Does the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program provide value for money?

Objective: The aim of the present study was to investigate the economic case for the implementation of the Triple P- Positive Parenting Program on a population basis in Queensland, Australia, in order to reduce the prevalence of conduct disorder in children. Method: Threshold analysis was undertaken together with a limited cost-effectiveness analysis. Results: The Triple P-Positive Parenting Program is a dominant intervention; that is, it costs less than the amount it saves, until the reduction in prevalence falls below 7% where net costs become positive. Conclusions: Triple P is likely to be a worthwhile use of limited health funds. The economic case is promising, but further research is required to confirm the study results.

Implementation of Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in Hong Kong: Predictors of programme completion and clinical outcomes

This study examined the effectiveness of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in a government child health service delivery context with Chinese parents in Hong Kong. Specifically, the study sought to identify pre-intervention variables that might predict programme outcomes such as, level of clinical improvement and programme completion. Participants were 661 parents of pre-school and primary aged children participating in a group version of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program. There were significant decreases in disruptive child behaviours, levels of parenting stress, general stress and anxiety and an increase in parenting sense of competence. Greater change in reports of child behaviour problems was related to lower levels of family income, new immigrant family status, and higher pre-intervention levels of parenting stress. The present study provides a profile of parents who are most likely to benefit from parent training programmes.

Towards a public health approach to parenting

There are various parenting, school and personal factors at play in determining a child’s risk of developing serious conduct problems. The temptation is therefore to conclude that “more is better than less”, but we think that has not been convincingly demonstrated. Some large-scale multi-risk-factor reduction approaches that include parenting, school and child-specific interventions with older school-aged children have shown promise but are complex to administer, costly to implement and have yet to show strong long-term outcomes. But in young children (toddler and preschool-aged children) there is strong evidence that social-learning-based parenting programmes are effective with a wide range of families from quite diverse socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds. We choose to focus on such programmes.

Stepping Stones Triple P: A pilot study to evaluate acceptability of the program by parents of a child diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder

The experience of parents of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in standard parenting programs has not been researched, although anecdotal evidence suggests that they do not find them acceptable. Forty-two parents of children with ASD were asked to view a DVD explaining individual parenting strategies from Stepping Stones, a new branch of the Triple P program targeted specifically at parents of children with disabilities. Parents were asked to rate each strategy for acceptability, usability and behavioural intention, i.e., their intention to use the strategy. Additionally, parental attributions and parental perceived control were explored as possible barriers to positive evaluations of Stepping Stones parenting strategies. A focus group of parents was used to gather more detailed parent response to the program. Parent responses to the program were generally positive and attribution of the child's behaviour to uncontrollable factors was found to predict higher ratings of usability. The results were interpreted within the context of Weiner's attributional theory and the theory of reasoned action. The limitations of this study and suggestions for future research are discussed. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.