Patty Leijten1, G J Melendez-Torres2, Wendy Knerr3, Frances Gardner3. 1. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: patty.leijten@spi.ox.ac.uk. 2. University of Warwick, Warwick, UK. 3. University of Oxford.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Children's disruptive behavior problems place children at high risk for oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder, and carry a high burden for individuals and society. Policy makers and service providers aiming to reduce children's disruptive behavior problems must often choose between importing an intervention developed abroad or instead developing or using a "homegrown" (i.e., local) intervention. No comprehensive comparison of these interventions exists. METHOD: We performed a multilevel meta-regression of 129 randomized trials (374 effect sizes) of transported and homegrown parenting interventions. We identified trials by searching the included trials lists of systematic reviews, found through searches in 6 databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE). Trials that had not yet been reviewed were found by searching the same databases. Primary outcome was the mean difference in effectiveness between transported and homegrown interventions to reduce disruptive child behavior. We also compared this differential effectiveness for various intervention "brands" (e.g., Incredible Years and Triple P Positive Parenting Program) and geographical regions (e.g., North America and Europe). RESULTS: Transported and homegrown interventions did not differ in their effectiveness to reduce disruptive child behavior (d = 0.10, not significant). Results were robust across intervention brands and geographical regions. Six trials on transported interventions in Hong Kong, Iran, and Panama suggest promising results for transporting interventions to "nonwestern" countries, whereas one trial in Indonesia does not. CONCLUSION: Parenting interventions based on the same principles led to similar outcomes, whether transported or homegrown. This finding supports the selection of interventions based on their evidence base rather than on cultural specificity.
OBJECTIVE:Children's disruptive behavior problems place children at high risk for oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder, and carry a high burden for individuals and society. Policy makers and service providers aiming to reduce children's disruptive behavior problems must often choose between importing an intervention developed abroad or instead developing or using a "homegrown" (i.e., local) intervention. No comprehensive comparison of these interventions exists. METHOD: We performed a multilevel meta-regression of 129 randomized trials (374 effect sizes) of transported and homegrown parenting interventions. We identified trials by searching the included trials lists of systematic reviews, found through searches in 6 databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE). Trials that had not yet been reviewed were found by searching the same databases. Primary outcome was the mean difference in effectiveness between transported and homegrown interventions to reduce disruptive child behavior. We also compared this differential effectiveness for various intervention "brands" (e.g., Incredible Years and Triple P Positive Parenting Program) and geographical regions (e.g., North America and Europe). RESULTS: Transported and homegrown interventions did not differ in their effectiveness to reduce disruptive child behavior (d = 0.10, not significant). Results were robust across intervention brands and geographical regions. Six trials on transported interventions in Hong Kong, Iran, and Panama suggest promising results for transporting interventions to "nonwestern" countries, whereas one trial in Indonesia does not. CONCLUSION: Parenting interventions based on the same principles led to similar outcomes, whether transported or homegrown. This finding supports the selection of interventions based on their evidence base rather than on cultural specificity.
Authors: A Movsisyan; L Arnold; R Evans; B Hallingberg; G Moore; A O'Cathain; L M Pfadenhauer; J Segrott; E Rehfuess Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Daisy R Singla; Brandon A Kohrt; Laura K Murray; Arpita Anand; Bruce F Chorpita; Vikram Patel Journal: Annu Rev Clin Psychol Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 18.561
Authors: Joseph Murray; Yulia Shenderovich; Frances Gardner; Christopher Mikton; James H Derzon; Jianghong Liu; Manuel Eisner Journal: Crime Justice Date: 2018-03-26
Authors: Lauren Copeland; Hannah Littlecott; Danielle Couturiaux; Pat Hoddinott; Jeremy Segrott; Simon Murphy; Graham Moore; Rhiannon Evans Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Graham F Moore; Rhiannon E Evans; Jemma Hawkins; Hannah Littlecott; G J Melendez-Torres; Chris Bonell; Simon Murphy Journal: Evaluation (Lond) Date: 2018-10-31