| Australia |
|Burleigh Relaxation Baby Bath and Massage||1 × 1-hr home visit session, showing a video and giving both parents hands-on experience of the techniques||Mother and fathers (couples) and their 4-week-old infants|| |
RCT (n = 15 intervention, n = 15 controls).
Measures: self-completion time diaries; observations of father–child interaction and family dynamics; Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale, CES-D scale, Rosenberg Self-esteem scale
Process: time and activities sheets for parents to fill out; collected 8 weeks later, at which time observations carried out by two observers.
Impact: (a) parents: father/mother infant bathing frequency, massage frequency, infant caretaking, interaction quality, self-esteem, depression, marital satisfaction, and (b) infants: responses/overtures to mother/father
|Scholz and Samuels (1992), and Samuels, Scholz, & Edmundson (1992)|
|Dads on Board|| |
Weekly 2-hr therapeutic groupwork sessions over 8 weeks plus ‘therapeutic newsletter’ (reporting on each session) for parents between sessions.
Two facilitators (male & female), closely supervised
Fathers who had already participated in behavior-change programs as a result of their use of violence – plus their babies/toddlers.
Mothers can attend but focus is on father–child dyad
Progress of seven father-participants and their partners (if attending), monitored and reported.
Measure: Maternal/Paternal Postnatal Attachment Scale
Process: pre/post test (parent report) plus facilitator observation and report.
Impact: father/infant and mother/infant attachment; fathers’ behavior and understanding (read infant cues; develop curiosity/respect for infant; understand concept of ‘holding’; understand impact of own behavior on infant)
|Healthy Dads, Healthy Kids Program||8 × 1.5 hr weekly face-to-face sessions for 3 months: 5 sessions for fathers only, 3 physical activity sessions for fathers and children||Overweight and obese fathers and their primary school-aged children||RCT (n = 27 intervention, n = 26 wait-list control)|| |
Process: data collected at baseline, and at 3- and 6-month follow-up: observation and self-report.
Impact: (a) fathers: weight status; waist circumference; systolic blood pressure; physical activity; dietary intake, physical activity, and (b) children: dietary intake; weight status
|Burrows et al. (2012), and Morgan et al. (2011)|
|Positive Parenting Program (Triple P)||Exemplar of a widely-endorsed behavioral parent training (BPT) program, delivered in various formats – the most effective with fathers being Stepping Stones (10 sessions, for parents of a child with a disability) and Pathways (14 sessions, including 4 on anger management)||Focus on dyadic parent–child interaction: 26% of attendees are single mothers and 21% fathers [likely to be the partners of participating mothers]|| |
Metaanalysis of 28 studies reporting father engagement in Triple P (a tiny proportion of program delivery, since data are rarely gender-disaggregated and never disaggregated by individual v. couple participation).
Measure: The Parenting Scale
Process: (mainly) pre- and post- self-report (mothers and fathers); attendance & homework completion (facilitator report); up to 2 year follow-up.
Impact: (a) fathers: compliance with program; impact on fathers relative to mothers, and (b) children: behavior
|Fletcher et al. (2011), and Fabiano (2007)|
| Canada |
|Caring Dads||17-week group parenting intervention; systematic outreach to mothers to ensure safety and freedom from coercion; ongoing, collaborative case-management of fathers with referrers and other professionals involved with their families||Men who have maltreated (including neglected) their children and/or exposed them to intimate partner violence|| |
Assessment of 98 men who completed the course and had pre and post assessments.
Measures: Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire; The Parenting Scale; The Parenting Alliance Measure
Process: Pre- and post (fathers’ self-report).
Impact – fathers: aggression/hostility/laxness; parenting; coparenting
|Scott and Lishak (2012)|
|Home-visiting intervention (no formal name given to this intervention)||Parent education in the home during two visits by a home visitor||First-time fathers of 5-month-olds|| |
RCT (n = 81 intervention, n = 81 control).
Measures: Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale; Parenting Sense of Competence Scale
Process: Data collected at baseline and 3 months postintervention (child 8 month old): observation; father self-report.
Impact – fathers: skills in fostering cognitive growth, sensitivity to infant cues
|Benzies et al. (2008), and Magill-Evans, Harrison, Benzies, Gierl, and Kimak (2007)|
| China |
|Early intervention for fathers of premature infants||Parent education and support in a neo-natal intensive care unit: booklet plus 5 sessions of 1:1 guidance by nurses||Fathers of neonates less than 37 weeks gestation in a neo-natal intensive care unit|| |
Quasi-experimental design – historical comparison study: n = 35 intervention fathers, n = 34 controls)
Measures: Parental stressor scale (NICU); Fathering ability scale (NICU); Nurse-parent support tool (NICU); demographic and control variables; booklet evaluation
Process: pre/post intervention (fathers’ reports).
Impact: parenting stress; fathering ability; perceived support by nurse
|Lee, Wang, Lin, and Kao (2013)|
| Iran |
|Anger management training||7× weekly group workshops||Mothers and fathers|| |
13 fathers and 8 mothers
Measures: State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory; Parental Anger Evaluation Questionnaire
Process: Pre/post intervention survey (parent self-report).
Impact: anger intensity; anger expression; anger control
|Yekta, Zamani, Parand, and Zardkhaneh (2011)|
| Israel |
|Nonviolent resistance (NVR) Parent Training||50 min once-weekly sessions with both parents for 4–10 weeks plus 2× intersession phone support calls||Mothers and fathers (couples) of children (age under 18) with acute behavior problems|| |
Quasi-experimental: 46 mothers and 43 fathers, with wait-list control.
Measures: The Parental Helplessness Questionnaire; an Escalation Questionnaire; Demographic Questionnaire
Process: Pre/post (6 weeks after intervention) questionnaires (parent self-report).
Impact: parental helplessness, power struggles, negative feelings, parental submission, father's family-participation
|Lavi-Levavi, Shachar, and Omer (2013)|
| Jordan |
|UNICEF Better Parenting Program (BPP)||16 hr delivered via different schedules – e.g., consecutive days, weekly, monthly||Mothers, fathers (whether together as a couple or in single-sex groups is not known)||In Jordan only – quasi-experimental design: intervention (n = 336 participants, only 18 of them, i.e., 6%, fathers), and a control group|| |
Process: Data collected at baseline and immediately postintervention (parent self-report).
Impact: knowledge of child development; parenting skills (reduction of harsh discipline, use of explanation during discipline, perception of behaviors that constitute child neglect; time with children playing and reading)
|Al-Hassan (2009), and Al-Hassan and Lansford (2011)|
| Niger |
|Ecoles des Maris||UNFPA-funded schools for ‘model husbands,’ in Zinder region, twice-monthly meetings||Men in the community via married husbands of good character as advocates/early adopters||Observation/report data monitoring|| |
Process: Postintervention reporting and self-report; pre– post data comparison.
Impact: rates of prenatal care, assisted and safe deliveries, infant mortality; community actions (e.g., new facilities for women and midwives); men's attitudes and behavior
| Pakistan |
|Aangan, Rozan||Regional capacity building workshops on men, caring and fatherhood, to address child sexual abuse||Whole community, including fathers and men, religious leaders, police, teachers and health professionals||Reporting|| |
Process: postintervention reporting
Impact: establishing of local committee; attendance by men at couples’ and fathers’ groups; participation by religious leaders in child sexual abuse training and referral
|Bhandari and Karkara (2006)|
| Peru |
|Proyecto Papa in Accion||Five workshops covering the basics of positive parenting and the importance of visual/verbal stimulation/reading to young children; support session for fathers facing particular difficulties||Mothers and fathers (single parents and partnered parents)||Participants: n = 500, including 125 men|| |
Process: Postintervention survey: father self-report and some partner report.
Impact – fathers: family involvement; respect for family members; connection with children; use of violence; participation in domestic and caregiving work
|McAllister et al. (2012)|
| Sweden |
|Internet-based Parent Management Training (PMT)|| |
7 × 1.5 hr sessions delivered over 10 weeks via the internet (text, illustrations, videos of parent/child interactions, parenting discussion forums)
Homework. Online feedback
|Mothers and fathers of 104 children aged 3–12 exhibiting conduct disorders|| |
Quasi-experimental design: intervention parents compared with wait-list controls.
Sixty-nine percent of participants were couples. Couple and individual parent participation measured, also impact by child gender and dose–response rates.
Measures included: Early Assessment Risk List-20B/21G; Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory; Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; Parenting Practices Interview
Process: Baseline face-to-face evaluation of children for psychiatric disorders. Pre/post (and 6 month follow-up) parent reports. Attendance records.
Impact: child behavior; parenting strategies; cost
|Enebrink, Hogstrom, Forster, and Ghaderi (2012)|
|Leksand Model||16–18 group sessions prenatal to 12 months postpartum. Topics include child development, bonding, couple relationship, new roles, parental leave||Expectant mothers and fathers recruited via maternity services, with fathers specifically invited to the first antenatal appointment and there personally invited to participate in Leksand|| |
Quasi-experimental design: families of babies born in 2000, followed to 2006.
Leksand groups compared with controls who received traditional parent-preparation and fewer sessions
Process: surveys (self-report), interviews, attendance records
Impact: (a) mothers & fathers: satisfaction with staff and program; mother/father attendance; fathers’ parental leave uptake; program cost, and (b) children: collected, but not reported in English language publications
|Johansson (2012), and Hoskings and Walsh (2010)|
| Turkey |
|Father Support Program (FSP), ACEV||13-session weekly program||Fathers only||Surveys|| |
Process: Pre/post surveys (fathers’ self-report).
Impact: parenting skills and behavior; communication; gender relations
|Barker et al. (2009)|
| United Kingdom |
|Celebrating Fatherhood: a year long campaign 2012–13||Activities included: training for professionals; a photographic exhibition, a film, a website, a celebration event, and ‘Fathers’ Fridays’||Fathers and male carers; local service providers; policy makers||Report|| |
Process: Pre/post data comparison (2011–12 vs. 2012–13).
Impact: numbers of fathers using Children's Centres, attending ‘Fathers’ Fridays’, SEN (Special Educational Needs) meetings, etc.; local media coverage about fathers
|Bath & North East Somerset Council (2013)|
|Family Nurse Partnership (FNP)||30-month intensive home-visiting support for mothers (program on Licence and developed from the US Nurse Family-Partnership Program)||Highly vulnerable teenage mothers, fathers frequently engaged also||(a) Survey of 54 fathers currently in the program, (b) interviews with 24 fathers and professionals: (c) Data and information in National Evaluations|| |
Process: father self-report; professionals’ reports; national data analysis
Impact: fathers’ program participation; couple communication and relationship; coparenting; parenting
|Ferguson and Gates (2013), Barnes et al. (2011), and Fatherhood Institute (2013a)|
|Strength to Change||Assessment followed by c. 10 individual sessions followed by a 1 year group program||Fathers who have perpetrated domestic violence|| |
Mainly process evaluation: (a) project throughput data (32 men, 11 women) over 18 months, (b) 47 interviews (21 men, 13 partners), and (c) 10 interviews with project staff & steering group members.
Measure: Bespoke data collection tool recording individual's and partner's history, service use, social and family context, patterns of abuse and risks
Process: interviews during/post intervention (no baseline); data analysis.
Impact: fathers’ motivation to complete program and change behavior; actual behavior change; awareness of impact of violence on children
|Stanley, Graham-Kevan, and Borthwick (2012)|
| Ukraine |
|UNICEF Papa Schools||Between 7 and 9 2-hr men-only peer mentoring sessions across the transition to fatherhood. One element in a multifaceted program to improve early childhood health and development||Expectant fathers||Regional data (no comparison regions) and UNICEF evaluation of the whole program|| |
Process: Baseline and postintervention surveys; data analysis
Impact: fathers’ birth attendance and knowledge and understanding of infant/child development; breastfeeding rates, infant mortality, child trauma
|McAllister et al. (2012)|
| United States |
|Creating Opportunities for Parent Empowerment (COPE)||A 4-phase educational-behavioral intervention program relating to the care of premature infants (audio-taped/written information plus activity sheets)||Families of preterm infants in intensive care units|| |
RCT: 258 mothers (147 in the COPE group, 113 in the comparison group) and 154 fathers (81 in the COPE group and 73 in the comparison group).
Measures: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; Beck Depression Inventory; Parental Stressor Scale-Neonatal Intensive Care Unit; Index of Parental Behavior in the NICU; Parental Belief Scale-NICU; Clinical Risk Index for Babies (CRIB); Infant NICU LOS (length of hospital stay); demographic information; infant gestational age
Process: analysis of hospital data and demographic information; parent self-report and parent-infant interaction observation. Data collected at baseline and at 5 other time points, including at 2 months’ corrected infant age
Impact: (i) mothers and fathers: parental stress and mood; parental beliefs; parenting behavior; parental sensitivity; involvement in infant care, and (ii) infant: length of hospital stay and associated costs
|Melnyk et al. (2006)|
|Early Head Start (EHS)||Fathers’ participation in EHS activities||Low-income fathers of preschoolers in a rural area|| |
RCT: 74 fathers, 47% randomly assigned to EHS support
Measures: Coded Observational Measures; Bayley Scales of Infant Development; Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; Parenting Stress Index; Dyadic Adjustment Scale
Process: data collection at 10, 14, 24,and 36 months. Observation at 24 months.
Impact: (a) fathers: father-toddler social toy play, (b) toddlers: development at 24 and 36 months
|Roggman et al. (2004)|
|Family Foundations (FF)||Psycho-educational sessions, 8 classes over 6 months delivered through existing childbirth education departments||Expectant first-time parent couples||RCT: 5-waves of follow-up; second wave involved n = 147 mothers (71 control, 76 intervention group). Follow-up to 7 years in some instances|| |
Process: pre__post surveys
(parent self-report); observation.
Impact: (a) mothers and fathers: includes individual and family functioning (stress, depression, quality of couple and coparenting relationship), and (b) children: child adjustment
|Feinberg, Roettger, Jones, Paul, and Kan (in Press), Brown, Feinberg, and Kan (2011), Feinberg, Jones, Kan, and Goslin (2010), Feinberg, Kan, and Goslin (2009), Feinberg and Kan (2010)|
|Flint Fathers and Sons Program||Fifteen 2-to-3 hr sessions (fathers with sons) conducted twice-weekly over 2 months||Nonresident African American fathers and their preadolescent sons|| |
Quasi-experimental design – 158 intervention and 129 comparison group families.
Measures;: Parental Monitoring Index; questions from some validated scales coalesced into new scales; demographic and control variables
Process: pre/post test surveys (self-report)
Impact: (a) fathers: paternal monitoring; father–child communications; communication about sex and risky behavior extent; intentions to communicate; race-related socialization; parenting skills; satisfaction, and (b) sons: paternal monitoring; father–child communications; communication about sex and risky behavior extent/efficacy; race-related socialization; intentions to avoid violence; physical fighting; intentions to exercise
|Ellis, Caldwell, Assari, and De Loney (2014), and Caldwell et al. (2008, 2010, 2011, 2014)|
|Fatherhood Relationship and Marriage Education (FRAME)||14 workshop hours over five group sessions, addressing issues known to affect the quality of couple relationships: communication, coping, problem solving; parenting skills||Low-income, high-risk couples with children|| |
RCT: data collected from 112 fathers out of 137 couples randomly assigned to couple, male-only, or female-only control.
Measures: Demographic and control variables including relationship with child (birth. v. social father); Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (anxiety & depression); 8-item Danger Signs scale (communication); Coping Efficacy Scale (modified); Inventory of Father Involvement; Communication Skills Test; Parenting Alliance Inventory; Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Relationship Adjustment
Process: pre–post surveys (parent self-report); analysis of demographic and control variables.
Impact: amount of father involvement
|Rienks et al. (2011), and Wadsworth et al. (2011)|
|Head Start|| |
Class-room volunteering; Fathers’ Day activities; fathers’ support groups; father–child activity sessions.
Father-sensitivity training for staff
|Fathers & father-figures of 3-to-5 year olds|| |
Quasi-experimental research design (146 intervention fathers/father-figures vs. 55 comparison group) in four Head Start sites vs. four control sites.
Measures: Parenting Dimensions Inventory
Parent/Caregiver Involvement Scale
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement (revised) Social Skills Rating System
Process: Pre/post fathers’ self-report; interviews; teacher report; observation
Impact: (a) father: accessibility & engagement with child; support for learning; child-rearing behaviors; dose-effect; father's residential status; child gender, and (b) child: behavior; social skills; academic readiness skills
|Fagan and Iglesias (1999)|
|In-home training of fathers of children with autism||A 12-week twice-weekly in-home training for fathers in following the child's lead, imitation with animation, commenting on the child, and expectant waiting Fathers also trained to train mothers||Fathers and mothers of 19 children with autism, 3-to-8 year old|| |
Surveys and observation.
Measures: ADI–R, ADOS, and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales; Parenting Stress Index–Short Form; Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales II
Process: pre/post surveys (parent self-report); video observation.
Impact: (a) fathers and mothers: parenting stress; parenting behavior; parent-to-parent knowledge/skills transmission, and (b) child: behavior
|Bendixen et al. (2011), Elder et al. (2011), Elder et al. (2005)|
|Inside Out Dads||12 weekly group sessions in a small group format with at least one peer leader per group||Incarcerated fathers|| |
Quasi-experimental (n = 307) and control (n = 104) groups in three correction facilities; semistructured interviews with program participants (n = 27) and stakeholders (n = 6); within-facility comparison of infraction data collected for 90 days before program entry, during program participation and for 90 days after program exit.
Measures: Inside Out Dad Survey, plus Coping Self-Efficacy Scale, Fathers’ Parental Attitude Research Instrument
Process: Pre/post surveys (father self-report); postintervention interviews; data analysis.
Impact: infractions; coping; confidence in receiving support from staff; parenting knowledge; parenting behavior; parenting attitudes; family relationships; views on fatherhood; program content and delivery
|Rutgers University-Newark Economic Development Research Group (2011)|
|Keep A Clear Mind (KACM) drug use prevention program||4× weekly in-school lessons for students, each followed by five parent/child homework activities||Teenagers and their mothers and fathers|| |
RCT: 1022 parents and 511 teenagers assigned to intervention and wait-list control.
Measures: (a) for students, standardized and validated developed by authors for previous studies, and (b) for fathers and mothers, new but pretested
Process: pre/post test student and parent surveys (self-report); teacher survey.
Impact: (a) fathers: drug-related parent–child communication; parental beliefs; program compliance, satisfaction and perceived effectiveness; drug-related knowledge; motivation to help children avoid drugs, and (b) children: alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use, intentions, beliefs, and knowledge; program compliance and satisfaction
|Werch et al. (1991)|
Minnesota Early Learning Design
Coparenting and Childbirth curricula
|5 × 90-min group sessions held once a week for 5 consecutive weeks||Expectant young African American and Hispanic fathers and their adolescent partners|| |
RCT: coparenting intervention (n = 44, experimental group) and childbirth/baby care intervention (n = 46, comparison group) plus ‘strong’ quasi-experimental design (n = 64, control group)
Measures: Fathers’ prenatal communication and involvement; Parenting Alliance; Fathers’ support of mother; Fathers’ engagement with infant; Parenting sense of competence; Demographic measures; Measure of fathers’ subjective experiences with the Intervention
Process: pre/post intervention questionnaires (mothers and fathers); weekly questionnaires (fathers).
Impact: coparenting; parenting competence
|Oregon model of Parent Management Training (PMTO)||Manual provides material for 13 sessions||Stepfathers; stepchildren||RCT: 110 recently married families with an early-elementary-school-aged focal child: experimental condition (61%) and control (39%) assessed over 2 years. The mean number of sessions attended by the intervention group was 11.71 over an average of 27.42 weeks|| |
Process: Extensive multiple-method data obtained from questionnaires, interviews, and direct observation during four center visits, plus preintervention baseline and three postintervention follow-ups.
Impact: (a) stepfathers: involvement; engagement; parenting behavior, and (b) stepchildren: compliance; mood
|DeGarmo and Forgatch (2007)|
|Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Program||Leaflets, posters, a video and signed parental undertakings in an 8-county region of western New York State||Expectant and new mothers and fathers||Quasi-experimental design comparing abusive head trauma rates in 1–3 year olds over 5 years with preintervention rates in the same region and state-wide rates during the intervention period|| |
Process: Post intervention survey; data collection; data comparison;
Impact: rates of abusive head trauma; parents’ recall of video and leaflet content at 7 month follow-up, extent of commitment contract signature
|Dias et al. (2005)|
|Siempre Papa (the 24/7 Dad Curriculum; Spanish edition, delivered across the United States)||Twelve 2-hr sessions implemented in groups or with individuals plus mental health & case-management support||Latino fathers, including in a correctional facility||211 fathers participating in the intervention 2006–2011 in Maryland; plus headline findings from other evaluations|| |
Process: Pre–post father self-report.
Impact: fathers’ parenting skills and knowledge; time spent with children; attitudes toward partners and gender roles; communication with partners and children
|McAllister et al. (2012)|
|Supporting Father Involvement||32-hr curriculum over 14–16 weeks by male/female coleaders including couple communication, parenting, family behavior patterns. Case management and support provided||Mainly low-income Mexican American and African American families|| |
3-arm RCT with 900+ couples. Men-primarily groups compared with couples-groups and controls.
Measures include: video observation; ‘The Pie’; ‘Who does What’ Questionnaire; Father–child Relationship Scale; Parenting Stress Index; Parenting style attitudes questionnaire; Quality of Marriage Index; Couple Communication Questionnaire; Child Adaptive Behavior Inventory
Process: baseline and postintervention self-report and independent rating, with video observation and follow-up at 18 months.
Impact: (a) fathers: involvement and engagement, parenting stress and behavior, couple satisfaction, (b) couples: relationship satisfaction, decreased stress, couple violence, harsh parenting and family income, (c) children: behavior (hyperactivity) and adjustment, and (d) institutions: increased father-friendliness
|Knox et al. (2011), Cowan et al. (2014), Cowan et al. (2009), and Cowan et al. (2007)|