A Pilot Study of a Parent-Education Group for Families Affected by Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the feasibility and efficacy of a parent-education group for families with young children and a parent with depression. We designed the program to be readily disseminated if shown to be effective. METHOD: We recruited 44 parents with depression from clinics and family doctors in Hamilton, Ontario, and randomly assigned them to receive the parenting program or to a wait-list control group. The outcomes measured included knowledge of depression, parenting, family relationships, depression symptoms, child depressive symptoms, and functioning. We used analysis of covariance to test for posttreatment differences between experimental and control groups. RESULTS: Of the treatment group, 27% dropped out at posttreatment, and 43% by follow-up. Those who dropped out had more severe depression at baseline than did those who completed the program, and there was selective loss of parents with more severe depression in the experimental group. In intention-to-treat analyses at posttreatment, probands in the experimental group reported more improvements on family functioning, parenting sense of competence, and family and parent conflict than did control subjects. Standardized effect sizes (ES) were medium (0.4 to 0.6). When baseline depressive symptom scores were controlled in the analyses, the between-group differences were reduced, showing that selective loss of participants may have influenced the findings. CONCLUSIONS: On balance, the results are encouraging and support the further development and evaluation of the group intervention. However, the study does not provide unequivocal evidence in support of the program. Before it is transferred to other settings, the program needs further modification to improve participation by parents with more severe depression and further evaluation of its effectiveness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".