Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Risk of bias in individual studies.

From: How evidence-based is an 'evidence-based parenting program'? A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis of Triple P

Paper Blinding of assessors? Treatment and control groups similar at baseline? Percentage drop out at post intervention measure? Analyzed by intention to treat Subgroup analyses reported? Statement of study funding Included in meta-analysis?
Bodenmann et al. [32] No Yes Triple P 5%
CCET 8%
Control 23%
(at long term follow up)
No Yes Yes. Gebert Ruef Foundation (Switzerland) Yes
Connell et al. [50] No More females in control group Intervention 0%
Control 8%
No Yes No Yes
Gallart & Matthey [26] No Yes (not tabulated) Not stated (9% overall) No Yes No Yes
Hahlweg et al. [51] No Yes Intervention mothers 14%
Control mothers 3%
All fathers 19% (unable to distinguish intervention & control attrition)
No No Yes. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Yes
Hahlweg et al. [13] (data also reported in [52]) No (parents and teachers)
Yes (observers)
More parents in control group were single in comparison to the intervention group: 34% and 15.6%, respectively. Baseline differences between groups for two-parent households Intervention 0.5%
Control 1%
Yes Yes Yes. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Yes
Hoath & Sanders [53] No (parents)
Not known (teachers)
Control group had lower family income Intervention 10%
Control 0%
No No No Yes
Joachim et al. [54] No Higher proportion of male children in control group Intervention 15%
Control 10%
Yes Yes No Yes
Leung et al. [55] No Yes Intervention 28%
Control 20%
Yes - but only per protocol results tabulated No No Yes
Markie-Dadds & Sanders [56] No Yes Intervention 3%
Control 0%
No Yes No Yes
Markie-Dadds & Sanders [57] No Yes Intervention 28%
Control 23%
Yes - but only per protocol results tabulated Yes Queensland Health and the National Health and Medical Research Council Yes
Martin & Sanders [58] No Treatment group had lower ECBI scores Intervention 30%
Control 50%
No Yes No Yes
Matsumoto et al. [59] No Yes Intervention 0%
Control 0%
Yes (in effect) No No Yes
Matsumoto et al. [60] No No. ECBI scores substantially higher in intervention group Not stated No No No Yes
McTaggart & Sanders [21] No Yes Not known No Yes No Not ECBI/CBCL
Morawska & Sanders [61] No (parents)
Yes (observers)
Yes Intervention 12%
Control 10%
Yes - but only per protocol results tabulated Yes No Yes
Morawska & Sanders [62] No No. ECBI scores substantially higher in intervention group Intervention 11%
Control 3%
Yes - but only per protocol results tabulated Yes Yes. Telstra
Foundation.
Yes
Morawska et al. [63] No Yes Intervention 18%
Control 18%
Yes - but only per protocol results tabulated Yes No Yes
Nicholson & Sanders [28] No (parents and step parents),
Possibly (teenager's self-report)
Yes 40% therapist-delivered
45% self-delivered
5% waiting list control
No yes Yes. National Health and Medical Research Council Not ECBI/CBCL
Plant & Sanders [64] Yes (video observations)
No (parent report)
Yes Nil in all three groups Yes (in effect) Yes Yes. Australian Research Council and Apex Foundation ECBI only used as entry screener
Prinz et al. [5] Not clear Not clear (five year average data presented) Not known Yes (in effect) No Yes. US CDC Not ECBI/CBCL
Roberts et al. [33] Yes (video observations)
No (parent report)
In some scales 37% intervention
35% control
No Yes Yes. Western Australian Health Promotion Foundation Not ECBI/CBCL
Sanders et al. [65] Yes (video observations)
No (parent report)
No data presented EBFI 23%;
SBFI 17%
SDBFI 18%;
control 8%
No Yes Yes. Grants from Queensland Health and the National Health and Medical Research Council Yes
Sanders et al. [66] No Yes Not stated Not clear Yes Partial - acknowledged source of TV programs and funding for distribution of video material Yes
Sanders et al. [6] No No. Intervention area sample younger, poorer, less well educated and more likely to be single Not applicable Not applicable Yes Yes. Several funders Not ECBI/CBCL
Sanders et al. [27] No No data presented except baseline measures Intervention 23%
Control 12%
Yes No Yes. Australia Research Council Yes
Stallman & Ralph [25] No (parents)
Possibly (teenager's self-report)
Yes Intervention 19%
Control 11%
Yes, but only per protocol results tabulated Yes Yes. Australian Rotary Health Research Fund, grant Not ECBI/CBCL
Turner et al. [67] No Yes Intervention 23%
Control 28%
No Yes Yes. Queensland Health and Queensland Department of Premier and Cabinet Yes
Turner & Sanders [68] Yes (video observations)
No (parent report)
Yes Intervention 19%
Control 14%
For measures with a significant univariate condition effect at post-assessment Yes No Yes
Turner et al. [29] Yes (video observations)
No (parent report)
Yes Intervention 0%
Control 11%
No Yes Yes. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Not ECBI/CBCL
West et al. [22] No Yes Intervention 21%
Control 6%
Yes Yes Yes. Telstra
Foundation
Not ECBI/CBCL
Whittingham et al. [24] No Yes Intervention 0%
Control 10%
Yes Yes Yes. School of Psychology University of Queensland Yes
Wiggins et al. [23] No Yes Intervention 10%
Control 26%
Yes Yes No Yes
Zubrick et al. [20] No No. Intervention area sample had younger children, less highly educated parents, more parenting problems and higher child ECBI scores. Different recruitment methods in intervention and control areas Intervention 14%
Control 4%
Not applicable Yes Yes. Western Australian Department of Health No - Not randomized, and uncorrected outcome data for control group not given
  1. CBCL, Child Behavior Checklist; CCET, Couples Coping Enhancement Training; EBCI, Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory; EBFI, Enhanced Behavioural Family Intervention (level 5); SBFI, Standard Behavioural Family Intervention (level 4); SDBFI, Self-directed Behavioural Family Intervention (level 4).