Peer-reviewed article
The effectiveness of parenting interventions in reducing violence against children in humanitarian settings in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Sophia Backhaus, Alexandra Blackwell, Frances E. M. Gardner ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001This systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether parenting interventions reduce violence against children in humanitarian settings in low- and middle-income countries. The researchers analyzed 23 randomized trials and found that parenting interventions produced small but meaningful reductions in physical and psychological violence, improved positive parenting behaviors, and reduced parental mental health problems and children's emotional difficulties. The effectiveness was modest, and the authors note that conclusions are limited by the relatively small number of available studies and some imprecise statistical estimates.
Key points
- Parenting interventions showed a small effect on reducing physical and psychological violence against children (effect size d = -0.36)
- Interventions improved positive parenting behaviors (effect size d = 0.48) and reduced negative parenting (effect size d = -0.42)
- Parental mental health improved following interventions (effect size d = -0.34), as did children's internalizing behaviors (effect size d = -0.38)
- No significant effect was found on children's externalizing behaviors (effect size d = -0.12, non-significant)
- Few studies reported outcomes related to intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and parenting stress
Limitations
The review is limited by the relatively small number of available randomized trials and imprecise statistical significance for some outcomes, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about intervention effectiveness in all contexts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Violence against children is a global phenomenon, yet children living in humanitarian settings are at elevated risk of experiencing violent parenting. Parenting interventions are a recommended prevention strategy. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of parenting interventions in preventing violence against children and related parent and child outcomes. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Primary caregivers in humanitarian settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: A highly sensitive multi-language systematic search in electronic and grey-literature database. Studies were appraised for risk of bias, summary effects by certainty of effect, and effect estimates pooled using robust variance estimation. RESULTS: Twenty-three randomized trials were meta-analyzed finding a small effect on physical and psychological violence (n = 14, k = 21, d = -0.36, 95 % CI [-0.69, -0.04]), positive parenting (n = 16, k = 43, d = 0.48, 95 % CI [0.29, 0.67]), negative parenting (n = 17, k = 37, d = -0.42, 95 % CI [-0.67, -0.16]), parental poor mental health (n = 9, k = 15, d = -0.34, 95 % CI [-0.66, -0.02]), and internalizing behaviors (n = 11, k = 29, d = -0.38, 95 % CI [-0.70, -0.05]); a non-significant effect on externalizing child behaviors (n = 9, k = 17, d = -0.12, 95 % CI [-0.50, 0.27]). Too few studies reported intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and parenting stress outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that parenting interventions in humanitarian settings in LMICs may be an effective strategy to reduce physical and psychological violence, and numerous related parent and child outcomes. However, findings need to be interpreted in light of the limited number of available studies and imprecise statistical significance for selected outcomes.
Findings the Hub has extracted
Each claim below is labelled by its type of design and links back to this report.
- Intervention
- Parenting interventions targeting primary caregivers
- Population
- Primary caregivers in humanitarian settings in low- and middle-income countries
Key finding
Small but significant reduction in physical and psychological violence (d = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.69, -0.04]) across 14 studies