Abstract
A comprehensive review of the economic evidence on parenting interventions targeting different aspects of child health is lacking to support decision-making. The aim of this review is to provide an up to date synthesis of the available health economic evidence for parenting interventions aiming to improve child health. A systematic review was conducted with articles identified through Econlit, Medline, PsychINFO, and ERIC databases. Only full economic evaluations comparing two or more options, considering both costs and outcomes were included. We assessed the quality of the studies using the Drummond checklist. We identified 44 studies of varying quality that met inclusion criteria; 22 targeting externalizing behaviors, five targeting internalizing problems, and five targeting other mental health problems including autism and alcohol abuse. The remaining studies targeted child abuse (n = 5), obesity (n = 3), and general health (n = 4). Studies varied considerably and many suffered from methodological limitations, such as limited costing perspectives, challenges with outcome measurement and short-time horizons. Parenting interventions showed good value for money in particular for preventing child externalizing and internalizing behaviors. For the prevention of child abuse, some programs had the potential of being cost-saving over the longer-term. Interventions were not cost-effective for the treatment of autism and obesity. Future research should include a broader spectrum of societal costs and quality-of-life impacts on both children and their caregivers.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
There is a widespread acceptance that the interplay between the child and her environment, composed of many layers including family, peers, and social structures, contribute to the child’s development. Of all protective and risk factors influencing child development, a key part is the quality of parenting that children are exposed to [1]. Inadequate parenting, such as low levels of supervision and involvement, inconsistent rule setting, and punitive discipline, therefore, reinforce inappropriate or negative outcomes in children [2]. Conversely, a warm and close relationship where parents are supportive and use positive reinforcement are important protective factors [3, 4].
The use of parents as active agents in influencing an unwanted behavior or outcome in children may thus be beneficial, an idea that has been formative in the development of parenting interventions. Parenting interventions aim to improve child behavior through improving parenting strategies and parent–child relationships [5]. These are commonly used as a preventive or treatment measure and are largely effective strategies, where changes in parental behavior trickle down to reducing child problematic behavior. This is especially true for disruptive behavior problems [6] and child maltreatment [7]. Effects increase per level (universal, selective, and indicated) of prevention [8], and parenting interventions are effective when delivered face-to-face [9] as well as online [10]. Effects have also been seen across different country contexts [11].
Problems that parenting interventions aim to target, including disruptive behavior, child maltreatment, emotional problems, and obesity, are costly to individuals, families, and society [12, 13]. If coexisting with parental mental health problems, they may be even larger [14]. If problems are left unresolved, they may additionally result in long-term adverse consequences, including persistent mental health problems, socio-economic struggles, and criminality [15,16,17]. Simultaneously, to provide the best possible and equitable care to children and their families, resources need to be prioritized in light of competing alternatives. It is, thus, important that decisions on which parenting interventions are to be adopted are made not only based on effectiveness but also on whether the outcomes produced by such interventions are good value-for-money.
The literature on the economics of parenting interventions for improving child health dates back to the 1980s. Considerable research has been undertaken, looking at outcomes and/or costs of parenting interventions and their impact on patterns of resource use. Although informative, evaluations that investigate either outcomes or costs separately, only consider one of two important dimensions of economic evaluation, and cannot fully guide decision-makers in resource prioritization. Full economic evaluations are necessary, to compare two or more interventions in terms of costs and health outcomes [18].
Several reviews of economic evaluations of parenting interventions have previously been conducted. An earlier review compiled the economic evidence of parenting interventions that aimed to support families with children with or at risk of developing conduct disorder. The review included six studies but was cautionary to draw conclusions; as only three of these studies were full economic evaluations and measured different health outcomes and costs of different interventions, making comparisons difficult [19]. Duncan et al. [20] synthesized the economic evidence for parenting interventions aimed to improve parent–infant interaction. Ten studies were included in the review that concluded that the interventions could result in substantial savings, both in the short- and long-term. Another review evaluated the evidence for parenting interventions, in the UK, for preventing behavior problems in children, finding that the interventions had the potential to be cost-saving in the long-term [21].
Lacking in the literature is a comprehensive review including a broader range of child health outcomes, as well as an assessment of study quality. In addition, there has been a surge of economic evaluations of parenting programs in the last five years, more than doubling the amount of available evidence. The aim of the current systematic review is to provide an up-to-date synthesis and appraise the quality of the available health economic evidence for parenting interventions aiming to improve child health.
Methods
Search strategy
This systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [22]. An English-language literature search was undertaken in Medline, Econlit, ERIC, and PsychInfo for peer-reviewed literature published until June 2020. Search terms were informed by previous systematic reviews [19, 21] and included ‘child*’ AND ‘parent*’ AND ‘economic evaluation’ OR ‘cost benefit’ OR ‘cost effectiveness’ OR ‘cost utility’ OR ‘cost offset’ OR ‘cost minimization’. All results were exported to Mendeley version 1.19.4. The review was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42020206303.
Inclusion criteria for the review comprised: (1) studies that met the criteria for a full economic evaluation, considering both costs and outcomes of two or more alternatives; and (2) studies with a randomized or quasi-randomized controlled design with at least one parenting intervention arm aiming to improve child health-related outcomes, including measures of physical and mental health. A parenting intervention was defined as a manualized structured intervention, focusing on parenting skills and practices [5]. The following exclusion criteria were considered: (1) reviews, editorials and abstracts from conferences, (2) studies without access to full text; (3) studies where only parental outcomes and no child health-related outcomes were reported. To validate the search strategy and to find missing articles, reference lists of all systematic reviews identified in the initial search were checked for other relevant articles.
Three of the authors (FS, CN, and IF) screened one third of the titles and abstracts each. To consider inconsistencies between author assessments, a random sample of 20% of the abstracts was assessed by another author. Author agreement on article relevance was estimated based on inter-rater reliability, resulting in a Cohen’s kappa coefficient between 0.88 and 1.00, reflecting good agreement [23]. Inconsistencies were discussed to reach complete agreement. Thereafter, abstracts included were screened for full text inclusion based on inclusion criteria.
Quality assessment
Three independent reviewers (FS, CN, and IF) assessed the quality of the studies included after full text screening using the Drummond [18] checklist. Disagreements were discussed among authors until consensus was reached. This checklist includes ten items, each with three potential responses, “yes”, “unclear”, and “no”, which were scored 1, 0.5, and 0, respectively. Items 7 and 8 have the additional potential response “not applicable”. When these items were deemed not applicable, they were excluded from the calculation of total score. A scoring system was used to calculate an average score across all applicable items, with each item weighted equally [24]. Total scores range between 0 and 1. Studies were classified into high (score 0.8–1.0), moderate (score 0.6–0.79), and poor quality (score ≤ 0.59).
Data extraction and study classification
Data from the articles selected for inclusion were extracted using a template relevant to the study aim. Extracted items were summarized in a narrative format and included: author/year, setting, problems targeted, population, intervention(s), comparator, follow-up/time horizon, analysis perspective, costs included, outcomes (generic and clinical, and instrument), summary of results, and study quality. Studies were classified according to the type of evaluation performed. Evaluations included cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) (using clinical outcome measures), cost-utility analyses (CUA) (using generic outcome measures, such as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) or disability adjusted life years (DALY), which serve as common metrics that can be used to compare different interventions), cost–benefit analyses (CBA) (quantifying health outcomes in monetary terms), cost-minimization analyses (CMA) (when health outcomes are not significantly different, thus only costs are compared), and cost-consequence analyses (CCA) (when both costs and outcomes are described without incremental estimates being computed). CUA is the only evaluation type that allows for results to be compared against an established willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for a gained QALY. Although it could be argued that cost-offset analyses (comparing costs incurred with costs saved) are not full evaluations, these were also included, as the line between costs and outcomes if often ambiguous and some outcomes might be proxied by service use. Studies were also classified as to whether they were based on primary data or simulation modeling. Interventions were classified within the prevention spectrum (universal, selective, indicated) or as treatment. Universal interventions target the whole population; selective interventions target at-risk groups; and indicated interventions target high-risk groups with signs or symptoms of disorders, but who do not meet the full criteria for a diagnosis [25].
Three reviewers (FS, CN, and IF) independently extracted data, while a random sample of 20% of the articles were selected for review by another author. Disagreements were resolved through discussions.
Results
Search results
The electronic search resulted in 1714 unique publications, and four additional articles were identified when screening reference lists of relevant reviews. Figure 1 shows a flowchart of the study selection process. Based on the title and abstract review, 86 articles were selected for full text review. Of these, 42 were excluded because they did not evaluate parenting interventions (n = 15), did not include a comparator (n = 6), were not full economic evaluations and reported only costs (n = 4) or only effects (n = 4), did not have a relevant outcome (n = 3), did not set costs in relation to effects (n = 3), and were report versions of other publications or not available in full text. After the full text review, 44 studies were selected for data extraction and quality assessment.
Quality assessment
Of the 44 studies included, a majority of the studies were rated to be of high quality (n = 32), 11 studies of moderate quality and 1 of poor quality. The most frequent reasons for not receiving full points among all studies was failing to include all relevant costs and outcomes (64% of studies), failing to discount costs and outcomes occurring in the future to present value (65% of studies), and failing to adequately characterize uncertainty around the cost and effect estimates (64% of studies). Additionally, moderate quality studies also often failed to pose a well-defined research question, to adequately measure and value costs and outcomes, and to address all issues of concern in the discussion (See Tables S1 and S2 in the Supplementary Appendix).
Overview of the studies
Of the 44 included studies, most targeted child mental health (n = 32): 22 studies targeted externalizing behavior problems (such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and conduct disorder) [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47], five studies targeted internalizing problems (i.e., anxiety) [48,49,50,51,52], and five studies targeted other mental health problems including, for instance, autism, and alcohol abuse [53,54,55,56,57]. The remaining studies targeted child abuse (n = 5) [58,59,60,61,62], obesity (n = 3) [63,64,65], and general health (n = 4) [66,67,68,69]. Most interventions (n = 30) evaluated preventive strategies, whereas 14 studies evaluated treatment strategies. Most studies were conducted in Europe (n = 24) including the UK, Ireland, Sweden, and the Netherlands, followed by North America (n = 13) and Australia (n = 5). The majority of studies were CEA (n = 28) using clinical outcome measures, nine were CUA using QALYs or DALYs, four were CMA, three cost-offset analyses and one cost consequence analysis. Most studies were within trial evaluations (n = 34), a large proportion with time horizons of 1 year or less (n = 23). Ten studies modeled costs and benefits over longer time horizons, ranging from one year to lifetime. A variety of costing perspectives were employed, ranging from limited to fuller societal perspectives (n = 28) and to narrower third-party payer perspectives (n = 8) sometimes limited to only intervention costs. The main characteristics of the studies are summarized in Table 1, and methods and results are summarized in Table 2. All costs were converted to 2020 US$ using purchasing power parities.
Evidence synthesis
Mental health
Externalizing behavior problems
Among the high-quality studies (n = 14), there was evidence that preventive interventions targeting children with symptoms and parenting interventions delivered as treatment, including group and individual face-to-face programs [26, 27, 31, 35, 43, 46] were cost-effective and even cost-saving for targeting externalizing behaviors. CBA analyses of some of these programs targeting prevention showed cost–benefit ratios between US$6.48 and US$17.18 per dollar invested over the long-term [27], with savings to society over a 25 year horizon of $28,994 per family [31], or $13,364 over 20 years per child [46]. Another study estimated net benefits on the population level of $31.3 million if a minimum reduction of 25% of cases of conduct problems were achieved [35]. One study found incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of $778 per DALY averted for group therapy and $15,744 per DALY averted for individual therapy (probability of cost-effectiveness between 99.2% and 99.5%) [43]; and another study reported ICERs between $6,527 and $9,923 per QALY for a parent only intervention compared to a parent and teacher variant [47]. Well-established and disseminated parenting interventions, such as the Incredible Years [26, 27], and the Triple P—Positive Parenting Program [35, 43] were likely to be cost-effective at local WTP thresholds.
Among the moderate quality studies (n = 7), group-based interventions had similar outcomes at lower costs compared to individual formats [41], and interventions targeting different combinations of parent, teacher, and child formats yielded better outcomes at higher costs than care as usual [33, 40, 42, 70]. These studies were in its majority CEA using clinical outcome measures with no existing WTP values to benchmark their results against, hence no conclusions on value for money can be drawn.
Internalizing behavior problems
All five studies targeting internalizing behaviors were high quality. We found evidence that parenting interventions for the prevention of anxiety were cost-effective and parenting interventions delivered as treatment produced similar outcomes at lower or equal costs in relation to comparators. For example, a group-based preventive intervention, was cost-effective with an ICER of $6144 per DALY averted and 99% probability of cost-effectiveness [50]. Another study reported a probability of cost-effectiveness of 96% at a WTP between $28,694 and $36,279 for a parent-only intervention versus a parent and child intervention [49].
Other mental health problems
Four studies were deemed high quality. Interventions were cost-effective for the prevention of other mental health problems [56, 57] or generated better outcomes at equal costs [53]. For example, a selective intervention for divorced mothers generated long-term cost-offsets over 15 years of $1,336 per family [56]. An evaluation of two universal interventions for the prevention of alcohol abuse among youth had the potential to delay abuse onset, with benefit ratios between $9.97 and $16.35 per dollar invested [57]. No interventions were cost-effective for treating autism [55].
Child abuse and neglect
Among the high quality studies, there was conflicting evidence about the cost-effectiveness of parenting interventions for the prevention of child abuse. For example, one study [59] found that both a home-visiting program and centers providing early education in schools and services for low-income families were likely to be cost-saving over a lifetime horizon, with a benefit–cost ratio of $7.18 per dollar invested. Another study [60] estimated a net present value saving of $2.4 million for treating 100 families in terms of cases of maltreatment prevented. Conversely, one study found the same home-visiting program not cost-effective at local WTP thresholds, with a probability of cost-effectiveness of 26.7% [58]. These two studies differed in terms of the costs included in the analysis, where the former considered a broader range of costs than the latter, including for instance productivity losses.
Obesity
Good quality studies did not support the cost-effectiveness of parenting interventions targeting obesity or reported better outcomes at higher costs than comparators. For example, a family-based community program for parents and children, addressing parenting, lifestyle, social and emotional development was not cost-effective compared to TAU (ICER of $893,536 per QALY and 40% probability of cost-effectiveness [64]. Another study reported that a family-based behavioral treatment improved BMI and cost more than an information control [63], although cost-effectiveness cannot be inferred. A moderate quality study showed that mixed group and individual family-based treatment was cheaper than individual only treatment [65].
General health
Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of parenting interventions targeting general health was conflicting. One good quality study reported that a population-based program integrated within care as usual targeting mothers and their children yielded higher effects and was cost-saving compared to TAU [67]. Another good quality study showed that a group-based parenting intervention was not cost-effective at local WTP thresholds (probability of cost-effectiveness of 47% at 5 years and 57% at 10 years). [69]. Two moderate quality studies did not support the cost-effectiveness of interventions [66, 68].
Discussion
This review aimed to provide an up-to-date synthesis of the available health economic evidence for parenting interventions aiming to improve child health. In the last three decades, 44 studies on the economic value of parenting interventions, that met the inclusion criteria for this review, were published. Most of the studies targeted child mental health (n = 32), in particular externalizing behavior problems, followed by internalizing problems, and other mental health problems. The remaining studies targeted child abuse, obesity, and general health. Seventy percent of studies evaluated preventive interventions.
Pleasingly, most studies were of high (n = 32) to moderate quality (n = 11). Among the studies deemed high quality, parenting interventions showed good value for money, in particular for preventing child externalizing and internalizing behaviors. High-quality evaluations of widely used parenting interventions, such as the Incredible Years and the Triple P, show that they, either: (a) were cost-effective at local WTP thresholds; or, (b) could be cost-saving over the long-term. For the prevention of child abuse, some home-visiting programs had the potential of being cost-saving over a lifetime horizon. Family-based community programs targeting the treatment of obesity were not cost-effective.
Many evaluations used cost-effectiveness designs. Although informative, these studies used a variety of disease-specific outcomes that are not directly comparable for interventions targeting the same problems or interventions across different diagnostic areas. Further, the use of clinical measures undermines the likelihood of detecting improvements that may be relevant to everyday life and general wellbeing, such as improvements in quality-of-life. This is particularly important in the case of parenting interventions that may have impacts on different areas of children’s lives. Importantly, while there are established WTP threshold values for a QALY gained or a DALY averted, no such threshold value exists for disease-specific outcome measures, making it difficult to draw conclusions regarding the value-for-money of such interventions. To tackle these limitations, studies should include instruments that can capture health-related quality-of-life based on individuals’ preferences. There are a few multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUI) available in the literature, which can be used in children [71], that make it possible to estimate QALYs and, thus facilitate value-for-money estimations. Currently available instruments are, however, limited to children older than seven years of age (unless proxies are used). A reason as to why multi-dimensional outcomes were not included in most studies in this review might be that children were of younger ages. The most common MAUIs may, however, not always be appropriate in some contexts, such as mental health, as they may not fully capture the elements of health-related quality-of-life most relevant to these children. Despite its usefulness and economic credentials, QALYs per se may also fail to capture important clinical improvements. Disease-specific instruments can be more relevant in such contexts. Future research should focus on employing and developing instruments that can capture meaningful changes for different populations.
The studies also adopted narrow costing perspectives, often including intervention and medical-related costs but lacking broader societal costs, such as educational sector costs, other societal services, informal care and productivity losses for parents. This narrow approach is likely to miss important impacts across different sectors of society. This is especially true for evaluations in child health, since many conditions have impacts across different sectors of society, and may also require the delivery of care in non-medical settings, such as schools, home, and the community. For instance, antisocial behaviors are known to result in increased use of resources in different sectors of society, such as healthcare, educational and justice system services [12, 72, 73]. Childhood anxiety disorders and child abuse also yield large costs to society, including indirect costs stemming from productivity losses of parents due to absence from paid work [74, 75]. Importantly, narrow costing perspectives limit the comparability with other interventions that may differently impact the use of resources, and may lead to inappropriate decision-making. It is, however, recognized that capturing the full scope of costs that may be impacted by a parenting intervention is a difficult task, given that many are likely to occur as the children get older. Additionally, other factors may pose difficulties to adopting a broader costing perspective, including the lack of routine data sources available for estimations of resource use beyond health care, as well as the financial burden of added data collection and the added burden of data collection on participants. With such difficulties in mind, the latest recommendations of the second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine are that both a health care and if possible a broader societal presented are presented as reference cases [76].
Another important issue when evaluating parenting interventions are spillover effects, i.e., the impacts of the interventions not only on children themselves, but also on those who can be directly affected by changes in children’s health and wellbeing—such as parents and siblings. Current guidelines from the U.S. [76], Canada [77], the UK [78], and the Netherlands [79] recommend the inclusion of family costs and “spillover effects” in economic evaluation when relevant. Including spillover effects in economic evaluation can change the value of an intervention [80]. In a review of pediatric economic evaluations, the inclusion of spillover effects contributed to the cost-effectiveness of interventions being more favorable 75% of the time [81]. In the current review, more than half of the studies included at least one type of family spillover costs (i.e., time costs or out of pocket costs) but only one included parent health outcome spillovers in the ICER estimate.
Existing economic evaluations of RCTs have quite limited time horizons, often below one year. Time horizon can strongly impact the results of an economic evaluation. On average, extending the time horizon of economic evaluations leads to more favorable estimates of value [82], which is important when the impacts of an intervention may extend into the future, as is the case for interventions in child health. Modeling studies can help address some of the issues of RCTs, through longer-term projections of estimated costs and outcomes, but should always use available evidence from real world data and assumptions.
Finally, it is important to stress the importance of planning for an economic evaluation upon study design to capture all important costs and outcomes, and use appropriate instruments to measure QALYs. This is not always the case, as a few evaluations included in this review appear to have been conducted on an ad hoc basis and lack inclusion of appropriate instruments to measure health outcomes and resource use.
Conclusions
The existing evidence suggest that parenting interventions are likely to be a cost-effective use of societal resources, with respect to preventing child externalizing and internalizing behaviors, as well as home-visiting programs to prevent child abuse and neglect. Family-based community programs targeting the treatment of obesity were not cost-effective. Future studies should aim to capture the full health and economic impacts of child health interventions. Investment in parenting interventions is value-for-money and worth serious consideration by decision-makers.
Author contributors
All authors contributed to the conception of the study, data collection, interpretation of results and approved the final manuscript.
References
Collins WA, Maccoby EE, Steinberg L et al (2000) Contemporary research on parenting. The case for nature and nurture. Am Psychol 55:218–232
Leman P, Bremner A, Parke RD, Gauvain M (2012) Developmental psychology. McGraw-Hill Education, Berkshire
Carter M, McGee R, Taylor B, Williams S (2007) Health outcomes in adolescence: associations with family, friends and school engagement. J Adolesc 30:51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.04.002
Kawabata Y, Alink LRA, Tseng W-L et al (2011) Maternal and paternal parenting styles associated with relational aggression in children and adolescents: a conceptual analysis and meta-analytic review. Dev Rev 31:240–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.08.001
Sanders MR, Morawska H, Alina E (2018) Handbook of parenting and child development across the lifespan. Springer, Berlin
Furlong M, McGilloway S, Bywater T et al (2013) Cochrane review: behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting programmes for early-onset conduct problems in children aged 3 to 12 years (Review). Evid Based Child Health 8:318–692. https://doi.org/10.1002/ebch.1905
Chen M, Chan KL (2015) Effects of parenting programs on child maltreatment prevention: a meta-analysis. Trauma Violence Abus 17:88–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014566718
Leijten P, Gardner F, Melendez-Torres GJ et al (2019) Meta-analyses: key parenting program components for disruptive child behavior. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 58:180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2018.07.900
Piquero AR, Jennings WG, Diamond B et al (2016) A meta-analysis update on the effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. J Exp Criminol 12:229–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9256-0
Thongseiratch T, Leijten P, Melendez-Torres GJ (2020) Online parent programs for children’s behavioral problems: a meta-analytic review. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-020-01472-0
Gardner F, Montgomery P, Knerr W (2016) Transporting evidence-based parenting programs for child problem behavior (age 3–10) between countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 45:749–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1015134
Knapp M, Ardino V, Brimblecombe N (2016) Youth mental health: new economic evidence. Springer, London
Knapp M, Wong G (2020) Economics and mental health: the current scenario. World Psychiatry 19:3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20692
Nystrand C, Ssegonja R, Sampaio F (2018) Quality of life and service use amongst parents of young children: results from the Children and Parents in Focus trial. Scand J Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494818801640
Chisholm D, Sweeny K, Sheehan P et al (2016) Scaling-up treatment of depression and anxiety: a global return on investment analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 3:415–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30024-4
Rivenbark JG, Odgers CL, Caspi A et al (2018) The high societal costs of childhood conduct problems: evidence from administrative records up to age 38 in a longitudinal birth cohort. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 59:703–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12850
Philipson A, Alaie I, Ssegonja R et al (2020) Adolescent depression and subsequent earnings across early to middle adulthood: a 25-year longitudinal cohort study. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 29:e123. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796020000360
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K et al (2015) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Charles JM, Bywater T, Edwards RT (2011) Parenting interventions: a systematic review of the economic evidence. Child Care Health Dev 37:462–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01217.x
Duncan KM, MacGillivray S, Renfrew MJ (2017) Costs and savings of parenting interventions: results of a systematic review. Child Care Health Dev 43:797–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12473
Stevens M (2014) The cost-effectiveness of UK parenting programmes for preventing children’s behaviour problems—a review of the evidence. Child Fam Soc Work 19:109–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00888.x
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff JAD (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009:6
Orwin R (1994) Evaluating coding decisions. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV (eds) The handbook of research synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York
Gonzalez-Perez JG (2002) Developing a scoring system to quality assess economic evaluations. Eur J Heal Econ HEPAC Heal Econ Prev care 3:131–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-002-0100-2
Mrazek PJ, Haggerty RJ E (1994) Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Prevention of Mental Disorders; new directions in definitions—reducing risks for mental disorders—NCBI Bookshelf. In: Front. Prev. Interv. Res. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236318/. Accessed 12 Apr 2021
Nystrand C, Feldman I, Enebrink P, Sampaio F (2019) Cost-effectiveness analysis of parenting interventions for the prevention of behaviour problems in children. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225503
Nystrand C, Hultkrantz L, Vimefall E, Feldman I (2019) Economic return on investment of parent training programmes for the prevention of child externalising behaviour problems. Adm Policy Ment Heal Ment Heal Serv Res 47:300–315
Sampaio F, Enebrink P, Mihalopoulos C, Feldman I (2016) Cost-effectiveness of four parenting programs and bibliotherapy for parents of children with conduct problems. J Ment Health Policy Econ 2016:19
Sampaio F, Sarkadi A, Salari R et al (2015) Cost and effects of a universal parenting programme delivered to parents of preschoolers. Eur J Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv106
O’Neill D, McGilloway S, Donnelly M et al (2011) A cost-effectiveness analysis of the incredible years parenting programme in reducing childhood health inequalities. Eur J Heal Econ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-011-0342-y
Bonin EM, Stevens M, Beecham J et al (2011) Costs and longer-term savings of parenting programmes for the prevention of persistent conduct disorder: a modelling study. BMC Public Health 11:803. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-803
Sharac J, McCrone P, Rushton A, Monck E (2011) Enhancing adoptive parenting: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Child Adolesc Ment Health 16:110–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2010.00587.x
Scott S, Sylva K, Doolan M et al (2010) Randomised controlled trial of parent groups for child antisocial behaviour targeting multiple risk factors: the SPOKES project. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 51:48–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02127.x
Edwards RT, Ceilleachair A, Bywater T et al (2007) Parenting programme for parents of children at risk of developing conduct disorder: cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 334:682–685
Mihalopoulos C, Sanders MR, Turner KM et al (2007) Does the triple P-positive parenting program provide value for money? Aust New Zeal J Psychiatry 41:239–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048670601172723
Muntz R, Hutchings J, Edwards RT et al (2004) Economic evaluation of treatments for children with severe behavioural problems. J Ment Health Policy Econ 7:177–189
Harrington R, Peters S, Green J et al (2000) Randomised comparison of the effectiveness and costs of community and hospital based mental health services for children with behavioural disorders. Brittish Med J 321:1047–1050. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7268.1047
French AN, Yates BT, Fowles TR (2018) Cost-effectiveness of parent–child interaction therapy in clinics versus homes: Client, provider, administrator, and overall perspectives. J Child Fam Stud 27:3329–3344
Cunningham CE, Bremner R, Boyle M (1995) Large group community-based parenting programs for families of preschoolers at risk for disruptive behaviour disorders: utilization, cost effectiveness, and outcome. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 36:1141–1159
Foster EM, Olchowski AE, Webster-Stratton CH (2007) Is stacking intervention components cost-effective? An analysis of the Incredible Years program. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 46:1414–1424. https://doi.org/10.1097/chi.0b013e3181514c8a
Gross D, Belcher HME, Budhathoki C et al (2019) Reducing preschool behavior problems in an urban mental health clinic: a pragmatic, non-inferiority trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 58:572–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2018.08.013
Tran JLA, Sheng R, Beaulieu A et al (2018) Cost-effectiveness of a behavioral psychosocial treatment integrated across home and school for pediatric ADHD-inattentive type. Adm Policy Ment Health 45:741–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-018-0857-y
Sampaio F, Barendregt JJ, Feldman I et al (2018) Population cost-effectiveness of the Triple P parenting programme for the treatment of conduct disorder: an economic modelling study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-017-1100-1
Sonuga-Barke EJS, Barton J, Daley D et al (2018) A comparison of the clinical effectiveness and cost of specialised individually delivered parent training for preschool attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and a generic, group-based programme: a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of the New F. Eur J Child Adolesc Psychiatry 27:797–809
Olthuis JV, McGrath PJ, Cunningham CE et al (2018) Distance-delivered parent training for childhood disruptive behavior (strongest families): a randomized controlled trial and economic analysis. J Abnorm Child Psychol 46:1613–1629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-018-0413-y
Gardner F, Leijten P, Mann J et al (2017) Could scale-up of parenting programmes improve child disruptive behaviour and reduce social inequalities? Using individual participant data meta-analysis to establish for whom programmes are effective and cost-effective. Public Heal Res 5:1–144. https://doi.org/10.3310/phr05100
Sayal K, Taylor JA, Valentine A et al (2016) Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a brief school-based group programme for parents of children at risk of ADHD: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Child Care Heal Dev 42:521–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12349
Lou CM, Rapee RM, Catchpool M et al (2019) Economic evaluation of stepped care for the management of childhood anxiety disorders: results from a randomised trial. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 53:673–682. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867418823272
Creswell C, Violato M, Fairbanks H et al (2017) Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of brief guided parent-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy and solution-focused brief therapy for treatment of childhood anxiety disorders: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry 4:529–539
Mihalopoulos C, Vos T, Rapee RM et al (2015) The population cost-effectiveness of a parenting intervention designed to prevent anxiety disorders in children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 56:1026–1033
Simon E, Dirksen CD, Bogels SM (2013) An explorative cost-effectiveness analysis of school-based screening for child anxiety using a decision analytic model. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 22:619–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-013-0404-z
Simon E, Dirksen C, Bogels S, Bodden D (2012) Cost-effectiveness of child-focused and parent-focused interventions in a child anxiety prevention program. J Anxiety Disord 26:287–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.12.008
Lynch FL, Dickerson JF, Pears KC, Fisher PA (2017) Cost effectiveness of a school readiness intervention for Foster children. Child Youth Serv Rev 81:63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.07.011
Salloum A, Wang W, Robst J et al (2016) Stepped care versus standard trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy for young children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 57:614–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12471
Byford S, Cary M, Barrett B et al (2015) Cost-effectiveness analysis of a communication-focused therapy for pre-school children with autism: results from a randomised controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry 15:316. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0700-x
Herman PM, Mahrer NE, Wolchik SA et al (2015) Cost-benefit analysis of a preventive intervention for divorced families: reduction in mental health and justice system service use costs 15 years later. Prev Sci 16:586–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0527-6
Spoth RL, Guyll M, Day SX (2002) Universal family-focused interventions in alcohol-use disorder prevention: cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of two interventions. J Stud Alcohol 63:219–228
Barlow J, Sembi S, Parsons H et al (2019) A randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation of the parents under pressure program for parents in substance abuse treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend 194:184–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.08.044
Peterson C, Florence C, Thomas R, Klevens J (2018) Cost-benefit analysis of two child abuse and neglect primary prevention programs for US states. Prev Sci 19:705–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0819-8
Dalziel K, Dawe S, Harnett PH, Segal L (2015) Cost-effectiveness analysis of the parents under pressure programme for methadone-maintained parents. Child Abus Rev 24:317–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2371
McIntosh E, Barlow J, Davis H, Stewart-Brown S (2009) Economic evaluation of an intensive home visiting programme for vulnerable families: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a public health intervention. J Public Health (Bangkok) 31:423–433. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdp047
DePanfilis D, Dubowitz H, Kunz J (2008) Assessing the cost-effectiveness of family connections. Child Abus Negl 32:335–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.06.005
Quattrin T, Cao Y, Paluch RA et al (2017) Cost-effectiveness of family-based obesity treatment. Pediatrics 140:e20162755. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2755
Robertson W, Fleming J, Kamal A et al (2017) Randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of `Families for Health’, a family-based childhood obesity treatment intervention delivered in a community setting for ages 6 to 11 years. Health Technol Assess (Rockv) 21:1. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta21010
Goldfield GS, Epstein LH, Kilanowski CK et al (2001) Cost-effectiveness of group and mixed family-based treatment for childhood obesity. Int J Obes 25:1843–1849. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0801838
Knight DS, Landry S, Zucker TA et al (2019) Cost-effectiveness of early childhood interventions to enhance preschool: evidence from a randomized experiment in head start centers enrolling historically underserved populations. J Policy Anal Manag 38:891–917
Haggstrom J, Sampaio F, Eurenius E et al (2017) Is the Salut Programme an effective and cost-effective universal health promotion intervention for parents and their children? A register-based retrospective observational study. BMJ Open 7:e016732. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016732
Ulfsdotter M, Lindberg L, Månsdotter A (2015) A cost-effectiveness analysis of the Swedish universal parenting program all children in focus. PLoS ONE 10:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145201
Simkiss DE, Snooks HA, Stallard N et al (2013) Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a universal parenting skills programme in deprived communities: multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 3:e002851
O’Neill D, McGilloway S, Donnelly M et al (2013) A cost-effectiveness analysis of the incredible years parenting programme in reducing childhood health inequalities. Eur J Heal Econ 14:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-011-0342-y
Chen G, Ratcliffe J (2015) A review of the development and application of generic multi-attribute utility instruments for paediatric populations. Pharmacoeconomics 33:1013–1028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0286-7
Romeo R, Knapp M, Scott S (2006) Economic cost of severe antisocial behaviour in children—and who pays it. Br J Psychiatry 188:547–553. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.104.007625
Christenson JD, Crane DR, Malloy J, Parker S (2016) The cost of oppositional defiant disorder and disruptive behavior: a review of the literature. J Child Fam Stud 25:2649–2658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0430-9
Pella JE, Slade EP, Pikulski PJ, Ginsburg GS (2020) Pediatric anxiety disorders: a cost of illness analysis. J Abnorm Child Psychol 48:551–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00626-7
Peterson C, Florence C, Klevens J (2018) The economic burden of child maltreatment in the United States, 2015. Child Abuse Negl 86:178–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.09.018
Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Ganiats TG (2017) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2017) Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada, 4th ed. Ottawa
(NICE) NI for H and CE (2013) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). In: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London
Zorginstituut Nederland [Health Care Institute of the Netherlands] (2016) Guideline for the Conduct of Economic Evaluations in Health Care. Diemen
Lin P-J, D’Cruz B, Leech AA et al (2019) Family and caregiver spillover effects in cost-utility analyses of Alzheimer’s disease interventions. Pharmacoeconomics 37:597–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00788-3
Lavelle TA, D’Cruz BN, Mohit B et al (2019) Family spillover effects in pediatric cost-utility analyses. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 17:163–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-018-0436-0
Kim DD, Wilkinson CL, Pope EF et al (2017) The influence of time horizon on results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 17:615–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2017.1331432
Funding
Open access funding provided by Uppsala University. There was no funding source for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical standards
The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Sampaio, F., Nystrand, C., Feldman, I. et al. Evidence for investing in parenting interventions aiming to improve child health: a systematic review of economic evaluations. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 33, 323–355 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-022-01969-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-022-01969-w