Browsing by Person "Gillberg, C."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

How evidence-based is an 'evidence-based parenting programme'? A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis of Triple P
(BioMed Central, 2012-11-02) Wilson, P.; Rush, R.; Hussey, S.; Puckering, C.; Sim, F.; Allely, C.; Doku, P.; McConnachie, A.; Gillberg, C.
Background Interventions to promote positive parenting are often reported to offer good outcomes for children but they can consume substantial resources and they require rigorous appraisal. Methods Evaluations of the Triple P parenting program were subjected to systematic review and meta-analysis with analysis of biases. PsychInfo, Embase and Ovid Medline were used as data sources. We selected published articles reporting any child-based outcome in which any variant of Triple P was evaluated in relation to a comparison condition. Unpublished data, papers in languages other than English and some book chapters were not examined. Studies reporting Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory or Child Behavior Checklist scores as outcomes were used in the meta-analysis. Results A total of 33 eligible studies was identified, most involving media-recruited families. Thirty-one of these 33 studies compared Triple P interventions with waiting list or no-treatment comparison groups. Most papers only reported maternal assessments of child behavior. Twenty-three papers were incorporated in the meta-analysis. No studies involved children younger than two-years old and comparisons of intervention and control groups beyond the duration of the intervention were only possible in five studies. For maternally-reported outcomes the summary effect size was 0.61 (95%CI 0.42, 0.79). Paternally-reported outcomes following Triple P intervention were smaller and did not differ significantly from the control condition (effect size 0.42 (95%CI -0.02, 0.87)). The two studies involving an active control group showed no between-group differences. There was limited evidence of publication bias, but there was substantial selective reporting bias, and preferential reporting of positive results in article abstracts. Thirty-two of the 33 eligible studies were authored by Triple-P affiliated personnel. No trials were registered and only two papers contained conflict of interest statements. Conclusions In volunteer populations over the short term, mothers generally report that Triple P group interventions are better than no intervention, but there is concern about these results given the high risk of bias, poor reporting and potential conflicts of interest. We found no convincing evidence that Triple P interventions work across the whole population or that any benefits are long-term. Given the substantial cost implications, commissioners should apply to parenting programs the standards used in assessing pharmaceutical interventions.
What have birth cohort studies asked about genetic, pre- and perinatal exposures and child and adolescent onset mental health outcomes? A systematic review
(Springer Verlag, 2010-01-01) Thompson, Lucy; Wilson, P.; Pritchett, P.; Minnis, H.; Toms-Whittle, L.; Puckering, C.; Law, James; Gillberg, C.
Increased understanding of early neurobehavioural development is needed to prevent, identify, and treat childhood psychopathology most effectively at the earliest possible stage. Prospective birth cohorts can elucidate the association of genes, environment, and their interactions with neurobehavioural development. We conducted a systematic review of the birth cohort literature. On the basis of internet searches and 6,248 peer-reviewed references, 105 longitudinal epidemiological studies were identified. Twenty studies met inclusion criteria (prospectively recruited, population-based cohort studies, including at least one assessment before the end of the perinatal period and at least one assessment of behaviour, temperament/personality, neuropsychiatric or psychiatric status before 19 years of age), and their methodologies were reviewed in full. Whilst the birth cohort studies did examine some aspects of behaviour and neurodevelopment, observations in the early months and years were rare. Furthermore, aspects of sampling method, sample size, data collection, design, and breadth and depth of measurement in some studies made research questions about neurodevelopment difficult to answer. Existing birth cohort studies have yielded limited information on how pre- and perinatal factors and early neurodevelopment relate to child psychopathology. Further epidemiological research is required with a specific focus on early neurodevelopment. Studies are needed which include the measures of early childhood psychopathology and involve long-term follow-up. © 2009 Springer-Verlag.