No abstract

Reviews previous studies of the universal approach to mental health promotion, and disease prevention programmes or interventions in schools. Over 8,000 publications were identified initially and 425 studies obtained for further review. The inclusion criteria were met by 17 (mostly US) studies investigating 16 interventions. Positive evidence of effectiveness was obtained for programmes that adopted a whole‐school approach, were implemented continuously for more than a year, and were aimed at the promotion of mental health as opposed to the prevention of mental illness. Provides evidence that universal school mental health promotion programmes can be effective and suggests that long‐term interventions promoting the positive mental health of all pupils and involving changes to the school climate are likely to be more successful than brief class‐based mental illness prevention programmes.

BackgroundConduct problems are common, disabling and costly. The prognosis for children with conduct problems is poor, with outcomes in adulthood including criminal behaviour, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, child abuse and a range of psychiatric disorders.There has been a rapid expansion of group based parent-training programmes for the treatment of children with conduct problems in a number of countries over the past 10 years. Existing reviews of parent training have methodological limitations such as inclusion of non-randomised studies, the absence of investigation for heterogeneity prior to meta-analysis or failure to report confidence intervals.The objective of the current study was to systematically review randomised controlled trials of parenting programmes for the treatment of children with conduct problems.MethodsStandard systematic review methods were followed including duplicate inclusion decisions, data extraction and quality assessment. Twenty electronic databases from the fields of medicine, psychology, social science and education were comprehensively searched for RCTs and systematic reviews to February 2006.Inclusion criteria were: randomised controlled trial; of structured, repeatable parenting programmes; for parents/carers of children up to the age of 18 with a conduct problem; and at least one measure of child behaviour. Meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis were used to summarise included studies.Results57 RCTs were included. Studies were small with an average group size of 21. Meta-analyses using both parent (SMD -0.67; 95% CI: -0.91, -0.42) and independent (SMD -0.44; 95% CI: -0.66, -0.23) reports of outcome showed significant differences favouring the intervention group. There was insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of different approaches to delivering parenting programmes.ConclusionParenting programmes are an effective treatment for children with conduct problems. The relative effectiveness of different parenting programmes requires further research.

This intervention may have the potential to improve parenting and increase the identification of infants at risk of abuse and neglect in vulnerable families. Further investigation is needed, along with long-term follow-up to assess possible sleeper effects.

Aims: To assess the effectiveness of a parenting programme, delivered by health visitors in primary care, in improving the mental health of children and their parents among a representative general practice population. Methods: Parents of children aged 2-8 years who scored in the upper 50% on a behaviour inventory were randomised to the Webster-Stratton 10 week parenting programme delivered by trained health visitors, or no intervention. Main outcome measures were the Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory and the Goodman Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire to measure child behaviour, and the General Health Questionnaire, Abidin's Parenting Stress Index, and Rosenberg's Self Esteem Scale to measure parents' mental health. These outcomes were measured before and immediately after the intervention, and at six months follow up. Results: The intervention was more effective at improving some aspects of the children's mental health, notably conduct problems, than the no intervention control condition. The Goodman conduct problem score was reduced at immediate and six month follow up, and the Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory was reduced at six months. The intervention also had a short term impact on social dysfunction among parents. These benefits were seen among families with children scoring in the clinical range for behaviour problems and also among children scoring in the non-clinical (normal) range. Conclusion: This intervention could make a useful contribution to the prevention of child behaviour problems and to mental health promotion in primary care.