Table 3. Evaluation of population-level parenting interventions.

Study area Country (Reference number)	Name of program	Age of target children	Years of intervention	Method of intervention	Allocation	Method of evaluation	Scales used for evaluation	Results of evaluation
Socio-economically deprived region of Eastern Metropolitan Health Region Western Australia (42)	Behavioral family intervention	2–16 years	around 2000	Large-scale population-level intervention utilizing basic health services implementation through existing services	Two quasi-experimental groups intervention: n = 804 control: n = 806	Baseline Immediately post 1-year follow-up 2-year follow-up	ECBI PS DASS	Effect size, immediately post, 1-year follow-up, and 2-year follow-up ECBI: 0.83 → 0.41 → 0.47 DASS: 0.38 → 0.29 → 0.23 PS: 1.08 → 0.59 → 0.56
Brisbane (17)	Triple P	4-to-7-year-old children	2003–2007	All five levels of Positive Parenting Program (Triple P)	10 designated areas in Brisbane 10 socio-economically matched comparison areas from Sydney and Melbourne	Computer-supported telephone interview of randomly selected families (n = 3000) in each area	SDQ DASS	Parental depression % above clinical level, pre-post Intervention areas: 26.7% → 19.7% Control areas: 19.1% → 18.6%
						Baseline 2-year post-intervention		Total difficulty % above clinical level, pre-post Intervention areas: 13.9% → 10.9% Control areas: 9.7% → 10.4%
Canada (8)	Parenting program Solving discussion Role play Modelling Homework	Junior kindergartners	Around 1990	Randomly assigned to (1) 12-week individual, (2) 12-week large-group, or (3) waiting-list	2564 families above the 90th percentile on the risk scale randomized to large-group, community based parent-training program or clinic-based, individually delivered parent-training program	Baseline Post-intervention	CBCL SOFC 1-hour home observation	Greater improvements in behavior problems at home in Community/Group intervention and better maintenance Significant time effect in CBCL, POFC, home observation (MANOVA)
South Carolina United States (43)	Triple P	Under 8 years	2006–2008	2 years of intervention with all 5 level of Triple P system by 649 service providers	Random allocation of 18 counties in a southeastern state of the United States	Baseline 2-year post-intervention	Rate of substantial CM Out-of-home placement Hospitalization or emergency visit from CM	Reduction in rates, effect size substantial CM: 1.09 out-of-home placement: 1.02 hospitalization or emergency room visit: 1.14
England (44)	Triple P Incredible Years (school version) Strengthening Families Strengthening Community (SFSC)	8–13 years	2008	Families with children at risk of antisocial behavior assigned to one of three parenting programs	Random allocation of local authorities (LAs) to three programs (6 LAs for each) Incredible Years: 56 groups Triple P: 142 groups SFSC: 68 groups	Numbers of families evaluated	WEMWBS PS Adolescent PSOC	Effect sizes, ranges across programs WEMWES: 0.44–0.88 PS: 0.57–0.77 PSOC: 0.33–0.77 SDQ: −0.47–−0.71 SFSC: less effect than other two programs
						Pre-course data Incredible Years: 473 Triple P: 1084 SFSC: 650
						Post-course data Incredible Years: 240 Triple P: 515 SFSC: 366
England (45)	Triple P Strengthening Families Strengthening Community (SFSC) Incredible Years Strengthening Families Program (SFP) Families and Schools Together (FAST)	8–13 years	2009–2011	Delivery through usual health services	Intervention LAs within 47 LAs representative of 147 LAs, 43 LAs which could collect data LAs are free to select any one or more of five programs	Pre-intervention Total: 6143 Triple P: 3171 SFSC: 868 Incredible years: 782 SFP: 969 FAST: 104	WEMWBS PS Adolescent	larger effect in Triple p but no significant differences among programs combined effect size parenting laxness 0.72 (PS) over activity 0.85 (PS) parent well being 0.79 (WEMWEB) conduct problems 0.45 (SDQ)
						Post-intervention total: 3325 one hour after: 1035
Inner city of Kingston Jamaica (46)	Incredible Years Teacher Training	3–6 years	2009–2010	Training all the teachers Mentors in class Workshops	Cluster randomization 24 out of 50 community pre-schools: Intervention (n = 12) vs control (n = 12)	Baseline Post-intervention	1-hour home observation ECBI SDQ School attendance	Effect size reduced conduct problems: 0.42 (observation) increased friendship skills: 0.74 (observation) reduction in behavior difficulties, teacher report: 0.47 reduction in behavior difficulties, parent report: 0.22 increased Social skill, teacher report: 0.59 increased Child attendance: 0.30
					Three children from each class with highest level of teacher-recognized conduct problems (225 children)
Socially deprived area in London England (47)	Empowering Parents Empowering Communities	2–11 years	2010	Trained and accredited peer facilitator	116 help-seeking families allocated to intervention (n = 59) or waitlist (n = 57)	Baseline Post-intervention	ECBI SDQ PS PSI	Effect size ECBI intensity: 0.37 SDQ total difficulty: 0.28 Parenting scale: 0.80 Parenting stress: 0.24
Suburban Oslo Norway (48)	Early Intervention for Children at risk for Development Behavior Problems (EICR)	6–12 years	2004–2005	Module based training of local professionals	7 elementary schools 271 teachers Quasi-experimental pre-post design Randomly selected intervention and control areas All identified children in intervention area	Baseline Post-intervention	Staff-reported problem incidence in classroom	Significant intervention effect F(1215) = 11.69 No significant time effect
Ireland (49)	6-week prevention version of the Parents Plus Early Years Programme (pilot study)	3–12 years	around 2008	6-week intervention Trained facilitator of community professionals	Nationwide recruitment through routine school activities or family support services 40 parents attended 29 parents completed evaluation	Baseline Post-intervention	SDQ CPG WSRF	Effect size SDQ total difficulty: 1.65

ECBI, Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory; PS, Parenting Style; DASS, Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales; SDQ, Strength and Difficulty Questionnaire; CBCL, Child Behavior Checklist; SOFC, Sense of Family Coherence; CM, child maltreatment; WEMWBS, Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale; PSOC, Parenting Sense of Competence Scale; PSI, Parenting Stress Index; CPG, client defined problems and goals; WSRF, weekly session rating form.