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

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 Unpublished data, papers in languages other than English and some book chapters were not examined.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. See related commentary: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/145.

Sickness certification system in the United Kingdom: qualitative study of views of general practitioners in Scotland.

OBJECTIVES: To explore how general practitioners operate the sickness certification system, their views on the system, and suggestions for change. DESIGN: Qualitative focus group study consisting of 11 focus groups with 67 participants. SETTING: General practitioners in practices in Glasgow, Tayside, and Highland regions, Scotland. SAMPLE: Purposive sample of general practitioners, with further theoretical sampling of key informant general practitioners to examine emerging themes. RESULTS: General practitioners believed that the sickness certification system failed to address complex, chronic, or doubtful cases. They seemed to develop various operational strategies for its implementation. There appeared to be important deliberate misuse of the system by general practitioners, possibly related to conflicts about roles and incongruities in the system. The doctor-patient relationship was perceived to conflict with the current role of general practitioners in sickness certification. When making decisions about certification, the general practitioners considered a wide variety of factors. They experienced contradictory demands from other system stakeholders and felt blamed for failing to make impossible reconciliations. They clearly identified the difficulties of operating the system when there was no continuity of patient care. Many wished either to relinquish their gatekeeper role or to continue only with major changes. CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers need to recognise and accommodate the range and complexity of factors that influence the behaviour of general practitioners operating as gatekeepers to the sickness certification system, before making changes. Such changes are otherwise unlikely to result in improvement. Models other than the primary care gatekeeper model should be considered.