. | 9 (52.3) | ||||||||
| 5 | Lack of knowledge or skills regarding positive parenting techniques: campaign helps to increase parents’ knowledge of non-physical positive parenting skills. | 14 (82.4) | ||||||||
| 6 | Lack of self-care: campaign encourages parents to take care of themselves for optimal mental and physical health. | 8 (47.1) | ||||||||
| 7 | Lack of social support: campaign emphasizes the importance of having or providing social and community support to parents of young children. | 11 (64.7) | ||||||||
| 8 | Stigma of asking for help: campaign attempts to normalize parenting challenges and help parents feel comfortable asking for help. | 11 (64.7) | ||||||||
aUnless noted otherwise, all messages were retrieved from the evaluation article, campaign materials and/or the evaluation article’s primary contact. Messages were selected to exemplify risk factors identified in the article text.
bGoals are based on those outlined in a previous study [45].
cRetrieved from ‘Driving Mum & Dad Mad Excerpts - Thomas Part Two’, Positive Parenting Programme (Triple P), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuinpGZb4_A. Accessed: 17 March 2014.
dRetrieved from ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome,’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9m5KwvX0pQ. Accessed: 17 March 2014.
eRetrieved from ‘Family Violence: It’s not OK’, http://www.areyouok.org.nz/not_ok_tvc.php. Accessed: 17 March 2014.
f“Not reported” means no messages were reported in the article nor were they accessible through an internet search or request to author for materials.
gRetrieved from ‘Play Nicely’, http://playnicely.vueinnovations.com/playnicely/English. Accessed: 17 March 2014.
hRetrieved from another study [63].
Outcome evaluation
Seven different evaluation designs were used, with some studies using more than one type: randomized control trial (RCT) (n = 7); Single survey at mid- or post-intervention (n = 4); Pre- and mid- or post- intervention, one group (n = 3); Simple time series (n = 2); Time series with comparison group (n = 1); Non-equivalent groups, pre- and post-intervention (n = 1) and survey with timing ambiguous in relation to the campaign (n = 1). Participants were recruited through a variety of probability and non-probability sampling methods.
Only three studies examined child abuse outcomes specifically and found a reduction in the incidence of abusive head injuries [49], child maltreatment injuries [56] and child maltreatment cases [52, 56]; though one was not statistically significant [52]. However, some measure of behavior change was assessed in more than half (58.8%) of the studies [46, 47, 49–53, 56–59]. Significant decreases were seen in child behavior problems [47, 57–59] and in dysfunctional or coercive parenting behaviors [47, 51, 57, 59]. Two studies reported increases in calls to helplines to report child abuse cases [46, 52]. Increases also were seen in the number of callers wanting to seek assistance from the helpline or report parental alcohol and drug abuse [46]. Two studies reported statistically significant increases in the number of attempts by parents and/or community members to prevent child abuse through strategies promoted in the campaign, such as assisting parents by watching their children [50] and sharing information about excessive infant crying with other caregivers [51].
Attitudes were assessed in seven of the studies [46, 50, 53–55, 61, 62]. However, only one study reported a significant improvement in positive attitudes toward preventing child abuse from pre- to post-intervention and across two groups [50]. Knowledge was assessed in six studies [48, 50, 51, 55, 61, 62]. Significant increases were seen in knowledge of SBS [48, 62], child development, community resources [50] and the causes and patterns of infant crying [51, 62].
Additional indicators that were frequently assessed included parental self-efficacy and parental anger. Significant increases in parenting self-efficacy or competence were reported in three [47, 57, 58] of four studies, while significantly decreased parental anger or frustration was reported in two [47, 57] of three studies. One study assessed and found improvements in parents’ intentions to use appropriate and positive child discipline strategies [60].
Of the 17 studies we reviewed, six were focused on the prevention of SBS. Two utilized ‘The PERIOD of PURPLE Crying’ materials [51, 62] and the remaining used a variety of multimedia materials [48, 49, 55, 61]. Significant improvements were seen in variables such as knowledge of SBS [48, 51, 62], knowledge of infant crying patterns [51, 62] and ways for parents to cope with excessive baby crying, such as walking away and self-talk strategies [51]. One study found a significant decline in the number of abusive head injuries among infants at follow-up [49].
Five studies in this review involved Triple P: two examined the entire Triple P program [56, 57] and three examined Level 1 only [47, 58, 59]. All Triple P studies were RCTs except for one non-equivalent groups design [59]. Significant changes in beliefs, knowledge, parental emotions and/or behaviors were seen in all five studies [47, 56–59]. Key significant findings include, but are not limited to, decreases in child problem behaviors [47, 57–59], decreases in dysfunctional parenting [47, 57, 59] and increases in parental self-efficacy [47, 57, 58].
An overview of study designs and interventions is provided in Table IV.
Table IV.
Overview of reviewed studies and interventions
| Characteristics | Total | Two group design | Triple P studies |
|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) (within category) | n (%) (within category) | |
| Total | 17 (100.0) | 9 (52.9) | 5 (29.4) |
| Evaluation designa | |||
| RCT | 7 (41.2) | 7 (100.0) | 4 (57.1) |
| Two group (non-RCT) | 2 (11.8) | 2 (100.0) | 1 (50) |
| Single group, pre–post or time series | 4 (23.5) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Single group, other (e.g. one measurement) | 4 (23.5) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Prevention type | |||
| Primary | 12 (70.6) | 7 (58.3) | 3 (25.0) |
| Primary and secondary | 4 (25.3) | 2 (50.0) | 2 (50.0) |
| Secondary and tertiary | 1 (5.9) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Primary outcome targeted | |||
| Shaken baby syndrome/AHT | 6 (35.3) | 2 (33.3) | 0 (0) |
| Positive parenting (Triple P) | 5 (29.4) | 5 (100) | 5 (100) |
| Positive parenting (other/not Triple P or AHT) | 3 (17.6) | 2 (66.7) | 0 (0) |
| Other (e.g. abuse recognition) | 3 (17.6) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Positive outcomesb | |||
| Any (below groups not mutually exclusive) | 13 (76.5) | 9 (69.2) | 5 (38.5) |
| Child abuse or AHT, reduction | 3 (17.6) | 2 (66.7) | 1 (33.3) |
| Parenting behavior, improvement | 4 (17.6) | 4 (100.0) | 3 (75.0) |
| Child behavior, improvement | 4 (25.3) | 4 (100.0) | 4 (4/100) |
| Other (e.g. parent mental health, intentions; community knowledge, attitudes, reporting) | 11 (64.7) | 7 (63.6) | 4 (36.4) |
| No. of risk factors addressed | |||
| 7–8 | 6 (35.3) | 6 (100.0) | 5 (100.0) |
| 5–6 | 3 (17.6) | 1 (33.3) | 0 (0) |
| 3–4 | 5 (29.4) | 1 (20.0) | 0 (0) |
| 1–2 | 3 (17.6) | 1 (33.3) | 0 (0) |
aIf more than one design was used in a study, the study was credited for the ‘better’ design.
bPositive outcomes were classified as those that were statistically significant at P < 0.05 in the desired direction for RCTs, other two group designs and single group pre–post or time series designs; no findings from studies (n = 4) with single time point or ambiguous time point surveys were included.
AHT, abusive head trauma.
Discussion
Our extensive review of evaluations of population-level CPA prevention programs with a media component revealed only 17 articles that met our eligibility criteria. This paucity points to a gap in existing CPA prevention efforts focused on universal target populations. In addition, the shortage of evaluations retrieved for this review underscores the importance of evaluating CPA campaigns. Findings from our review indicate that the evidence regarding this method’s ability to reduce CPA is insufficient, primarily due to weak evaluation methodologies. However, the evidence for the Triple P program in particular is promising. Lending to the strength of this review, nine of the evaluation studies used comparison (two) group designs, seven of which were RCTs. Three studies actually assessed CPA rates and detected significant reductions. But only two of these used strong evaluation designs including an RCT of an intervention that addressed seven out of eight identified risk factors [56] and a time series with a comparison group that addressed all eight risk factors [49]. The third study used a simple time series design and only addressed half of the identified risk factors (parental impulsivity, lack of knowledge or skills regarding positive parenting techniques, lack of social support and stigma of asking for help) [52]. Further, many of the reviewed interventions produced significant parent and child behavioral effects [47, 51, 57–59] as well as improvements in parents’ knowledge of CPA, CP, SBS and/or neglect [48, 50, 51, 62]. The impact of these interventions on attitudes, beliefs and change in awareness is less conclusive because these outcomes were measured less frequently or the evaluation designs were less strong.
We found that eight key risk factors were frequently targeted for CPA prevention. These risk factors were identified a total of 85 times across the examined articles. Campaigns that targeted the most common risk factor addressed, lack of knowledge or skills regarding positive parenting techniques, aimed to promote positive parenting strategies and to empower parents to use non-punitive discipline techniques. Campaigns that targeted the next most common risk, parental impulsivity, aimed to teach parents how to control angry outbursts, which can lead to CPA or CP, through positive parenting strategies such as walking away or taking a break when parenting becomes too frustrating. The next most common risk was inappropriate expectations that parents can have for their children. Campaigns that addressed this aimed to improve parents’ knowledge of children’s developmental milestones and normal behavior for certain ages so that parents were less likely to over- or underestimate their child’s capabilities [47–49, 56–59, 61]. Such lack of knowledge can lead to parental frustration, anger and use of punishment in the face of ‘normal’ child behavior. Also targeted just as frequently as inappropriate expectations were lack of social support and stigma of asking for help. To improve social support, campaigns encouraged community members to be aware of signs of child abuse, to offer a helping hand to other parents and to increase awareness of parenting resources. To reduce the stigma of asking for help, campaigns encouraged parents to seek help when they became overwhelmed or frustrated and also normalized the need for help with parenting. This approach aims to discourage parents from feeling inadequate in their own parenting skills and to normalize parenting challenges.
The three least commonly targeted risk factors—lack of knowledge about the consequences of physical punishment or infant shaking, parents’ negative attribution biases and parents’ lack of self-care—were all still targeted in about half of the studies. Many campaigns sought to increase the knowledge that use of physical punishment even that which is not classified as abuse, can harm children’s mental and physical health. To address negative attribution biases, campaigns aimed to help parents understand that although children can be difficult, they rarely do things deliberately to anger parents. For example, parents may misinterpret normal child exploration that results in making a big mess or pulling items off shelves as a sign of disrespect or trying to anger the parent. And finally, many campaigns reminded parents not to neglect their own mental and physical health.
Of the two interventions that demonstrated statistically significant decreases in CPA, one targeted reductions in SBS and addressed all eight identified risk factors [49] and the other used the full Triple P program and addressed seven of the identified risk factors [56]. Many of the studies that revealed significant outcomes were those that targeted SBS or that used Triple P intervention materials. The Triple P-based interventions are also noteworthy because they consistently demonstrated significant improvements in dysfunctional parenting, parental self-efficacy and child behavior problems. Triple P appears to focus primarily on promoting positive parenting strategies. In contrast, interventions targeting SBS tended to include explicit details about the harmful effects of physical punishment or shaking infants in addition to promoting positive alternatives. The consistency in these effective interventions suggests that the risk factors they target should continue to be integrated into future campaigns to prevent CPA. Other programs might learn a lot from these successful interventions.
Although we had hoped to learn more about each campaign’s success in addressing specific risk factors, our ability to do this was highly limited. First, most studies did not assess changes in all of the key risk factors that they targeted. For example, although most interventions addressed inappropriate expectations for child developmental stage and also the stigma of asking for help, very few studies actually measured and assessed changes in these risk factors. Second, many studies that did measure their targeted risk factors did not apply a rigorous enough methodology to draw strong conclusions from their findings. We would encourage future program evaluators to address both of these issues whenever possible: that is, to explicitly assess key targeted risk factors and, of course, to use the strongest methodologies possible to ensure greater confidence in results. Such efforts will help to advance program theory in this field by deepening our understanding of how and why certain interventions ‘work’ while others do not. Such knowledge is essential to developing future successful campaign interventions.
Beyond the key risk factors that we tracked, program effectiveness might well be tied to other key intervention adaptations and sensitivities that were not well documented, such as attention to issues of cultural relevance and stages of child development. On the former issue, while many of the reviewed campaigns reached broad audiences, not all of the campaigns were designed to be culturally sensitive or tailored to different ethnic groups. Three interventions offered campaign materials in multiple languages [49, 60, 62]. Another intervention used program materials that were thoroughly translated from English to Japanese and then back translated to ensure that the campaign messages were not lost in translation in Japan [51]. Other interventions included diverse characters in the campaigns to make them relatable to the target population [50] with one specifically matching campaign materials to the mother’s race [61]. Other interventions were conscious of local cultures and national trends. Mandell [52] wrote the campaign materials on a second or third grade reading level to account for the high levels of illiteracy in the target population, whereas several Triple P Level 1 interventions were based on the nationwide popularity of ‘infotainment’ [47, 57, 58]. Finally, several articles cited previous studies or presented findings that the campaign materials were designed to be appropriate for [52, 53] or were effective across multiple cultures [56, 59, 60]. In short, some issues of cultural sensitivity and adaptation were addressed by close to half of the campaigns, but very few demonstrated the extent, success and effectiveness of these adaptations.
Extent of intervention tailoring to relevant stages of child development might also be an important factor in program success, particularly given that appropriate parenting instructions and CPA risk varies by child age. The SBS interventions, which specifically target parents of infants, are strong examples of tailoring to child developmental stage. All of the SBS interventions reviewed aimed to educate parents about the dangers of shaking during the critical newborn period [48, 49, 51, 55, 61, 62]. Other interventions based their campaigns on stages of child development. For example, noting an increase in CPA during report card periods, Mandell [52] attached resources for CPA prevention to school-aged children’s report cards. Evans et al. [50], who found a significant increase in knowledge of child development but not in knowledge of age-appropriate discipline strategies, distributed parenting resource guides with tips for managing common child behavior problems at each developmental stage. Sanders et al. [59] developed their intervention for parents of children making the transition to school, citing that parents might be more willing to engage in programs during an important time for the parents and child. Several articles mentioned Triple P’s ability to assist parents with children of all ages [47, 56–58] and one emphasized the benefits of Play Nicely in teaching parents age-appropriate discipline strategies in the early years of the child’s life [60]. Future reviews would benefit from more careful documentation and tracking of program adaptations and attention to issues such as child development and cultural sensitivity.
Strengths and limitations
This review has several limitations. Only one independent reviewer conducted the search for relevant literature using Method 1 (journal database search), therefore, some eligible articles may have been overlooked in the initial search. However, two research assistants exhausted Method 2 (search engine). Methods 3, 4 and 5 were used to further reduce the risk of missing any eligible studies. The linking of interventions with risk factors was based solely on what was written in the text description and available campaign materials and was not verified with the article author or campaign program staff. It is possible that some campaigns addressed more risk factors than we identified based on what was written in the text or campaign materials. However, as we did not have access to all campaign materials, this was the least biased method that we could choose. Moreover, the availability of many Triple P evaluations and formative articles (e.g. [45]) may have placed the program at an advantage over the other interventions in our review. Given the complexity of the multilevel intervention, it was difficult to dissect the program goals and risk factors that were targeted at each level. Therefore, it is likely that the interventions with only Level 1 components did not target as many risk factors as the interventions with Levels 1–5 of Triple P. Additionally, the specific campaign messages in Table 3 were retrieved from available campaign materials located in the evaluation articles or online. One research assistant included the messages that she deemed most important and relevant to the targeted risk factors. The lack of accessible campaign materials for multiple interventions may have limited our ability to draw comprehensive conclusions about targeted risk factors, the most effective messages, links to program outcomes and overall recommendations.
Conclusions
Our formative research from this review suggests that CPA prevention program developers might consider integrating components into their programs that address the most commonly targeted risk factors highlighted in this review that were linked with significant outcomes. We recommend, at minimum, incorporating the most promising risk factors into CPA prevention programming, including reducing parental impulsivity, reducing the stigma associated with asking for parenting help, increasing social support for parents, increasing knowledge and use of positive parenting techniques and increasing knowledge of appropriate expectations for a child’s developmental stage. In particular, Triple P and effective SBS program materials should undergo further rigorous evaluation to confirm their effectiveness in reducing CPA. The use of helplines also appears promising and should be integrated into future interventions and further evaluated.
This review provides a preliminary assessment of the impact of population-level interventions with a media component for CPA prevention and suggests that, although the evidence for Triple P is promising, the current level of evidence for other examined interventions is insufficient to draw solid conclusions and additional studies are needed. Overall, more rigorous evaluations should be conducted in order to broaden the evidence base for these types of interventions. Future evaluation studies would benefit from the inclusion of clear program theory descriptions along with a clear review of targeted risk factors and their linkages with program messages and components. Further development and testing of universal CPA prevention campaigns is important given their potential for community-level impact. The very high economic [12] and public health [8] costs of child maltreatment to society mean that even modest prevention program effects on universal targets could have a major positive impact on society.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Guenevere Hoy, MPH and Alice Monyo, MPH, for their assistance and contributions to this paper.
Funding
The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development at the National Institutes of Health [grant number 5K01HD058733].
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
References
- 1.Dunn EC, McLaughlin KA, Slopen N, et al. Developmental timing of child maltreatment and symptoms of depression and suicidal ideation in young adulthood: results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Depress Anxiety. 2013;30(10):955–64. doi: 10.1002/da.22102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Widom CS, Czaja SJ, Bentley T, et al. A prospective investigation of physical health outcomes in abused and neglected children: new findings from a 30-year follow-up. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:1135–44. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300636. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Shonkoff JP, Garner AS The Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child Family Health et al. The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics. 2012;129:e232–46. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-2663. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention. National Center Brief: Safe Schools/Healthy Students. 2012. Childhood Trauma and Its Effect on Healthy Development; pp. 1–9. http://www.promoteprevent.org/content/childhood-trauma-and-its-effect-healthy-development. Accessed: 7 March 2014. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hart H, Rubia K. Neuroimaging of child abuse: a critical review. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012;6:1–24. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Danese A, McEwen BS. Adverse childhood experiences, allostasis, allostatic load, and age-related disease. Physiol Behav. 2012;106:29–39. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.08.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kim-Cohen J, Caspi A, Taylor A, et al. MAOA, maltreatment, and gene-environment interaction predicting children's mental health: new evidence and a meta-analysis. Mol Psychiatry. 2006;11:903–13. doi: 10.1038/sj.mp.4001851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Anda R, Felitti V, Bremner J, et al. The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in childhood: A convergence of evidence from neurobiology and epidemiology. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2006;256:174–86. doi: 10.1007/s00406-005-0624-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Arias I. The legacy of child maltreatment: long-term health consequences for women. J Women's Health. 2004;13:468–73. doi: 10.1089/1540999041280990. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14:245–58. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00017-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Shalev I, Moffitt TE, Sugden K, et al. Exposure to violence during childhood is associated with telomere erosion from 5 to 10 years of age: a longitudinal study. Mol Psychiatry. 2013;18:576–81. doi: 10.1038/mp.2012.32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Fang X, Brown DS, Florence CS, et al. The economic burden of child maltreatment in the United States and implications for prevention. Child Abuse Neglect. 2012;36:156–65. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.10.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Shonkoff JP, Boyce WT, McEwen BS. Neuroscience, molecular biology, and the childhood roots of health disparities: building a new framework for health promotion and disease prevention. JAMA. 2009;301:2252–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Dong M, Giles WH, Felitti VJ, et al. Insights into causal pathways for ischemic heart disease: Adverse childhood experiences study. Circulation. 2004;110:1761–6. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000143074.54995.7F. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2011). Child Maltreatment 2010. Available from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment. Accessed: 7 March 2014.
- 16. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2012). Child Maltreatment 2011. Available from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment. Accessed: 7 March 2014.
- 17.Klevens J, Whitaker DJ. Primary prevention of child physical abuse and neglect: gaps and promising directions. Child Maltreat. 2007;12:364–77. doi: 10.1177/1077559507305995. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Olds DL, Eckenrode J, Henderson CR, et al. Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect - Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA. 1997;278:637–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Posthumus JA, Raajimakers MAJ, van Engeland H, et al. Sustained effects of Incredible Years as a preventive intervention in preschool children with conduct problems. J Abnorm Child Psych. 2012;40:487–500. doi: 10.1007/s10802-011-9580-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.MacLeod J, Nelson G. Programs for the promotion of family wellness and the prevention of child maltreatment: a meta-analytic review. Child Abuse Neglect. 2000;24:1127–49. doi: 10.1016/s0145-2134(00)00178-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Rose G. Sick individuals and sick populations (Reiteration) Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30:427–32. doi: 10.1093/ije/30.3.427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Leavy JE, Bull FC, Rosenberg M, et al. Physical activity mass media campaigns and their evaluation: a systematic review of the literature 2003-2010. Health Educ Res. 2011;26:1060–85. doi: 10.1093/her/cyr069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Sanders MR, Prinz RJ. Using the mass media as a population level strategy to strengthen parenting skills. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2008;37:609–21. doi: 10.1080/15374410802148103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Durkin S, Brennan E, Wakefield M. Mass media campaigns to promote smoking cessation among adults: an integrative review. Tob Control. 2012;21:127–38. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Edwards R, Thomson G, Wilson N, et al. After the smoke has cleared: evaluation of the impact of a new national smoke-free law in New Zealand. Tob Control. 2008;17:e2. doi: 10.1136/tc.2007.020347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Elder RW, Shults RA, Sleet DA, et al. Effectiveness of mass media campaigns for reducing drinking and driving and alcohol-involved crashes: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27:57–65. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Price SM, Huhman M, Potter LD. Influencing the Parents of children aged 9-13 years: findings from the VERB(TM) campaign. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34:S267–74. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. Community health improvement resources, nutrition, mass media campaigns. Available from http://www.dhss.mo.gov/ InterventionMICA/Nutrition/CampaignsandPromotions/index_3.html. Accessed 6 March 2014.
- 29.Farrelly MC, Davis KC, Duke J, et al. Sustaining ‘truth': changes in youth tobacco attitudes and smoking intentions after 3 years of a national antismoking campaign. Health Educ Res. 2009;24:42–8. doi: 10.1093/her/cym087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Krug EG, Dahlberg LL, Mercy J, et al. World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002. p. 45. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Gershoff ET. Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull. 2002;128:539–79. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Taylor CA, Guterman NB, Lee SJ, et al. Intimate partner violence, maternal stress, nativity, and risk for maternal maltreatment of young children. Am J Public Health. 2009;99:175–83. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.126722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Zolotor AJ, Theodore AD, Runyan DK, et al. Corporal punishment and physical abuse: population-based trends for three-to-11-year-old children in the United States. Child Abuse Rev. 2011;20:57–66. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Afifi TO, Mota N, Macmillan HL, et al. Harsh physical punishment in childhood and adult physical health. Pediatrics. 2013;132:e333–40. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-4021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Afifi TO, Mota NP, Dasiewicz P, et al. Physical punishment and mental disorders: results from a nationally representative US sample. Pediatrics. 2012;130:184–92. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-2947. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Straus MA, Stewart JH. Corporal punishment by American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 1999;2:55–70. doi: 10.1023/a:1021891529770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Taylor CA, Lee SJ, Guterman NB, et al. Use of spanking for 3-year-old children and associated intimate partner aggression or violence. Pediatrics. 2010;126:415–24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-0314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Child Trends. Attitudes towards spanking, 2013. Available from http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=attitudes-toward-spanking. Accessed 6 March 2014.
- 39.Garbarino J. The human ecology of child maltreatment: a conceptual model for research. J Marriage Fam. 1977;39:721–35. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Bugental DB, Ellerson PC, Lin EK, et al. A cognitive approach to child abuse prevention. J Fam Psychol. 2002;16:243–58. doi: 10.1037//0893-3200.16.3.243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Duggan A, McFarlane E, Fuddy L, et al. Randomized trial of a statewide home visiting program: impact in preventing child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse Neglect. 2004;28:597–622. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Krugman SD, Lane WG, Walsh CM. Update on child abuse prevention. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2007;19:711–8. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0b013e3282f1c7e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Nelson G, Laurendeau MC, Chamberland C. A review of programs to promote family wellness and prevent the maltreatment of children. Can J Behav Sci. 2001;33:1–13. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Mikton C, Butchart A. Child maltreatment prevention: a systematic review of reviews. B World Health Organ. 2009;87:353–61. doi: 10.2471/BLT.08.057075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Sanders MR. Triple P- Positive Parenting Program: Towards an empirically validated multilevel parenting and family support strategy for the prevention of behavior and emotional problems in children. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 1999;2:71–90. doi: 10.1023/a:1021843613840. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Andrews AB, McLeese DG, Curran S. The impact of a media campaign on public action to help maltreated children in addictive families. Child Abuse Neglect. 1995;19:921–932. doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(95)00054-c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Calam R, Sanders MR, Miller C, et al. Can technology and the media help reduce dysfunctional parenting and increase engagement with preventative parenting interventions? Child Maltreat. 2008;13:347–61. doi: 10.1177/1077559508321272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Deyo G, Skybo T, Carroll A. Secondary analysis of the “Love Me…Never Shake Me” SBS education program. Child Abuse Neglect. 2008;32:1017–25. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.02.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Dias MS, Smith K, DeGuehery K, et al. Preventing abusive head trauma among infants and young children: a hospital-based, parent education program. Pediatrics. 2005;115:e470–7. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-1896. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Evans WD, Falconer MK, Khan M, et al. Efficacy of child abuse and neglect prevention messages in the Florida Winds of Change campaign. J Health Commun. 2012;17:413–31. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2011.626502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Fujiwara T, Yamada F, Okuyama M, et al. Effectiveness of educational materials designed to change knowledge and behavior about crying and shaken baby syndrome: A replication of a randomized controlled trial in Japan. Child Abuse Neglect. 2012;36:613–20. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Mandell S. Child abuse prevention at report card time. J Commun Psychol. 2000;28:687–90. [Google Scholar]
- 53.McLaren F. Community Study Summary Report, The Campaign for Action on Family Violence. New Zealand: Centre for Social Research and Evaluation; 2010a. [Google Scholar]
- 54.McLaren F. Attitudes, Values and Beliefs about Violence within Families. New Zealand: Center for Social Research and Evaluation; 2010b. [Google Scholar]
- 55.Norton DR, Firestone JM, Vega A. Changes in awareness of shaken baby syndrome in the San Antonio Metropolitan Statistical area: 2001-2002. J Appl Soc Sci. 2004;21:112–34. [Google Scholar]
- 56.Prinz R, Sanders MR, Shapiro C, et al. Population-based prevention of child maltreatment: the U.S. Triple P system population trial. Pre Sci. 2009;10:1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11121-009-0123-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Sanders MR, Calam R, Durand M, et al. Does self-directed and web-based support for parents enhance the effects of viewing a reality television series based on the Triple P – Positive Parenting Programme? J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;49:924–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01901.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Sanders MR, Montgomery DT, Brechman-Toussaint ML. The mass media and the prevention of child behavior problems: the evaluation of a television series to promote positive outcomes for parents and their children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2000;41:939–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Sanders MR, Ralph A, Sofronoff K, et al. Every Family: a population approach to reducing behavioral and emotional problems in children making the transition to school. J Prim Prev. 2008;29:197–222. doi: 10.1007/s10935-008-0139-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Scholer SJ, Hudnut-Beumler J, Dietrich MS. A brief primary care intervention helps parents develop plans to discipline. Pediatrics. 2010;125:e242–9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0874. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Showers J. “Don't shake the baby”: The effectiveness of a prevention program. Child Abuse Neglect. 1992;16:11–18. doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(92)90004-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Stewart TC, Polgar D, Gilliland J, et al. Shaken baby syndrome and a triple-dose strategy for its prevention. J Trauma. 2011;71:1801–1807. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31823c484a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Runyan DK, Hennink-Kaminski HJ, Zolotor AJ, et al. Designing and testing a shaken baby syndrome prevention program- the period of PURPLE crying: keeping babies safe in North Carolina. Soc Market Quart. 2009;XV:2–24. [Google Scholar]