BackgroundInterventions to promote positive parenting are often reported to offer good outcomes for children but they can consume substantial resources and they require rigorous appraisal.MethodsEvaluations 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 Unpublished data, papers in languages other than English and some book chapters were not examined.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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsIn 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

In this deprived general population, RAD was not rare.

BackgroundPreschool screening for developmental difficulties is increasingly becoming part of routine health service provision and yet the scope and validity of tools used within these screening assessments is variable. The aim of this review is to report on the predictive validity of preschool screening tools for language and behaviour difficulties used in a community setting.MethodsStudies reporting the predictive validity of language or behaviour screening tools in the preschool years were identified through literature searches of Ovid Medline, Embase, EBSCO CINAHL, PsycInfo and ERIC. We selected peer-reviewed journal articles reporting the use of a screening tool for language or behaviour in a population-based sample of children aged 2–6 years of age, including a validated comparison diagnostic assessment and follow-up assessment for calculation of predictive validity.ResultsA total of eleven eligible studies was identified. Six studies reported language screening tools, two reported behaviour screening tools and three reported combined language & behaviour screening tools. The Language Development Survey (LDS) administered at age 2 years achieved the best predictive validity performance of the language screening tools (sens 67%, spec 94%, NPV 88% and PPV 80%). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) administered at age 4 years achieved the best predictive validity compared to other behaviour screening tools (Sens 31%, spec 93%, NPV 84% and PPV 52%). The SDQ and Sure Start Language Measure (SSLM) administered at 2.5 years achieved the best predictive validity of the combined language & behaviour assessments (sens 87%, spec 64%, NPV 97% and PPV 31). Predictive validity data and diagnostic odds ratios identified language screening tools as more effective and achieving higher sensitivity and positive predictive value than either behaviour or combined screening tools. Screening tools with combined behaviour and language assessments were more specific and achieved higher negative predictive value than individual language or behaviour screening tools. Parent-report screening tools for language achieved higher sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value than direct child assessment.ConclusionsUniversal screening tools for language and behaviour concerns in preschool aged children used in a community setting can demonstrate excellent predictive validity, particularly when they utilise a parent-report assessment. Incorporating these tools into routine child health surveillance could improve the rate of early identification of language and behavioural difficulties, enabling more informed referrals to specialist services and facilitating access to early intervention.