The prevention of violence in childhood through parenting programmes: a global review

Abstract

Child maltreatment is a global problem affecting both high income (HICs) and low and middle income countries (LMICs). However research has shown that children who live in the world’s poorest countries and communities are more likely to suffer from abuse and neglect. There is some evidence that parenting interventions can assist in the prevention of child maltreatment, but most of this research has been conducted in HICs. The main aim of this review was to examine the evidence from previous systematic reviews on the role of parenting programmes in the prevention of violence against children in both HICs and LMICs. A comprehensive internet search was conducted for published and unpublished reviews. After reviewing abstracts and full texts against established criteria for inclusion in the study, 28 reviews (20 systematic reviews/meta-analyses and 8 comprehensive reviews) were used in the analyses. The findings suggest that parenting programmes have the potential to both prevent and reduce the risk of child maltreatment. However, there is lack of good evidence from LMICs where the risk of child maltreatment is greatest. Implications for policy and future research are discussed, especially for the LMIC context.

Keywords:

• Parenting programmes
• violence prevention
• child maltreatment
• early childhood
• systematic review
• low and middle income countries (LMICs)

Violence is a major public health and human rights issue with serious consequences for individuals, families and societies (Wessels et al., 2013). Young children are particularly at risk for exposure to violence due to their dependence on caregivers, lack of mobility and limited social interactions outside of the home (UNICEF, 2014b). Child maltreatment encompasses all forms of physical and/or emotional ill-treatment. It also incorporates sexual abuse, neglect or negligent treatment and commercial or other exploitation of children (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002). Children can also be exposed to violence by witnessing the violence suffered by others in their families and communities.

Violence against children (VAC) is a global problem affecting both high income countries (HICs) and low- to middle- income countries (LMICs). However, research has shown that the burden of child injury and violence is heaviest in LMICs (Skeen & Tomlinson, 2013). Children who live in the world’s poorest countries are more likely to suffer from violence. Two-thirds of child murders take place in either low income or lower middle income countries (UNICEF, 2014a). Exposure to violence is also more prevalent in neighbourhoods and communities that are impoverished or isolated (UNICEF, 2014a).

Regardless of socio-economic status, parenting has been identified as an important factor in the aetiology of child maltreatment. Maltreatment is more likely when parents have a poor understanding of child development, are less nurturing, have an authoritarian parenting style or were abused themselves (McCloskey, 2011). There are also psychosocial risks for poor parenting that have been linked to child maltreatment including drug or alcohol dependency, depression, anxiety, low self-esteem and parenting stress (McCloskey, 2011).

It is therefore not surprising that the first of UNICEF’s six strategies for ending VAC relates to supporting parents, caregivers and families (UNICEF, 2014a). Parenting interventions have been shown to be effective both in improving parenting and children’s cognitive and behavioural outcomes (Knerr, Gardner, & Cluver, 2013; Mejia, Calam, & Sanders, 2012). However, most of the evidence for the prevention of child maltreatment through parenting interventions relates to physical abuse and neglect (MacMillan et al., 2009). There is less evidence for the prevention of sexual and emotional abuse because these forms of maltreatment are often the focus of different types of interventions or, as in the case of emotional abuse, are less well studied (Barlow, Simkiss, & Stewart-Brown, 2006).

Parenting interventions can use a range of delivery mechanisms (e.g. group-based or individual; home visiting; multicomponent interventions; media) and can be offered in many different settings (e.g. primary health-care, hospitals, early childhood centres, schools, homes, community centres). They may target specific groups of parents (e.g. teenage parents or parents with substance abuse issues) and have content that is tailored to the needs of particular populations. Parenting interventions can also be classified as – universal, selective or indicated – using a public health prevention framework. Universal programmes are aimed at the general public and do not discriminate on the basis of risk. Selective programmes on the other hand, are directed to at-risk groups (e.g. families living in poverty; teen mothers). Finally, indicated programmes are aimed at groups or individuals where there are already signs of problematic behaviours and may include treatment.

Evaluations of parenting programmes suggest that they can positively impact risk factors such as parental attitudes and relationships with partners, as well as help in the prevention of child maltreatment (WHO, 2013). Despite this evidence, there are several issues that currently make it difficult to be conclusive about the effectiveness of parenting programmes in the prevention of VAC. For example, there is often no consistent definition or measurement of child maltreatment across evaluations. Some evaluations use objective measures of child maltreatment such as reports from child protection services or number of injuries, while others use risk factors as a proxy for child maltreatment like parental stress and attitudes toward discipline. Systematic reviews of parenting evaluations have also highlighted several methodological weaknesses in evaluations (Euser et al., 2015) and overall, there are few randomised controlled trials on whether interventions prevent maltreatment (WHO, 2013). Programmes also differ in terms of target group, type of professional delivering the programme, number and length of sessions/visits, outcome measures and follow-up period. As a result, overall effects are often difficult to separate and quantify.

There is even less evidence regarding the role of parenting interventions in the prevention of child maltreatment in LMICs. However, there is evidence from low-resource settings in HICs that suggest that parenting programmes can have an impact in different cultural and economic contexts (WHO, 2013). A recent review of research from LMICs suggests that parenting programmes do improve parenting in these contexts (Knerr et al., 2013). However, very few of these studies actually measured violence as an outcome and therefore can offer less support for the role of these interventions in preventing violence.

Given the pervasive nature and profound effects of VAC, it is important that we use the best available evidence to guide our decisions regarding the implementation of interventions to prevent its occurrence. There is some evidence that strengthening families through parenting programmes can prevent child maltreatment and children’s exposure to other forms of violence such as intimate partner violence (IPV). However, this literature has serious gaps especially regarding the quality of evaluations and the efficacy of these types of programmes in LMICs. Consequently, the main aim of this review is to examine the evidence from previous systematic reviews on the role of universal and targeted parenting programmes in the prevention of VAC in both HICs and LMICs.

Method

A comprehensive internet search was conducted for published and unpublished reviews. The following electronic databases were searched: Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), PubMed, Medline, Psych Info and Cochrane Library. The initial search was restricted to titles, abstracts and keywords and included search terms such as ‘home visiting’, ‘child maltreatment’, ‘parent program’, and ‘systematic reviews’. A different search term was used in Cochrane Library (see Appendix A for the complete search terms). Unpublished reports and reviews such as workshop summaries, dissertations and conference reviews were located via Google Scholar and other websites such as World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

The inclusion criteria for the review were the following:

(1)	Systematic reviews, meta analyses or comprehensive reviews that included evaluations that measured child maltreatment outcomes.
(2)	Interventions had to target child maltreatment preventions, general parenting skills and the early childhood years.
(3)	Reviews written in English and published between 2000 and March 2016 (week 4).

During the identification process, reviews were excluded if they were related to disorders, diseases, obesity, the elderly, immunization and/or dental problems. During screening, reviews were excluded if they were editorials, letters, commentaries, solely for practitioners, tertiary intervention programmes, school interventions and interventions targeted at the child only. They were also excluded if the main outcome measures were birth outcomes or bullying. Finally, at the eligibility level, reviews with low Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores (0–4) were dropped from the analysis. AMSTAR is a measurement tool for the assessment of multiple systematic reviews that has good reliability and validity (Shea et al., 2007).

The search identified 4304 sources with nine being from grey literature. An initial screening of the titles and abstracts was used to exclude reviews not meeting the inclusion criteria. Articles that were duplicated were removed and selected reviews retrieved for detailed appraisal. A total of 154 articles were selected for detailed review. During this process 24 articles were excluded based on inclusion criteria. We attempted to contact authors to obtain articles we could not retrieve online, however, of the 22 authors contacted we received eight full text reviews. Overall, the research team reviewed 130 full text articles using the eligibility criteria and a standard data extraction form. Twenty-three systematic reviews and meta-analyses were scored for methodological quality using AMSTAR and three were eliminated based on low scores.

The flowchart of the entire selection process is detailed in Figure 1.

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of the search strategy.

Results

The findings of the systematic reviews are presented by child maltreatment outcome variables or by proxies such as parental mental health and attitudes to parenting or parenting stress, which have been associated with maltreatment. Included in the analysis are 28 reviews of which 20 were systematic reviews or meta-analyses and eight comprehensive reviews (see Table 1). The average AMSTAR of included systematic reviews and meta-analyses was 7.2, indicating that the reviews were of moderate quality. One of these 28 reviews was focused on findings from LMICs while another included studies from LMICs. Many studies (13) focused on the effects of a combination of parenting interventions (home visiting, group based etc.) while 11 focused on home visiting, and four reported on group programmes, and one study assessed media-based parent training.

Table 1. Summary of findings.

Article	Programme type	Papers reviewed	Outcomes assessed	Summary of main findings	AMSTAR
Alderdice et al. (2013)	Multi modal	32	Maternal mental health and well being	Postnatal nursing home visits (at risk mothers) was protective in first 6 weeks postpartum Group parenting participants had less depression, anxiety/stress, self-esteem and relationship adjustment	6
Avellar and Supplee (2013)	Home Visitation	207	Child maltreatment	Five programmes showed reduction in child maltreatment in parent and official reports	7
Barlow et al. (2014)	Group parenting programmes	48	Parental mental health	Improved psychosocial health post intervention for mothers Reduced parental stress for fathers in the short term Effects were non significant at one year	9
Barlow et al. (2002)	Group Parenting Programmes	15	Maternal mental health	Improved the mental health of parents from high and lower SES groups in the short term	6
Barlow et al. (2006)	Multi modal	15	Documented or reported abuse or neglect, parenting attitudes and practices, anger and stress levels.	Limited evidence about improving objective measures of physical abuse or neglect Modest benefits in improving parental and family functioning Media intervention and perinatal coaching were ineffective for high risk groups	7
Barlow et al. (2011)	Individual and Group	9	Parental Psychosocial health, Child health and development, parent–child relationship	No evidence regarding parental attitudes to child rearing Positive effect on parent interactions with infants 19/47 individual studies had statistically significant effect sizes for the intervention group	9
Bennett, Barlow, Huband, Smailagic, and Roloff (2013)	Group Parenting Programmes	48	Parental psychosocial health	Small short-term reduction in depression, anxiety, stress, anger and guilt and improvement in confidence and satisfaction with the partner relationship Effects became non – significant one year post intervention	8
Bilukha et al. (2005)	Home Visiting	20	Parental violence, Intimate partner violence, child maltreatment, child violence	Some evidence of effectiveness that home visitation prevents of child maltreatment Insufficient evidence for all other outcomes	7
Chen and Chan (2016)	Multi modal	37	Child maltreatment, parental risk factors, parental protective factors	A small but positive effect in reducing the number of substantiated child maltreatment reports, psychological aggression, harsh discipline, corporal punishment, neglect Reduction of inappropriate parenting attitudes regarding corporal punishment Small positive effect re: reduction of parental depression Effect size was larger for developing countries (.627 vs. .200)	8
Euser et al. (2015)	Multi modal	23	Child maltreatment, parent–child attachment	5/20 programmes were effective in reducing or preventing child maltreatment Programmes more effective at reducing maltreatment than preventing it	6
Filene et al. (2013)	Home visitation	51	Child maltreatment	In general, home visiting programs had no significant effects on child maltreatment	5
Geeraert et al. (2004)	Multi modal	40	Child Maltreatment, parent child interaction	Significant reduction in abusive and neglectful acts Reduced risk of negative family functioning and parent child interaction	7
Kendrick et al. (2008)	Multi modal	15	Unintentional injuries, maternal psychosocial functioning	Programmes effective in preventing unintentional injuries in young children by increasing parental knowledge	8
Kendrick et al. (2000)	Home visits	34	Unintentional injuries, maternal health, postnatal depression	Home visiting was found to significantly increase the quality of the home environment	9
Kendrick et al. (2013)	Multi modal	22	Maternal psychosocial health, unintentional injuries	Home visiting reduced unintentional injuries and improved home safety practices for at risk parents	10
Knerr et al. (2013)	Multi modal	12	Parent–child interaction, parental attitudes and knowledge	Two studies assessed harsh punishment and both studies showed significant reduction in harsh or dysfunctional parenting from two months to six years Two of the three studies showed an increase in parental attitude and knowledge	7
Howard and Brooks-Gunn (2009)	Home visiting	9	Child abuse and neglect, maternal mental health	Little evidence that home visiting programmes decreased child abuse and neglect and some evidence that home visiting positively affects parenting practices	N/A
MacMillan et al. (2009)	Parent interventions	N/A	Child maltreatment, Exposure to IPV	Nurse Family Partnership and Triple P were shown to reduce child maltreatment	N/A
Mikton and Butchart (2009)	Multi modal	26	Child maltreatment, child abuse, hospitalization, parental stress	4/7 studies showed evidence of reducing child maltreatment; 3/7 reduced risk factors associated with child maltreatment One study showed improvement in abusive head trauma Inadequate evidence regarding media interventions	8
Olds et al. (2007)	Home visiting	31	Punishment, child abuse, neglect	Lower rates of emergency room visits, injuries, and verified rates of child abuse 2 years post intervention Lower rates of official child abuse and neglect for participating mothers 15 years post Healthy Families America – greater use of non-violent methods of discipline	N/A
			Maternal mental health (depression, stress, anxiety) and well being.
Olds (2008)	Home visiting	N/A	Child maltreatment Unintentional injuries.	Lower rates of emergency room visits and verified rates of child abuse up to 15 years post intervention Fewer injuries from partner violence	N/A
Olds et al. (2000)	Home visiting	9	Child maltreatment, injuries	Lower rates of emergency room visits and verified rates of child abuse up to 15 years post intervention	N/A
Peacock, Konrad, Watson, Nickel, and Muhajarine (2013)	Home visiting	15	Child abuse and neglect	Paraprofessional home visiting was associated with decreases in harsh parenting	6
Persily (2003)	Home visiting	14	Child abuse and neglect	No difference in rates of child abuse. Argued that paraprofessional services may not be best for working with families at risk	N/A
Poole et al. (2014)	Media	17	Child maltreatment rates	Two studies found reductions in injuries and child maltreatment cases Reduced parental anger and stress, improvements in the use of positive discipline	5
			Parental stress, parental care giving abilities.
Reynolds et al. (2009)	Multi modal	15	Child maltreatment	6/ 12 found no preventive effects on maltreatment while 4/ 12 studies found significantly lower rates of substantiated child maltreatment	N/A
Sandler et al. (2011)	Multi modal	13	Parent behaviour and skills.	3/4 of studies reported improvement in parenting skills and reductions in child abuse and neglect Reduced reports of IPV Reductions in child injuries and ingestion of toxic substances Lower rates of abuse and neglect at 4 years (Nurse Family Partnership), stronger effects for at risk mothers	N/A
Sweet and Appelbaum (2004)	Home visitation	60	Child abuse, parent stress, child outcomes	Studies targeting low-income parents were more successful Para- professional home visitors were more effective than professionals or non-professionals Studies targeting low-income parents were more successful in preventing potential child abuse Targeted programmes more effective than universal programmes Overall, home visiting is not effective in reducing child abuse or parent stress as an indicator of potential child abuse	6

Maternal psychosocial well being and mental health

Six reviews reported on the effects of parenting programmes on parental (primarily maternal) mental health. Alderdice, McNeill, and Lynn (2013) reviewed the impact of postnatal home visiting and found that programme participants had lower rates of depression, anxiety/stress and self-esteem than non participants. Meta-analyses (Barlow, Coren, & Stewart-Brown, 2002; Barlow, Smailagic, Huband, Roloff, & Bennett, 2014) have found that intervention groups had significant immediate post intervention effects for rates of depression, anxiety, anger, guilt and partner relationships. These results were maintained at six months post intervention but disappeared at one year. A review of parenting programmes delivered using media-based materials (Poole, Seal, & Taylor, 2014) identified two studies that reported on reduced parental anger and stress post intervention.

IPV and family violence

Six reviews focused on how home visiting interventions addressed IPV during the antenatal period. A review by Sharps, Campbell, Baty, Walker, and Bair-Merritt (2008) stated that home visiting was not as effective in reducing rates of maltreatment when delivered in homes with IPV. Bilukha et al. (2005) found that there was some evidence to support using home visiting as a means to reduce levels of child maltreatment in homes with IPV, but no evidence of a reduction in the rate of IPV itself. On the contrary, studies have reported that the Nurse–Family Partnership (NFP) was associated with a reduction in IPV in homes that were experiencing IPV (Olds, 2008; Olds, Sadler, & Kitzman, 2007).

Child maltreatment

The majority of the studies reviewed attempted to assess the specific outcome of child maltreatment. The analysis of this outcome was limited by variations in the way the construct was measured, with some studies relying on parent reports and others collecting data from official sources. Both methods have inherent biases that limit the ability to make definitive statements about the relationship between parenting programmes and child maltreatment.

Positive evidence

Avellar and Supplee (2013) in a review of home visiting programmes found that five of six programmes that assessed child maltreatment as an outcome had positive results. Reviews of the evidence related to the NFP (Olds, 2008; Olds, Hill, Robinson, Song, & Little, 2000; Olds et al., 2007) have found that for one study site, there were significant differences in maltreatment rates (as measured by substantiated reports) between the intervention and control group. Using parent reports, Olds et al. (2007) found that home-visited mothers engaged in fewer neglectful behaviours at follow up. These differences were significant for two years post intervention but waned by four years. The long term follow up 15 years post intervention also found significantly lower maltreatment rates for the intervention group.

Meta-analyses of various types of parenting programmes have found that the intervention groups had reduced levels of child maltreatment, and harsh and dysfunctional parenting practices (Chen & Chan, 2016; Geeraert, Van Den Noortgate, Grietens, & Onghena, 2004). Sandler, Schoenfelder, Wolchik, and MacKinnon (2011) reviewed four studies, three of which reported a reduction in corporal punishment, child abuse, and neglect. Unintentional injuries serve as a measure of the safety of the home environment, which is often used as a proxy indicator of child maltreatment. Several reviews (Kendrick, Barlow, Hampshire, Stewart-Brown, & Polnay, 2008; Kendrick et al., 2000, 2013; Olds et al., 2000, 2007, 2009; Roberts, Kramer, & Suissa, 1996) found that parenting programmes/interventions were effective in reducing the rates of child injuries and hospital visits.

Mixed or no evidence

Several reviews have argued that there is mixed or insufficient evidence to conclude that parenting programmes are an effective means to prevent maltreatment (Euser et al., 2015; Howard & Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Mikton & Butchart, 2009; Reynolds, Mathieson, & Topitzes, 2009). One issue raised in these reviews was the fact that there were few long term follow up studies. MacMillan et al. (2009) stated that the NFP is the only home visiting programme with proven effects while the Triple P programme was found to be effective in a single population. Meta-analyses of home visiting programmes (Filene, Kaminski, Valle, & Cachat, 2013; Sweet & Appelbaum, 2004) found that programmes targeted towards low income mothers had a significant effect on child abuse rates. On the other hand, Roberts et al. (1996) noted that for five of nine home visiting programmes reviewed the intervention group had higher rates of maltreatment; it is theorized that these findings may be as a result of surveillance bias.

Evidence from LMICs

Of the 28 reviews, there was only one (Knerr et al., 2013) that specifically focused on data from LMICs. In this review, one study reported on abusive parenting but this outcome could not be assessed because of insufficient data. Two other studies assessed harsh parenting and found that the intervention groups used harsh punishments less often than the comparison groups. One other paper (Chen & Chan, 2016) included two studies from LMICs in their review. They found that there was significantly greater reduction in child maltreatment rates in LMICs than for HICs, even though both saw benefits.

Discussion

This systematic review of reviews has identified evidence about the relationship between parenting programmes and child maltreatment from predominantly HICs. Our review has determined that parenting programmes appear to have a positive effect on risk factors or proxy measures associated with child maltreatment such as maternal psychosocial health and parental perceptions about harsh parenting practices. This is also true for the rates of unintentional injuries, which showed consistent significant differences between intervention and non-intervention groups.

Measuring the effect of parenting programmes on reported or actual cases of child maltreatment was more difficult because of methodological issues. Firstly, there were no standard outcomes measured as some studies relied on parent reports and others on official reports. The use of different sources makes synthesis of the data difficult, and there are biases associated with each method, which can compromise data validity. Secondly, child maltreatment was often excluded from many programme evaluations, and when it was measured there were few long-term follow up studies. Thirdly, some studies were of low quality and did not include a comparable control group. Despite these measurement challenges the data presented do trend toward the potential of parenting programmes to prevent or reduce child maltreatment. Additionally, significant effects for at-risk groups are often found even in meta-analyses that conclude that there is no generalized effect (Reynolds et al., 2009; Sweet & Appelbaum, 2004).

There was limited data on whether parenting programmes could prevent maltreatment in homes with IPV. There also did not appear to be any data on children witnessing IPV. Another gap in the literature is the role of parenting programmes in preventing sexual abuse, as most sexual abuse programmes are offered to children through schools (MacMillan et al., 2009; Mikton & Butchart, 2009). There were no reports on sexual abuse prevention and parenting programmes.

Application to LMICs

Proportionally, there were very limited data regarding child maltreatment outcomes originating from LMICs. In the review by Knerr et al. (2013) only 3 of the 12 included studies addressed child maltreatment. Most studies assessed the quality of the parent–child relationship, which was significantly improved by the parenting intervention. Outcomes for parenting programmes in LMICs are often more focused on nutrition or cognitive factors that are known to have a direct impact on human capital development.

The challenge for LMICs is that the need for child maltreatment prevention programmes is great (as a means to break the cycle of violence) but the evidence base within LMICs is weak (Ward, Sanders, Gardner, Mikton, & Dawes, 2015). In both LMICs and HICs there has been a traditional focus on child protection services for children who have experienced abuse and trauma (Mikton et al., 2013). Child protection services are, therefore, often established in law and receive consistent (if inadequate) resource allocations from the state. As such, a shift in resource allocation in LMICs to child maltreatment prevention services will require strong evidence that can sway policy makers, especially the since the payoff is over the long term.

In the research community, the highest quality evidence comes from randomized controlled trials. In resource-poor LMICs however, RCTs are not common due to high cost and the lack of technical experts to run such complicated studies (Ward et al., 2015). The parenting programme evaluations that are conducted in LMICs are often methodologically weak due to factors such as a lack of pre- and post-tests, comparison groups or conducting a follow up assessment only. As a result, LMICs tend to be caught in a catch-22, investing in programmes that have no real evidentiary base yet needing strong evidence to make proper decisions about what to invest in. At the political level, there is also often pressure in LMICs to prove effectiveness rapidly but funds directed towards research can be interpreted as a waste of resources, especially when there are urgent matters that need to be addressed. Ward et al. (2015) proposes that other methods such as propensity score matching or regression continuity designs that are commonly used to evaluate social development projects be used when RCTs are not possible.

Universal vs. targeted programmes

In LMICs, limited resources mean that serious thought has to be given to whether programmes should be offered to those in greatest need (targeted) or to all the eligible members (universal) of the population. Some studies recommended the implementation of a universal approach because of difficulty associated with identifying maltreatment within families and it avoids the stigma of labels (Pisani Altafim & Martins Linhares, 2016). In the context of LMICs there is no evidence found as to whether programmes should be universal or targeted. The data in the review from HICs was mixed on the effectiveness of universal vs. targeted programmes with both the NFP (targeted to low income mothers) and Triple P Level one (Universal) significantly reducing child maltreatment. It is likely that a multifaceted approach similar to the structure of the Triple P needs to be designed to ensure a minimum level of service provision for all families while ensuring that the necessary services are available for families at risk.

Cost effectiveness

While this review did not focus on the economic costs associated with parenting programmes, the cost benefit of the service provision has to be critically assessed in LMICs. This is because well-established programmes with strong evidence from HICs have very prohibitive affiliation and training costs. Development of local programmes and materials is also an option but can also prove costly, time consuming and may not, in the end, prove effective. Ward et al. (2015) notes that the cost of implementing some parenting programmes in LMICs is much greater than the per capita budgetary health allocation. Additionally some parenting services are most effective when delivered by highly qualified professionals and may require extensive physical resources resulting in increased costs. There is evidence that preventative services are cheaper than child protection based services, but this needs to be firmly established within the context of LMICs.

Limitations

There are some limitations that may impact the interpretation of the findings of this review. Firstly, some systematic reviews may have been missed because particular databases were not searched. Additionally, resources only allowed for the inclusion of English language sources. Although there was a search of grey literature, this was not comprehensive and none of the identified reports or dissertations met inclusion criteria. Given the similarity of included sources with previous review of reviews, we do not believe that these limitations have a major impact on our findings.

Secondly, many of the reviews included data from the same studies, so there may be an overrepresentation of findings from some programmes and studies. This was a similar limitation identified by Barlow et al. (2006) in their systematic review of reviews of interventions to prevent or ameliorate child physical abuse and neglect. Finally, the reviews included in this work varied in terms of their scope and quality. This imposes limitations on the interpretation of key findings. Also there were very few studies and programmes from LMICs. Together these issues make interpretation of the findings challenging and limits conclusions about the effectiveness of these programmes, especially in different contexts.

Recommendations: research and policy

The evidence base on the effectiveness of parenting interventions for the prevention of VAC (especially in LMICs) needs to be strengthened through more high quality evaluations with different populations and in different countries. Countries should also invest in research on the magnitude, causes and consequences of child maltreatment, as well as their capacity to develop and/or adapt prevention interventions. Research in LMICs can be expanded and enhanced through the provision of increased funding and technical assistance.

Researchers in this area must also address issues related to consensus on the definition of VAC and the most appropriate outcomes and outcomes measures. This will allow for more consistent measurement of the effectiveness of interventions. In addition, programme monitoring and evaluation frameworks need to explicitly measure child maltreatment and exposure to IPV as outcomes and evaluations need to have longer follow-ups. Research is also needed to address the gaps in the literature such as the effectiveness of parenting programmes for fathers and for preventing exposure to IPV.

At the policy level, every country should place the prevention of all forms of violence against children on their policy agendas. This will guide the development of national action plans which are critical for good planning, intersectoral coordination and implementation of effective strategies for the prevention of VAC, including interventions with parents. Policymakers must also consider offering different types of interventions for the prevention of VAC in different settings. There is a place for universal, selective and indicated programmes in a comprehensive strategy for the prevention and treatment of child maltreatment.

Countries should take steps to strengthen national capacity for collecting, linking and disseminating relevant administrative data that can be used in the evaluation of violence prevention interventions (e.g. injuries and hospitalizations) and wherever possible parenting interventions should be integrated into existing services and systems. This is especially important in LMICs where scarce resources have to be used wisely. Integration into existing structures and systems will also contribute to the sustainability of programmes.

Ultimately, countries should develop a comprehensive prevention strategy based on their level of burden, evidence base of what works in their contexts, existing programmes and services and capacity to offer high quality programmes. Consideration must also be given to entry points for programmes and the most cost effective setting to offer particular programmes depending on level of risk, age of parents and/or children and other key factors. This will ensure the best use of scarce resources so as to maximize prevention efforts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This work was supported by Know Violence in Childhood.

Acknowledgements

This paper was prepared under the Know Violence in Childhood: Global Learning Initiative (http://www.knowviolenceinchildhood.org/). The authors acknowledge the support and internal review provided by the Initiative and its funders.

Appendix A. Search Term

Academic search complete (Ebsco), PubMed, Medline, PsycInfo

(parent* program* or home visiting) AND (child maltreatment or intimate partner violence or ipv or harsh punishment or corporal punishment or systematic review or review or meta-analysis or meta analysis or LMIC or Developing countries) NOT (autism or ASD or elderly or ADHD or caries or dental or obesity or overweight or immunization or renal or cancer)

Cochrane Library

Parenting program

Appendix B. Excluded References

Ammerman, R. T., Putnam, F. W., Bosse, N. R., Teeters, A. R. & Van Ginkel, J. B. 2010. Maternal depression in home visitation: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 191–200.

Baker, A., Schneiderman, M., Brassard, M. R. & Donnelly, L. J. 2012a. Do evidence-based group parenting programs for high-risk or maltreating parents include content about psychological maltreatment?: A Program Review. Child Welfare, 91, 7–37.

Baker, A. J. L., Brassard, M. R., Schneiderman, M. S., Donnelly, L. J. & Bahl, A. 2011. How well do evidence-based universal parenting programs teach parents about psychological maltreatment?: A program review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 855–865.

Baker, A. J. L., Brassard, M. R., Schneiderman, M. S., Donnelly, L. J. & Bahl, A. 2012b. Corrigendum to ‘How well do evidence-based universal parenting programs teach parents about psychological maltreatment?: A program review’ [Child Abuse Negl. 35 (2011) 855–865]. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 267–267.

Barlow, J. & Coren, E. 2004. Parent-training programmes for improving maternal psychosocial health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, Cd002020.

Barlow, J., Johnston, I., Kendrick, D., Polnay, L. & Stewart-Brown, S. (2006). Individual and group-based parenting programmes for the treatment of physical child abuse and neglect. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD005463.

Barlow, J. & Parsons, J. 2003. Group-based parent-training programmes for improving emotional and behavioural adjustment in 0–3 year old children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, Cd003680.

Barlow, J., Parsons, J. & Stewart-Brown, S. 2005. Preventing emotional and behavioural problems: the effectiveness of parenting programmes with children less than 3 years of age. Child: Care, Health & Development, 31, 33–42.

Barlow, J., Schrader-Mcmillan, A., Axford, N., Wrigley, Z., Sonthalia, S., Wilkinson, T., Rawsthorn, M., Toft, A. & Coad, J. 2015. Attachment and attachment-related outcomes in preschool children: A review of recent evidence. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, No Pagination Specified.

Barlow, J., Smailagic, N., Ferriter, M., Bennett, C. & Jones, H. 2010. Group-based parent-training programmes for improving emotional and behavioural adjustment in children from birth to three years old. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, Cd003680.

Barth, R. P. 2009. Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect with Parent Training: Evidence and Opportunities. Future of Children, 19, 95–118.

Bauer, N. S. & Webster-Stratton, C. Prevention of behavioral disorders in primary care. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 18, 654–60.

Baumann, A. A., Powell, B. J., Kohl, P. L., Tabak, R. G., Penalba, V., Proctor, E. E., Domenech-Rodriguez, M. M. & Cabassa, L. J. 2015. Cultural adaptation and implementation of evidence-based parent-training: A systematic review and critique of guiding evidence. Child Youth Serv Rev, 53, 113–120.

Bayer, J., Hiscock, H., Scalzo, K., Mathers, M., Mcdonald, M., Morris, A., Birdseye, J. & Wake, M. 2009. Systematic review of preventive interventions for children’s mental health: What would work in Australian contexts? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 695–710.

Bayley, J., Wallace, L. M. & Choudhry, K. Fathers and parenting programmes: barriers and best practice. Community Practitioner, 82, 28–31.

Bennett, C., Barlow, J., Huband, N., Smailagic, N. & Roloff, V. 2013. Group-based parenting programs for improving parenting and psychosocial functioning: A systematic review. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research Vol 4(4), Dec 2013, ArtID 300–332, 4.

Benzies, K. M., Magill-Evans, J. E., Hayden, K. A. & Ballantyne, M. 2013. Key components of early intervention programs for preterm infants and their parents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 13 Suppl 1, S10.

Boddy, J., Smith, M. & Statham, J. 2011. Understandings of efficacy: Cross-national perspectives on ‘what works’ in supporting parents and families. Ethics and Education, 6, 181–196.

Breitenstein, S. M., Gross, D. & Christophersen, R. 2014. Digital delivery methods of parenting training interventions: a systematic review. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs, 11, 168–76.

Broning, S., Kumpfer, K., Kruse, K., Sack, P. M., Schaunig-Busch, I., Ruths, S., Moesgen, D., Pflug, E., Klein, M. & Thomasius, R. 2012. Selective prevention programs for children from substance-affected families: a comprehensive systematic review. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy, 7, 23.

Budd, K. S., Stockman, K. D. & Miller, E. N. 1998. Parenting issues and interventions with adolescent mothers. Handbook of child abuse research and treatment. New York, NY: Plenum Press; US.

Bunting, L. 2004. Parenting programmes: The best available evidence. Child Care in Practice, 10, 327–343.

Byrne, F., Grace, R., Tredoux, J. & Kemp, L. 2015. Structured social relationships: a review of volunteer home visiting programs for parents of young children. Aust Health Rev, 40, 30.

Casillas, K. L., Fauchier, A., Derkash, B. T. & Garrido, E. F. 2016. Implementation of evidence-based home visiting programs aimed at reducing child maltreatment: A meta-analytic review. Child Abuse Negl, 53, 64–80.

Chaffin, M., Bonner, B. L. & Hill, R. F. 2001. Family preservation and family support programs: child maltreatment outcomes across client risk levels and program types. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 1269.

Charles, J., Bywater, T. & Edwards, R. 2011. Parenting interventions: A systematic review of the economic evidence. Child: Care, Health and Development, 37, 462–474.

Corcoran, J. & Pillai, V. K. 2007. Effectiveness of secondary pregnancy prevention programs: A meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 5–18.

Coren, E. & Barlow, J. Individual and group-based parenting programmes for improving psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents and their children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD002964.

Coren, E., Barlow, J. & Stewart-Brown, S. 2003. The effectiveness of individual and group-based parenting programmes in improving outcomes for teenage mothers and their children: a systematic review. J Adolesc, 26, 79–103.

Cowley, S., Whittaker, K., Malone, M., Donetto, S., Grigulis, A. & Maben, J. 2015. Why health visiting? Examining the potential public health benefits from health visiting practice within a universal service: a narrative review of the literature. Int J Nurs Stud, 52, 465–80.

Coyne, J. C. & Kwakkenbos, L. 2013. Triple P-positive parenting programs: The folly of basing social policy on underpowered flawed studies. BMC Medicine, 11, 1–3.

Craig, E. A. 2004. Parenting programs for women with mental illness who have young children: a review. Aust N Z J Psychiatry, 38, 923–8.

Dalziel, K. & Segal, L. 2012. Home visiting programmes for the prevention of child maltreatment: cost-effectiveness of 33 programmes. Arch Dis Child, 97, 787–98.

Dawley, K., Loch, J. & Bindrich, I. 2007. The Nurse–Family Partnership. Am J Nurs, 107, 60–7; quiz 67–8.

De Graaf, I., Speetjens, P., Smit, F., De Wolff, M. & Tavecchio, L. 2008. Effectiveness of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program on behavioral problems in children: a meta-analysis. Behav Modif, 32, 714–35.

Delawarde, C., Saïas, T. & Briffault, X. 2014. The public health dogma of evidence-based mental disorders prevention and mental health promotion: French professionals’ beliefs in regard to parenting programs. Health Sociology Review, 23, 166–177.

Donelan-Mccall, N., Eckenrode, J. & Olds, D. L. 2009. Home visiting for the prevention of child maltreatment: lessons learned during the past 20 years. Pediatr Clin North Am, 56, 389–403.

Dretzke, J., Davenport, C., Frew, E., Barlow, J., Stewart-Brown, S., Bayliss, S., Taylor, R. S., Sandercock, J. & Hyde, C. The clinical effectiveness of different parenting programmes for children with conduct problems: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry & Mental Health [Electronic Resource], 3, 7.

Drummond, J. E., Weir, A. E. & Kysela, G. M. 2002. Home visitation programs for at-risk young families. A systematic literature review. Can J Public Health, 93, 153–8.

Evans, T., Whittingham, K., Sanders, M., Colditz, P. & Boyd, R. N. 2014. Are parenting interventions effective in improving the relationship between mothers and their preterm infants? Infant Behav Dev, 37, 131–54.

Evanson, T. A. 2006. Addressing domestic violence through maternal–child health home visiting: What we do and do not know. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 23, 95–111.

Farrington, D. P. 2010. The developmental evidence base: Prevention. Towl, Graham J [Ed]; Crighton, David A [Ed] (2010) Forensic psychology (pp 95–112) xv, 458 pp Wiley-Blackwell.

Fetcheri, R., Freeman, E. & Matthey, S. 2011. The impact of behavioural parent training on fathers’ parenting: A meta-analysis of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 9, 291–312.

Furey, A. 2004. Are support and parenting programmes of value for teenage parents? Who should provide them and what are the main goals? Public Health, 118, 262–7.

Furlong, M., Mcgilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S. M. & Donnelly, M. Cochrane review: behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting programmes for early-onset conduct problems in children aged 3 to 12 years (Review). Evidence-Based Child Health a Cochrane Review Journal, 8, 318–692.

Furr-Roeske, C. M. 2012. Parenting interventions for children exposed to intimate partner violence. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 73, 2112.

Gardner, F., Montgomery, P. & Knerr, W. 2015. Transporting evidence-based parenting programs for child problem behavior (age 3–10) between countries: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol, 1–14.

Gardner, M. R. & Deatrick, J. A. 2006. Understanding interventions and outcomes in mothers of infants. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 29, 25–44.

Gavita, O. & Joyce, M. 2008. A review of the effectiveness of group cognitively enhanced behavioral based parent programs designed for reducing disruptive behavior in children. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, 8, 185–199.

Gomby, D. S., Culross, P. L. & Behrman, R. E. 1999. Home visiting: recent program evaluations–analysis and recommendations. Future Child, 9, 4–26, 195–223.

Gonzalez, A. & Macmillan, H. L. 2008. Preventing child maltreatment: an evidence-based update. J Postgrad Med, 54, 280–6.

Goyal, N. K., Teeters, A. & Ammerman, R. T. 2013. Home visiting and outcomes of preterm infants: a systematic review. Pediatrics, 132, 502–16.

Gupta, R., Pandey, A. & John, B. M. 2013. Home visits: A strategy to improve newborn survival. The Lancet, 382, 1627.

Guterman, N. B. 1999. Enrollment strategies in early home visitation to prevent physical child abuse and neglect and the ‘universal versus targeted’ debate: a meta-analysis of population-based and screening-based programs. Child Abuse Negl, 23, 863–90.

Guttman, M., Mowder, B. & Yasik, A. 2006. Early violence prevention programs: implications for violence prevention against girls and women. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1087, 90–102.

Harding, K., Galano, J., Martin, J., Huntington, L. & Schellenbach, C. J. 2007. Healthy Families America effectiveness: a comprehensive review of outcomes. J Prev Interv Community, 34, 149–79.

Haskett, M. E., Loehman, J. & Burkhart, K. 2014. Parenting interventions in shelter settings: A qualitative systematic review of the literature. Child & Family Social Work, No Pagination Specified.

Herd, M., Whittingham, K., Sanders, M., Colditz, P. & Boyd, R. N. 2014. Efficacy of preventative parenting interventions for parents of preterm infants on later child behavior: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infant Ment Health J, 35, 630–41.

Hollowell, J., Oakley, L., Kurinczuk, J. J., Brocklehurst, P. & Gray, R. 2011. The effectiveness of antenatal care programmes to reduce infant mortality and preterm birth in socially disadvantaged and vulnerable women in high-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 11, 13.

Holton, J. K. & Harding, K. 2007. Healthy Families America: ruminations on implementing a home visitation program to prevent child maltreatment. J Prev Interv Community, 34, 13–38.

Hoyer, P. J. Prenatal and parenting programs for adolescent mothers. Annual Review of Nursing Research, 16, 221–49.

Issel, L., Forrestal, S. G., Slaughter, J., Wiencrot, A. & Handler, A. 2011. A review of prenatal home-visiting effectiveness for improving birth outcomes. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing: Clinical Scholarship for the Care of Women, Childbearing Families, & Newborns, 40, 157–165.

Johnson, M., Stone, S., Lou, C., Ling, J., Claassen, J. & Austin, M. J. Assessing parent education programs for families involved with child welfare services: evidence and implications. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 5, 191–236.

Kane, G., Wood, V. & Barlow, J. 2007. Parenting programmes: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Child: Care, Health and Development, 33, 784–793.

Kearney, M. H., York, R. & Deatrick, J. A. Effects of home visits to vulnerable young families. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 32, 369–76.

Kendrick, D., Barlow, J., Hampshire, A., Stewart-Brown, S. & Polnay, L. 2008. Parenting interventions and the prevention of unintentional injuries in childhood: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Child: Care, Health and Development, 34, 682–695.

Kendrick, D., Elkan, R., Hewitt, M., Dewey, M., Blair, M., Robinson, J., Williams, D. & Brummell, K. 2000. Does home visiting improve parenting and the quality of the home environment? A systematic review and meta analysis. Arch Dis Child, 82, 443–51.

Kendrick, D., Mulvaney, C. A., Ye, L., Stevens, T., Mytton, J. A. & Stewart-Brown, S. 2013. Parenting interventions for the prevention of unintentional injuries in childhood. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3, CD006020.

Klasen, H. & Crombag, A. C. 2013. What works where? A systematic review of child and adolescent mental health interventions for low and middle income countries. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 48, 595–611.

Koerting, J., Smith, E., Knowles, M., Latter, S., Elsey, H., Mccann, D., Thompson, M. & Sonuga-Barke, E. 2013. Barriers to, and facilitators of, parenting programmes for childhood behaviour problems: A qualitative synthesis of studies of parents’ and professionals’ perceptions. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 22, 653–670.

Krugman, S. D., Lane, W. G. & Walsh, C. M. Update on child abuse prevention. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 19, 711–8.

Kumpfer, K. L., Magalhaes, C., Xie, J. & Kanse, S. 2016. Cultural and gender adaptations of evidence-based family interventions. Family-based prevention programs for children and adolescents: Theory, research, and large-scale dissemination. New York, NY: Psychology Press; US.

Lakhani, A. & Macfarlane, K. Playgroups offering health and well-being support for families: a systematic review. Family & Community Health, 38, 180–94.

Leijten, P., Raaijmakers, M. A., De Castro, B. O. & Matthys, W. 2013. Does socioeconomic status matter? A meta-analysis on parent training effectiveness for disruptive child behavior. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol, 42, 384–92.

Lemmer, B., Grellier, R. & Steven, J. 1999. Systematic review of nonrandom and qualitative research literature: Exploring and uncovering an evidence base for health visiting and decision-making. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 315–328.

Macbeth, A., Law, J., Mcgowan, I., Norrie, J., Thompson, L. & Wilson, P. 2015. Mellow Parenting: systematic review and meta-analysis of an intervention to promote sensitive parenting. Dev Med Child Neurol, 57, 1119–28.

Macleod, J. & Nelson, G. 2000. Programs for the promotion of family wellness and the prevention of child maltreatment: A meta-analytic review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1127–1149.

Mcnaughton, D. B. A synthesis of qualitative home visiting research. Public Health Nursing, 17, 405–14.

Mcnaughton, D. B. 2004. Nurse home visits to maternal-child clients: a review of intervention research. Public Health Nurs, 21, 207–19.

Mejdoubi, J., Van den Heijkant, S. C. C. M., Van Leerdam, F. J. M., Heymans, M. W., Crijnen, A. & Hirasing, R. A. 2015. The Effect of VoorZorg, the Dutch Nurse–Family Partnership, on child maltreatment and development: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE, 10, 1–14.

Mejia, A., Calam, R. & Sanders, M. R. 2012. A review of parenting programs in developing countries: opportunities and challenges for preventing emotional and behavioral difficulties in children. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev, 15, 163–75.

Menting, A. T., Orobio de Castro, B. & Matthys, W. 2013. Effectiveness of the Incredible Years parent training to modify disruptive and prosocial child behavior: a meta-analytic review. Clin Psychol Rev, 33, 901–13.

Mickton, C. P. M., Ralevam, M., Makoae,M., Al Eissa, M., Cheah, I., Cardia, N., Choo, C., Almuneef, M. 2013. The assessment of the readiness of five countries to implement child maltreatment prevention programs on a large scale. Child Abuse & Neglect.

Mikton, C., Power, M., Raleva, M., Makoae, M., Al Eissa, M., Cheah, I., Cardia, N., Choo, C. & Almuneef, M. 2013. The assessment of the readiness of five countries to implement child maltreatment prevention programs on a large scale. Child Abuse Negl, 37, 1237–51.

Mortensen, J. A. & Mastergeorge, A. M. 2014. A meta-analytic review of relationship-based interventions for low-income families with infants and toddlers: facilitating supportive parent–child interactions. Infant Ment Health J, 35, 336–53.

Mytton, J., Ingram, J., Manns, S. & Thomas, J. 2014. Facilitators and barriers to engagement in parenting programs: a qualitative systematic review. Health Educ Behav, 41, 127–37.

National Research, C., Institute of Medicine Board on children, Y. & Families. 1999. In: Geyelin Margie, N. & Phillips, D. A. (eds.) Revisiting Home Visiting: Summary of a Workshop. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US).

Newman, C., Fowler, C. & Cashin, A. 2011. The development of a parenting program for incarcerated mothers in Australia: A review of prison-based parenting programs. Contemporary Nurse, 39, 2–11.

Newton, A. W. & Vandeven, A. M. Update on child maltreatment with a special focus on shaken baby syndrome. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 17, 246–51.

Niccols, A., Milligan, K., Smith, A., Sword, W., Thabane, L. & Henderson, J. 2012. Integrated programs for mothers with substance abuse issues and their children: a systematic review of studies reporting on child outcomes. Child Abuse Negl, 36, 308–22.

Niccols, A., Milligan, K., Sword, W., Thabane, L., Henderson, J. & Smith, A. 2012. Integrated programs for mothers with substance abuse issues: A systematic review of studies reporting on parenting outcomes. Harm Reduct J, 9, 14.

Nowak, C. & Heinrichs, N. 2008. A comprehensive meta-analysis of Triple P-Positive Parenting Program using hierarchical linear modeling: effectiveness and moderating variables. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev, 11, 114–44.

Olds, D. L., Eckenrode, J., Henderson, C., Kitzman, H., Cole, R., Luckey, D., Holmberg, J. & Baca, P. 2009. Preventing child abuse and neglect with home visiting by nurses. Preventing child maltreatment: Community approaches. New York, NY: Guilford Press; US.

Panter-Brick, C., Burgess, A., Eggerman, M., Mcallister, F., Pruett, K. & Leckman, J. F. 2014. Practitioner review: Engaging fathers–recommendations for a game change in parenting interventions based on a systematic review of the global evidence. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 55, 1187–212.

Pidano, A. E. & Allen, A. R. 2015. The Incredible Years series: A review of the independent research base. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 1898–1916.

Ponzetti, J. J., JR. 2016a. Evidence-based parenting education: A global perspective. Evidence-based parenting education: A global perspective. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; US.

Ponzetti, J. J., JR. 2016b. The future of evidence-based parenting education around the world. Evidence-based parenting education: A global perspective. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; US.

Powell, D. R. 2001. Early intervention and risk. Blackwell handbook of infant development. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Prosman, G.-J., Wong, S. H., Van Der Wouden, J. C. & Lagro-Janssen, A. L. 2015. Effectiveness of home visiting in reducing partner violence for families experiencing abuse: A systematic review. Family Practice, 32, 247–256.

Purvis, M. 2013. Paternal incarceration and parenting programs in prison: A review paper. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20, 9–28.

Radford, L. 2013. Review of preventing child maltreatment: Community approaches. Child & Family Social Work, 18, 509–510.

Reading, R. 2009. Review of the clinical effectiveness of different parenting programmes for children with conduct problems: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Child: Care, Health and Development, 35, 589–590.

Renk, K., Boris, N. W., Kolomeyer, E., Lowell, A., Puff, J., Cunningham, A., Khan, M. & Mcswiggan, M. 2016. The state of evidence-based parenting interventions for parents who are substance-involved. Pediatr Res, 79, 177–183.

Roberts, I., Kramer, M. S. & Suissa, S. 1996. Does home visiting prevent childhood injury? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 312, 29–33.

Rubin, A. 2012. Programs and interventions for maltreated children and families at risk. Programs and interventions for maltreated children and families at risk. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; US.

Russell, B. S., Britner, P. A. & Woolard, J. L. 2007. The promise of primary prevention home visiting programs: a review of potential outcomes. J Prev Interv Community, 34, 129–47.

Sanders, M. R. & Kirby, J. N. 2014. A public-health approach to improving parenting and promoting children’s well-being. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 250–257.

Sanders, M. R., Kirby, J. N., Tellegen, C. L. & Day, J. J. 2014a. Erratum to ‘The Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a multi-level system of parenting support’ [CPR (2014) 337–357]. Clinical Psychology Review, 34, 658–658.

Sanders, M. R., Kirby, J. N., Tellegen, C. L. & Day, J. J. 2014b. The Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a multi-level system of parenting support. Clinical Psychology Review, 34, 337–357.

Sar, B. K., Antle, B. F., Bledsoe, L. K., Barbee, A. P. & Van Zyl, M. A. 2010. The importance of expanding home visitation services to include strengthening family relationships for the benefit of children. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 198–205.

Schrank, B., Moran, K., Borghi, C. & Priebe, S. 2015. How to support patients with severe mental illness in their parenting role with children aged over 1 year? A systematic review of interventions. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, No Pagination Specified.

Scribano, P. V. 2010. Prevention strategies in child maltreatment. Curr Opin Pediatr, 22, 616–20.

Segal, L., Sara Opie, R. & Dalziel, K. 2012. Theory! The missing link in understanding the performance of neonate/infant home-visiting programs to prevent child maltreatment: a systematic review. Milbank Q, 90, 47–106.

Self-Brown, S. & Whitaker, D. J. 2008. Parent-focused child maltreatment prevention: improving assessment, intervention, and dissemination with technology. Child Maltreat, 13, 400–16.

Shaffer, A., Kotchick, B. A., Dorsey, S. & Forehand, R. 2001. The past, present, and future of behavioral parent training: Interventions for child and adolescent problem behavior. The Behavior Analyst Today, 2, 91–105.

Sharps, P. W., Campbell, J., Baty, M. L., Walker, K. S. & Bair-Merritt, M. H. 2008. Current evidence on perinatal home visiting and intimate partner violence. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs, 37, 480–90; quiz 490–1.

Shaw, E., Levitt, C., Wong, S. & Kaczorowski, J. 2006. Systematic review of the literature on postpartum care: effectiveness of postpartum support to improve maternal parenting, mental health, quality of life, and physical health. Birth, 33, 210–20.

Shea, B., Nahwegahbow, A. & Andersson, N. 2010. Reduction of family violence in aboriginal communities: A systematic review of interventions and approaches. Pimatisiwin, 8, 35–60.

Sigal, A., Sandler, I., Wolchik, S. & Braver, S. 2011. Do parent education programs promote healthy post-divorce parenting? Critical distinctions and a review of the evidence. Fam Court Rev, 49, 120–139.

Smedler, A. C., Hjern, A., Wiklund, S., Anttila, S. & Pettersson, A. 2015. Programs for prevention of externalizing problems in children: Limited evidence for effect beyond 6 months post intervention. Child Youth Care Forum, 44, 251–276.

Stamuli, E., Richardson, G., Duffy, S., Robling, M. & Hood, K. 2015. Systematic review of the economic evidence on home visitation programmes for vulnerable pregnant women. Br Med Bull, 115, 19–44.

Stevens, M. 2014. The cost-effectiveness of UK parenting programmes for preventing children’s behaviour problems – a review of the evidence. Child & Family Social Work, 19, 109–118.

Suto, M., Takehara, K., Yamane, Y. & Ota, E. 2016. Effects of prenatal childbirth education for partners of pregnant women on paternal postnatal mental health: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. Syst Rev, 5, 21.

Tanninen, H. M., Haggman-Laitila, A., Pietila, A. M. & Kangasniemi, M. 2015. The content and effectiveness of home-based nursing interventions to promote health and well-being in families with small children: a systematic review. Scand J Caring Sci.

Thomas, R. & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. 2007. Behavioral outcomes of Parent–Child Interaction Therapy and Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: A review and meta-analysis. J Abnorm Child Psychol, 35, 475–95.

Vandeven, A. M. & Newton, A. W. Update on child physical abuse, sexual abuse, and prevention. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 18, 201–5.

Voisine, S. & Baker, A. J. L. 2012. Do universal parenting programs discourage parents from using corporal punishment: A program review. Families in Society, 93, 212–218.

Ward, C., Sanders, M. R., Gardner, F., Mikton, C. & Dawes, A. 2015. Preventing child maltreatment in low- and middle-income countries: Parent support programs have the potential to buffer the effects of poverty. Child Abuse Negl.

Webster-Stratton, C. & Reid, M. J. 2006. Treatment and prevention of conduct problems: parent training interventions for young children (2–7 years old). Blackwell handbook of early childhood development. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Wilson, P., Rush, R., Hussey, S., Puckering, C., Sim, F., Allely, C. S., Doku, P., Mcconnachie, A. & Gillberg, C. 2012. How evidence-based is an ‘evidence-based parenting program’? A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis of Triple P. BMC Med, 10, 130.

Yonemoto, N., Dowswell, T., Nagai, S. & Mori, R. Schedules for home visits in the early postpartum period.[Reprint of Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7:CD009326; PMID: 23,881,661]. Evidence-Based Child Health a Cochrane Review Journal, 9, 5–99.

Zanoni, L., Warburton, W., Bussey, K. & Mcmaugh, A. 2014. Child protection fathers’ experiences of childhood, intimate partner violence and parenting. Children & Youth Services Review, 46, 91–102.