Search

Objective. The present meta-analysis examines the relation between coparenting and child adjustment. Design. The authors integrate 59 studies and differentiate among cooperation, agreement, conflict, and triangulation as dimensions of coparenting. Further, they differentiate internalizing and externalizing symptoms, social functioning of children, and attachment as outcomes. Results. Effect sizes were generally small and, to some extent, moderated by age of the children, percentage of girls in the sample, clinical background of the sample, mono-informant bias, annual family income, and percentage of separated parents. Effect sizes remained significant after controlling for individual parenting or marital quality. Coparenting predicted change in child adjustment. Conclusions. Coparenting is important for the psychological adjustment of children. Research and practice should pay further regard to this construct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present meta-analysis integrates the effects of randomized controlled trials that focus on promoting effective parenting in the transition to parenthood. We included 142 papers on interventions which started during pregnancy or in the first 6 months after birth, Computations were based on random-effects models. On average, interventions had small to very small significant effects on parenting (d = .35 SD units), parental stress (d = .20), child abuse (d = .13), health-promoting behavior of parents (d=.15). cognitive development (d - .24), social development (d = .30), motor development of the child (d = .15), child mental health (d = .40), parental mental health (d = .31), and couple adjustment (d = .13). Most of the effects were maintained at follow-up. Effects varied by onset of the intervention, delivery mode. qualification of the intervener, length of intervention, intervention goals, and gender distribution. In addition, we found that older studies reported greater effect sizes. We conclude that parenting-focused interventions are effective and should be made accessible to more expectant and new parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systemic therapy is a frequently used form of psychotherapy for the treatment of mental disorders in children and adolescents. The present study reports the results of the first meta-analysis on the effects of systemic treatment of mental disorders and behavior problems in children and adolescents. Based on systematic search in electronic databases (PsycINFO, Psyndex, PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, CINAHL),k = 56 randomized, controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. We computed a random-effects meta-analysis. Systemic therapy showed small-to-medium effects in comparison with an untreated control group (posttest:k = 7,g = .59 standard deviation units, follow-up:k = 2,g = .27) and alternative treatment (posttest:k = 43,g = .32, follow-up:k = 38,g = .28). At follow-up, longer interventions produced larger effect sizes. No other moderator effects were identified. Although available randomized, controlled trials show convincing results, their effects refer to a limited number of systemic approaches and mental disorders, and also pertain to adolescents rather than younger children. Thus, more research is needed before more general conclusions about the effects of systemic therapy can be drawn. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of systemic therapy on psychiatric disorders in adulthood. Methods: This meta-analysis integrates results of 37 randomized controlled trials (RCT) of therapy with an explicit systemic focus on adults with psychiatric disorders. Studies were identified through systematic searches in electronic databases and cross-referencing. Results: On average, systemic therapy had stronger short-term (g =.51) and long-term (g =.55) efficacies than control groups without alternative treatment and stronger short-term effects than alternative active treatments (g =.25). In addition, efficacy of systemic therapy was similar to those of other bona fide psychotherapies. Individuals receiving systemic therapy plus medication showed stronger improvements at posttest (g =.71) and follow-up (g =.87) than those receiving only medication. Illness-specific analyses showed positive short-term efficacy of systemic therapy on eating disorders, mood disorders, obsessive–compulsive disorders, schizophrenia, and somatoform disorders. At follow-up, efficacy of systemic therapy was only found on eating disorders, mood disorders, and schizophrenia. In addition, systemic therapy had lower dropout rates than alternative treatments. For certain comparisons, effect sizes were moderated by participant age, study quality, and year of publication. Conclusions: We conclude that the present meta-analysis found some evidence for the efficacy of systemic therapy on five disorders, but the number of available RCT is still limited. More research is needed on systemic therapy of other disorders, such as anxiety disorders and substance use disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]