Negrão, M., Pereira, M., Soares, I., & Mesman, J. (2014). Enhancing positive parent-child interactions and family functioning in a poverty sample: A randomized control trial. Attachment & Human Development, 16(4), 315-328.
| Screening decision | Screening conclusion | HomVEE procedures and standards version |
|---|---|---|
| Passes screens | Eligible for review | Version 2 |
| Rating | Design | Attrition | Baseline equivalence | Compromised randomization | Confounding factors | Valid, reliable measure(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Randomized controlled trial | Low | Not assessed for randomized controlled trials with low attrition |
No | No |
Yes, details reported below for findings on valid, reliable outcomes that otherwise rate at least moderate |
| Study participants | Families were eligible for this study if (1) at least one risk related to quality of family relations or quality of parenting was present on the Portuguese short version of the Family Risks and Strengths Profile, (2) they had a child between 1 and 4 years of age, and (3) children were Portuguese and living with their biological mother as primary caregiver. Families were randomly assigned after pretest to either the intervention (29) or comparison (26) group based on a computer-generated list. The analytic sample included 43 families, 22 families in the intervention group and 21 families in the comparison group. Outcomes were assessed approximately one month after the last home visit in the intervention or after the last phone call for the comparison group. The mean age of children was 29.1 months at enrollment and 35.3 months at follow up. The mean age of mothers was 30 years old. Family education level was low, with the majority of mothers and fathers not having completed the Portuguese mandatory education level. Most families (79 percent) received welfare assistance. |
|---|---|
| Setting | The study took place in the North of Portugal. |
| Intervention services | The Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline (VIPP-SD) is a six session home visiting intervention for mothers of young children that uses a video-feedback technique to promote parental sensitivity and the use of positive discipline strategies. The first four intervention sessions took place in two-week intervals, and the last two sessions were scheduled one month apart. The first two sessions focus on building a relationship with the mother, focusing on child behavior, and emphasizing positive interactions in the video feedback. The second two sessions include working on actively improving mothers' parenting behaviors by focusing on strategies. The final two sessions aim to review previously presented information and feedback. |
| Comparison conditions | Mothers in the comparison group received six telephone calls in parallel to when participants in the intervention group received the VIPP-SD sessions. Each researcher-led phone call lasted about 10 minutes and focused on a standard topic related to child development. |
| Subgroups examined |
This field lists subgroups examined in the manuscript (even if they were not replicated in other samples and not reported on the summary page for this model’s report). There were no subgroups reported in this manuscript. |
| Funding sources | This research was supported by Fundação Ciěncia e Tecnologia by Award Numbers SFRH/BD/45273/2008 and SFRH/BD/48411/2008. |
| Author affiliation | Authors were affiliated with Catholic University of Portugal, the University of Minho in Portugal, and Leiden University in the Netherlands. Leiden University sponsors the VIPP home visiting program. |
| Peer reviewed | Yes |
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: None found. SocialScienceRegistry.org Identifier: None found. Registry of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies Identifier: None found. Study registration was assessed by HomVEE for Clinicaltrials.gov beginning with the 2014 review, and for other registries beginning with the 2021 review.
Findings that rate moderate or high
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Emotional Availability (EA) Scales: Child involvement |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample |
1 month after last home visit/telephone call |
43 mother/child dyads | Unadjusted mean = 4.85 | Unadjusted mean = 4.27 | Mean difference = 0.58 | HomVEE calculated = 0.64 | Statistically significant, p= <.05 |
HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate |
| High | Emotional Availability (EA) Scales: Child responsiveness |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample |
1 month after last home visit/telephone call |
43 mother/child dyads | Unadjusted mean = 5.19 | Unadjusted mean = 4.55 | Mean difference = 0.64 | HomVEE calculated = 0.76 | Statistically significant, p= <.05 |
HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate |
| High | Emotional Availability (EA) Scales: Positive child behavior |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample |
1 month after last home visit/telephone call |
43 mother/child dyads | Unadjusted mean = 5.02 | Unadjusted mean = 4.41 | Mean difference = 0.61 | HomVEE calculated = 0.72 | Statistically significant, p= <.05 |
HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Emotional Availability (EA) Scales: Nonhostility |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample |
1 month after last home visit/telephone call |
43 mother/child dyads | Unadjusted mean = 5.44 | Unadjusted mean = 5.25 | Mean difference = 0.19 | HomVEE calculated = 0.24 | Not statistically significant, p= >.05 |
HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate |
| High | Emotional Availability (EA) Scales: Nonintrusiveness |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample |
1 month after last home visit/telephone call |
43 mother/child dyads | Unadjusted mean = 4.59 | Unadjusted mean = 4.02 | Mean difference = 0.57 | HomVEE calculated = 1.08 | Statistically significant, p= <.001 |
HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate |
| High | Emotional Availability (EA) Scales: Positive parenting |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample |
1 month after last home visit/telephone call |
43 mother/child dyads | Unadjusted mean = 4.85 | Unadjusted mean = 4.60 | Mean difference = 0.25 | HomVEE calculated = 0.63 | Statistically significant, p= <.05 |
HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate |
| High | Emotional Availability (EA) Scales: Sensitivity |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample |
1 month after last home visit/telephone call |
43 mother/child dyads | Unadjusted mean = 4.74 | Unadjusted mean = 4.45 | Mean difference = 0.29 | HomVEE calculated = 0.42 | Not statistically significant, p= >.05 |
HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate |
| High | Emotional Availability (EA) Scales: Structuring |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample |
1 month after last home visit/telephone call |
43 mother/child dyads | Unadjusted mean = 4.63 | Unadjusted mean = 4.65 | Mean difference = -0.02 | HomVEE calculated = 0.38 | Not statistically significant, p= >.05 |
HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate |
| High | Family Environment Scale (FES): Cohesion |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample |
1 month after last home visit/telephone call |
43 mothers | Unadjusted mean = 43.72 | Unadjusted mean = 38.05 | Mean difference = 5.67 | HomVEE calculated = 0.89 | Statistically significant, p= <.05 |
HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate |
| High | Family Environment Scale (FES): Conflict |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample |
1 month after last home visit/telephone call |
43 mothers | Unadjusted mean = 39.86 | Unadjusted mean = 37.71 | Mean difference = 2.15 | HomVEE calculated = 0.43 | Not statistically significant, p= >.05 |
HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate |
| High | Family Environment Scale (FES): Expressiveness |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample |
1 month after last home visit/telephone call |
43 mothers | Unadjusted mean = 39.64 | Unadjusted mean = 40.48 | Mean difference = -0.84 | HomVEE calculated = 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p= >.05 |
HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate |
| High | Family Environment Scale (FES): Family relational functioning |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample |
1 month after last home visit/telephone call |
43 mothers | Unadjusted mean = 41.08 | Unadjusted mean = 38.75 | Mean difference = 2.33 | HomVEE calculated = 0.57 | Statistically significant, p= <.05 |
HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate |