Introduction
Methods
Search Strategy and Identification of Studies
1. | S—sample | (parent* OR mother* OR father* OR famil* OR carer*) |
2. | PI—phenomenon of interest | (training OR intervention* OR program* OR education* OR group* OR approach*) |
3. | D—design | (perce* OR perspective* OR opinion* OR experience* OR belie* OR view* OR attitude*) |
4. | E—evaluation | (interview* OR focus group* OR questionnaire* OR survey*) |
5. | R—research type | (qualitative OR mixed method) |
6. | 1 AND 2 AND 3 | |
7. | 4 OR 5 | |
8. | 6 AND 7 | |
Limits | Humans & English language |
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Quality Assessment
Thematic Synthesis
Results
Characteristics of Included Studies
Authors, publication year, country | Aims/objectives/research questions | Participantsa | Intervention | Data collectionb | Method of analysis | Main themes identifiedc | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Wilson et al. (2018), UK | (1) Examine the parenting and help-seeking experiences of parents affected by personality disorder, (2) explore the acceptability of Helping Families Programme to this population, (3) refine the protocol for the subsequent pilot RCT | N = 5 mothers (who met diagnostic criteria for personality disorder and their children met criteria for a behavioural and/or emotional problem) | Helping Families Programme (Day et al. 2011) | Semi-structured interviews | Interpretive phenomenological analysis (Smith and Osborn 2008) | (1) The experience of parenthood, (2) Being a parent affected by personality disorder, (3) Experience of the intervention, (4) Qualities of helping |
2 | Garcia et al. (2018), USA | (1) What inner and outer contextual factors influence access to and active engagement in Triple P?, 2) To what extent do they believe Triple P is effective in addressing children’s maladaptive behaviours and promoting positive parent–child interactions? | N = 35 parents (aged 20–49 years) referred to child-welfare agencies | Group Triple P | Interview & Focus Groups | Grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin 1990) | (1) Barriers to engagement, (2) Overcoming barriers to engagement, (3) Effects of engagement: New insights and actions about effective parenting |
3 | Haskett et al. (2018), USA | To examine the degree to which parents experiencing homelessness considered Triple P content, materials and delivery methods to be relevant and helpful | N = 16 parents experiencing homelessness | Triple P Seminar | Focus groups | Content analysis (Flick 2014) | (1) Relevance of the Triple P seminar to the parenting experience in shelters, (2) Parenting reflections and challenges, (3) Parents’ opinions about the seminar format and materials, (4) Parents recommended changes to the seminar |
4 | Coates et al. (2017), Australia | To gain the perspectives of parents who have completed the program | N = 18 parents self-identifying as having a mental health difficulty | Mental Health Positive Parenting Program (MHPPP) (Phelan et al. 2013) | Semi-structured telephone interviews | Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) | (1) Being in a group with others with mental illness, (2) Focus on child development and parenting with a mental illness, (3) The home visits |
5 | Hartwig et al. (2017)*, USA | To allow participants to describe their experience with the programme in their own words and examine how participating mothers described parenting following involvement in the program | N = 166 low-income mothers, predominantly Hispanic and Black | Legacy for Children (Kaminski et al. 2013) | Focus Groups | Grounded theory (Hennink et al. 2011) | (1) Commitment to parenting, (2) Nurturance & sensitivity/responsivity, (3) Parental control, (4) Developmental stimulation |
6 | Errázuriz et al. (2016), Chile | Evaluate the feasibility of implementing Triple P in Chile, and to assess its social and cultural acceptability, the level of involvement of families, the costs involved, and the impact of children and their families | N = 34 parent attending primary care centres in Santiago de Chile | Group Triple P | Focus groups | Grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin 2002) | (1) Impact of the program: re-learning how to parent, relationship with children, family dynamics, changes in children, (2) Program implementation: materials and activities, home exercises, child caretakers, suggestions |
7 | Duppong-Hurley et al. (2016), USA | (1) To learn about barriers to participation faced by families who had enrolled in, but never or minimally attended, a community- based parenting program, (2) Gather feedback from these parents who did not participate in the small-group parenting class regarding their perspective about alternative, web-based methods of delivery | N = 27 parents who signed up for but did not complete a community-based parenting program | Common-Sense Parenting (https://www.boystown.org/parenting/Pages/common-sense-parenting.aspx) | Semi-structured telephone interviews | Not specified | (1) Reasons for registering for the parent program, (2) Barriers to attending the parenting program, (3) What would have helped the parents attend the program |
8 | Lewis et al. (2016), USA | To explore child-welfare involved parents’ perceptions of the relevance and fit of Pathways Triple P, to their needs | N = 47 parents involved with the state child-welfare agency | Pathways Triple P | Semi-structured interviews | Thematic Analysis (framework method) (Ritchie and Lewis 2003) | (1) Program content, (2) Program materials, (3) Program structure, (4) Endorsements, (5) Barriers to participation |
9 | Mejia et al. (2016), Panama | To explore parental perceptions of cultural fit | N = 30 Panamanian parents of adolescents | Strengthening families programme (SFP) 10-14 (Molgaard and Spoth 2001) | Semi-structured interviews | Thematic Analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) | (1) Communication, (2) Resilience, (3) Community specific concerns, (4) Cross-cultural concerns |
10 | Vella et al. (2015), UK | Examine in depth the experiences and reflective views of parents who have attended a ‘Understanding Your Child’s Behaviour’ (UYCB) group to understand how parents made sense of participating in the group, whether they have been able to implement new knowledge and skills and participation may have been relevant approximately 10 months after completion | N = 10 parents aged 18+ | Solihull Approach parenting group: ‘Understanding Your Child’s Behaviour’ (UYCB) (https://solihullapproachparenting.com/) | Semi-structured interviews | Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (Smith et al. 2009) | (1) Two tiers of satisfaction, (2) Development as a parent, (3) Improved self-belief, (4) Follow-up: the ‘Matthew Effect’ |
11 | Furlong and McGilloway (2015)*, Ireland | To assess longer term experiences of the Incredible Years BASIC Preschool/Early School Years Parent Training Programme (IYPP) within socially deprived settings in Ireland, with a key focus on investigating the key facilitative and inhibitive factors associated with trial outcomes | N = 28 Caucasian Irish parents | Incredible Years BASIC Preschool/Early School Years Parent Training Programme (IYPP) (http://www.incredibleyears.com/) | Semi-structured interviews | Constructivist Grounded Theory (Charmaz 2006) | (1) Maintaining positive outcomes, (2) Relapse in positive outcomes, (3) Diverging paths |
12 | Mejia et al. (2015), Panama | To explore parents’ perceptions and beliefs about changes after taking part in the program | N = 30 Panamanian parents of adolescents | Strengthening Families Programme (SFP) 10-14 (Molgaard and Spoth 2001) | Semi-structured interviews | Thematic Analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) | (1) Changes in the child, (2) Changes in the Parent, (3) Changes in the couple, (4) Changes in the interaction |
13 | Butcher and Gersch (2014), UK | To understand the qualitative experiences of parents of children in the early years who were identified as being socially isolated and/or having difficulties relating to their child and had taken part in the Time Together home visiting intervention | N = 7 white British parents aged 26–35 years | Semi-structured interviews | Interpretive phenomenological Analysis (Smith and Osborn 2008) | (1) The notion of self, (2) The power of play, (3) Influential relationships, (4) The meaning of social isolation | |
14 | Holtrop et al. (2014), USA | To provide a better understanding of the process of change within an evidence-based parent training intervention: What is the process through which parents’ experiences in the PMTO intervention led to change in their parenting practices? | N = 20 white parents aged 28–64 years | Parent Management Training—the Oregon Model (PMTO™) (Forgatch and Patterson 2008) | Semi-structured interviews | Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967) | (1) PMTO process of change, (2) Content of PMTO, (3) PMTO method of delivery, (4) Additional characteristics |
15 | Estefan et al. (2013), USA | To explore the nature and co-occurrence of family stressors in a sample of parents involved in the child-welfare system who have been referred to an intensive therapeutic parent training program | N = 21 parents involved or at risk of becoming involved in the child-welfare system | Nurturing Parents Program (NPP) (https://www.nurturingparenting.com/) | Semi-structured interviews | Not specified | (1) Change methods of discipline, (2) Better understanding/tools for coping with anger, (3) Challenges with implementing new parenting practices, (4) Learnt new skills, (5) Felt well supported by facilitators and group format |
16 | Cullen et al. (2013), UK | To examine the important factors with respect to intervention and the experiences of both parents and those involved in the delivery of the programmes | N = 133 parents participating in parenting programmes across local authorities in England | Triple P; Incredible Years; Families and Schools Together (FAST); and the Strengthening Families Programme 10-14 (https://www.triplep.net; http://www.incredibleyears.com/; https://www.familiesandschools.org/; Molgaard and Spoth 2001) | Semi-structured interviews | Thematic Analysis (reference not provided) | (1) Family issues, (2) Parenting courses as educational processes |
17 | Houlding et al. (2012), Canada | To examine the perceived impact, cultural acceptability and experience of the Group Triple P Positive Parenting Program | N = 11 Aboriginal Canadian parents | Group Triple P Parenting Programme | Semi-structured interviews | Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (Colaizzi 1978) | (1) The helpfulness of the program, (2) How parenting behaviours changed, (3) How children’s behaviour changed, (4) Processes that facilitated learning, (5) Benefits of the group format, (6) Cultural acceptability of strategies and process, (7) Cultural acceptability of indigenous resources |
18 | Furlong and McGilloway (2012)*, Ireland | To explore: (1) which aspects of the program were most valued by parents and perceived as producing positive changes; (2) what challenges they encountered in learning the new skills and (3) the experiences of the small number of parents who dropped out of the program | N = 33 parents (31 mothers and 2 fathers with a mean age 34 years) | Incredible Years BASIC Preschool/Early School Years Parent Training Program (IYP) (http://www.incredibleyears.com/) | Semi-structured interviews | Constructivist Grounded Theory (Charmaz 2006) | (1) Mechanisms of change, (2) Trials of parenting, (3) ‘Failure to launch’ |
19 | Bermudez et al. (2011), USA | To gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences of Mexican–American mother’s participation in a parent education programme | N = 20 Mexican–American mothers parenting alone | Parenting Through Change (PTC) (Forgatch and DeGarmo 1999) | Semi-structured interviews | Heuristic Inquiry (Moustakas 1990) | (1) Participants gained valuable knowledge related to child rearing practices, (2) Participants gained a heightened awareness about themselves as mothers, (3) Class process was important, (4) Experiences of taking the classes varied for sample, (5) Interview process was meaningful and empowering, (6) The researchers’ experiences were meaningful and empowering |
20 | Owens et al. (2007), USA | To examine parents’ perceptions of barriers to participation, strengths and weaknesses of the program and recommendations for future programming | N = 15 Caucasian parents | Focus groups | Focus Group Toolkit (Morgan and Krueger 1998) | 1) Strengths of the parenting program, (2) Weaknesses of the parenting program, (3) Barriers to participation in parenting groups, (4) Recommendations for improvement of the program | |
21 | Russell et al. (2007), Canada | To determine parent views regarding the beneficial and detrimental aspects of the multi-faceted interventions they received | N = 24 parents culturally diverse parents who were referred by child protection agencies | Project Parent (no reference provided) | Focus groups | Grounded Theory (Strauss and Corbin 1990) | Major theme: reciprocal multi-system interventions, (1) Parent psychological level: affirming parent self-worth, (2) Parent–child level: non-directive instruction, (3) Social-family level: promoting social connections, (4) Social system level: empowering communication |
22 | Patterson et al. (2005)*, UK | To report the usefulness of the programme to the parents, aspects they found helpful and why, and the extent to which they had observed changes in their own and their children’s mental health and behaviour as a result of the programme | N = 26 parents (22 who attended at least 50% of the programme, 3 non-attenders and 1 who ‘dropped out’) | Webster-Stratton ‘Parents and Children Series’ programme (http://www.incredibleyears.com/) | Semi-structured interviews | Grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967) | (1) Parents needs and problems, (2) Ways in which the programme had an impact on these needs and problems, (3) Programme delivery, (4) Aspects of the programme with which some parents disagreed, (5) Needs not met by the programme. |
23 | Mockford and Barlow (2004), United Kingdom | To look at the effect of a parenting programme on everyday family lives. In particular, the effects the parenting programme may have on both parents when only one parent, mostly the mother, attends the programme | N = 14 mothers | Webster-Stratton ‘Parents and Children Series’ programme (http://www.incredibleyears.com/) | Semi-structured interviews | Constant Comparative Method (Glaser and Strauss 1967) | (1) Difficulties in ‘engaging the partner’ and reluctance to attend the programme, (2) Difficulties in changing the established habits of their partners, (3) Findings the time to parent together |
24 | Stewart-Brown et al. (2004)*, UK | To test the effectiveness at one year of the Webster-Stratton Parents and Children Series group parenting programme in a population sample of parents | N = 26 intervention group parents | Parent and Child Series Incredible Years programme (http://www.incredibleyears.com/) | Semi-structured interviews | Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967) | (1) Impact on intervention group parents, (2) Specific improvements in their children’s behaviour, (3) Improvement in their relationship with their child, (4) Difficulties with the programme. |
25 | Wolfe and Haddy (2001), USA | To inform and improve parent education efforts by providing insight about participants’ perceived experiences and programme impact | N = 15 mothers (11 White women and 4 African American Women) | Listening to Children (LTC) (Wolfe 1999) | Semi-structured interviews | Content Analysis (reference not provided) | (1) Increased social support, (2) Heightened self-awareness, (3) Improved parenting skills, (4) Enhanced sense of empowerment. |
26 | Barlow and Stewart-Brown (2001)*d, UK | To gain a better understanding of parents’ experiences of a parenting programme (e.g. whether parents had found taking part in a group with other parents helpful and, if so, in what ways). | N = 11 parents who had attended at least 90% of the programme | Family Links Nurturing Programme (https://familylinks.org.uk/the-nurturing-programme) | Semi-structured interviews | Not specified | (1) Reasons for participating in the programme, (2) Overall feelings and thoughts about the programme, (3) Ways in which parents benefited from taking part in a parenting programme, (4) Support in the role of a parent, (5) Regaining feelings of control, (6) Increased feelings of empathy and ability to identify with their children, (7) Aspects of the programme that parents did not like. |
Methodological Quality of Included Studies
Authors and publication year | 1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? | 2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? | 3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? | 4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? | 5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? | 6. Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered? | 7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? | 8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? | 9. Is there a clear statement of findings? | 10. How valuable is the research? | Total score (max score = 10) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Wilson et al. (2018) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 10 (High) |
2 | Garcia et al. (2018) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5 (Can’ta Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 9.5 (High) |
3 | Haskett et al. (2018) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 9.5 (High) |
4 | Coates et al. (2017) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 10 (High) |
5 | Hartwig et al. (2017) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5(Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 9.5 (High) |
6 | Errazuriz et al. (2016) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 9.5 (High) |
7 | Duppong-Hurley et al. (2016) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0 (No) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 8 (High) |
8 | Lewis et al. (2016) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0 (No) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 9 (High) |
9 | Mejia et al. (2016) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 9 (High) |
10 | Vella et al. (2015) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 9.5 (High) |
11 | Furlong and McGilloway (2015) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 9.5 (High) |
12 | Mejia et al. (2015) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 9 (High) |
13 | Butcher and Gersch (2014) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 10 (High) |
14 | Holtrop et al. (2014) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 10 (High) |
15 | Estefan et al. (2013) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 0 (No) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 6.5 (Moderate) |
16 | Cullen et al. (2013) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 0 (No) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 7.5(Moderate) |
17 | Houlding et al. (2012) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 10 (High) |
18 | Furlong and McGilloway (2012) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5(Can’t Tell) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 9 (High) |
19 | Bermudez et al. (2011) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 0 (No) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 8.5 (High) |
20 | Owens et al. (2007) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 9 (High) |
21 | Russell et al. (2007) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0 (No) | 0 (No) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 7.5 (Moderate) |
22 | Patterson et al. (2005) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 9 (High) |
23 | Mockford and Barlow (2004) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0 (No) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 8 (High) |
24 | Stewart-Brown et al. (2004) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0 (No) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 8 (High) |
25 | Wolfe and Haddy (2001 (Yes)) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0 (No) | 0 (No) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 7.5 (Moderate) |
26 | Barlow and Stewart-Brown (2001) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 0 (No) | 0.5 (Can’t Tell) | 1 (Yes) | 1 (Yes) | 8 (High) |
% of Included studies rated as 1:‘Yes’ | 96 | 92 | 96 | 92 | 88 | 23 | 58 | 73 | 100 | 100 |
Thematic Synthesis
Theme 1: A Family’s Journey
Subtheme 1.1: Prior to the Parenting Programme
Subtheme 1.2: Outcomes
Subtheme 1.2.1: Changes in Parent
“So like I said, the first two sessions I’m like whatever, I gotta come here. I don’t feel like being here, but after the third or fourth session it really made me want to be here more ‘cause I wanted to learn and figure out what did I do wrong or what was I not doing right with these kids.” (Garcia et al. 2018, p. 292)
“At first, like the first couple of weeks, I was like I can’t believe I have to do this, and it’s ridiculous. But it was all right. I mean the group, we got to know the people in our group and stuff, and they were people just like us. There was a couple that was our age, couples that were older. I liked the group thing, the way it was set up like that.” (Estefan et al. 2013, p. 206)
We learned about escalating, that it is not necessary to yell and keep punishing, that you need to make clear, precise rules and for the child to understand you so that things work. (Errázuriz et al. 2016, p. 3445)
I do a lot less shouting and I’d occasionally smack but I don’t do that now… learning to reward rather than punish, I don’t think we hardly [ever] punish now, do we… (Barlow and Stewart-Brown 2001, p. 124)
It’s just completely changed both of us, I think, in our outlook to each other as well. We’re enjoying each other’s company now. We’re not just arguing constantly. It’s changed our lives. It really has given me my daughter back. (Cullen et al. 2013, p. 1037)
Um, the one thing that I would say was the most helpful was that I recognized that my children have the same feelings and anxieties as adults have, and for some reason I think adults have this misconception that they can speak to children any way that they like. That they don’t have the [same] feelings, you know, and I think that has been really helpful for me, just to recognize that sometimes [that] they need to talk about things as well. And it is often harder for kids to talk about things because they don’t have the vocabulary, they don’t have the words to express the way that they are feeling, and that it is up to me to try and [help them to] express how they are feeling, you know. And I think that more than anything else has been a benefit. (Barlow and Stewart-Brown 2001, p. 125)
I think my biggest hurdle has been looking at my kids and being able to say I’m okay. I do good things for you. I may not be perfect—but I am okay. I think that for me that was the biggest hurdle—just to get over the fact that I am not horrible. (Russell et al. 2007, p. 108)
I just felt as well that it made me recognize that I was a human being as well, you know. And I have needs and requirements as well, [] whereas before I was trying to be the super-duper wonderful parent, trying to do everything without actually paying any attention to myself. I think I recognized that, yes, I can still be a good parent but still look after myself as well. So I think recognizing that was good for me. (Barlow and Stewart-Brown 2001, p. 123)
It was hard initially because I was forced to look at things at happened when I was raised. I had to resolve some of my own issues and that’s hard for people to do. So I was able to learn to get over my own childhood, so I’m not reliving my own childhood through my kids. It’s hard to break the cycle and do something different, but we’re for the most part doing it. (Wolfe and Haddy 2001, p. 82)
I think I would have given up the course if I hadn’t had the counsellor because it was too much at one point … I was jealous of the kids … And I think a lot of parents there haven’t had the perfect upbringing and I think there’s certain things that could come up out of the course that could upset a lot of people. (Furlong and McGilloway 2012, p. 623)
Subtheme 1.2.2: Changes in Child
Subtheme 1.2.3: Changes in Family
I think it changed everyone’s quality of life because I think it was extremely important to realize that applying small strategies we greatly improved situations that were previously very stressful. (Errázuriz et al. 2016, p. 3445)
We are working together. When I implement a rule at home, I talk to him. We agree things jointly. (Mejia et al. 2015, p. 681)
Subtheme 1.3: Post-intervention
At the end of the 9 weeks, I wasn’t ready for it to be over. (Owens et al. 2007, p. 188)
Sometimes you’re so busy, you just forget… You don’t realize until you see the kids acting up and you think, ‘Oh God, I haven’t played with them in ages’ or even really praised them in the last week. (Furlong and McGilloway 2015, p. 690)
I’ve learned that if something happens to say, ‘Ok, forget it. Let’s move on’. Rather than dwelling on their bad behaviour and your bad behaviour and beating yourself up, to just move on. (Furlong and McGilloway 2015, p. 692)
Things hadn’t been going well for a couple of months and I was at a loss. So I contacted them [the service providers] and I was back on track after a couple of weeks. (Furlong and McGilloway 2015, p. 692)
Theme 2: Aspects Perceived to be Important or Valuable
Subtheme 2.1: Group Leader or Facilitator
[Staff] give you the confidence to know that what you are doing is okay, that it is the right way, that it is your way and not someone else’s way…they give people hope. (Russell et al. 2007, p. 109)
Subtheme 2.2: Programme Content and Delivery
I think it helps if you have realistic expectations I mean, if you want to transform your child into a saint almost, who will listen to you always […] I mean, I don’t intend to change my kids in everything, but to improve some things, and those things are improving. (Errázuriz et al. 2016, p. 3445)
Role play was very helpful because…at home with [son] I don’t necessarily have time to replay all of that […] in my head…. I had role played it, so that made it easier to know what I was gonna do. (Holtrop et al. 2014, p. 753)
…and there was that role model of how you felt then when your mum is completely ignoring you, or when your mum actually turns round and stops and listens to you. And that was quite dramatic actually, and I try to actually listen a bit more, it happened yesterday. (Barlow and Stewart-Brown 2001, p. 126)
And having them come to your house was fantastic because they could see the way I was doing things. It really made the program. (Coates et al. 2017, p. 109)
Subtheme 2.3: Value of the Group
And it feels good to know that you’re not alone. Even when you’re doing your best and you feel like giving up, you’re not alone. (Garcia et al. 2018, p. 291)
You felt like you were there for each other, and you talked about what you tried and what they tried… we probably learned more from each other than either of us did from the teacher. (Owens et al. 2007, p. 186)
Theme 3: Challenges or Difficulties
Subtheme 3.1: Barriers to Engagement or Attendance
Subtheme 3.1.1: Fear of Judgement and Distrust of Others
It’s like, ‘don’t do that’ and ‘don’t do this.’ No one says what can you do and how it worked for them. (Wolfe and Haddy 2001, p. 85)
Subtheme 3.1.2: Lack of Support
Subtheme 3.1.3 Systemic Challenges
I had been legally evicted when we was right in the middle of the program… and me and my kids were, well they were staying with my brother, then with my mom for three weeks and I was sleeping in my car. I just had so much going on… it’s like I got too much on my plate right now for the program. (Lewis et al. 2016, p. 3767)
…one parent believed that there was so much information given to her on strategies to effectively discipline her children that she found it difficult to apply everything she had learned when needed. (Lewis et al. 2016, p. 3767).
Subtheme 3.2: Programme Content
I think, at the start, that it comes across as a bit fluffy … I wasn’t sure at the beginning that they would be dealing with more of the nitty–gritty … the time-out and the discipline. The positive thing doesn’t make much sense at first … it seems too ‘happy clappy. (Furlong and McGilloway 2012, p. 623)
Subtheme 3.3: Suggestions for Improvement
I think it could be a bit longer, that it could be monitored more in time because I’m really happy but when one stops coming, one starts to lose the training and that more precise control of things begins to dilute, because, there are behaviors in a child that will not change in a couple of months. (Errázuriz et al. 2016, p. 3446)
I really feel that the course was so good that I just feel that we need to follow it up, even just once a month or something… Because although the course is really good… I’ve forgotten some of it… I need some support to continue it… It’s so difficult… because… for years and years you’ve… been… the way I’ve been brought up, and… then in… 8 or 10 weeks… they totally change your way of… doing things, and then after that you’re left to your own devices… It’s so easy to… go backwards. (Patterson et al. 2005, p. 59)