Effectiveness of a Positive Parental Practices Training Program for Chilean Preschoolers’ Families: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Evidence for the effectiveness of parental training as a strategy for promotion of positive parental practices and prevention of child behavior problems in low and middle income countries is not conclusive. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a universal positive parental training program designed for this context, “Día a Día” UdeC © (“Day by Day” University of Concepcion), in Chilean preschoolers’ families (3 to 6 years old children). Methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) was carried out in 19 preschool education centers. There were two treatment arms: 10 centers (including 178 families) were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 9 centers (including 154 families) were assigned to the waiting list control condition. Intervention groups received Day by Day UdeC, a six group sessions program for parents, including two group sessions for preschool educators, focused in affective communication; daily and child-directed play; directed attention; routines and transitions; reinforcement and incentive programs; planned inattention-ignore and time out; and logical consequences. Parental practices, parental satisfaction and presence of children behavioral problems were examined at two-time points: T1 (four weeks before intervention) and T2 (five to six weeks after intervention). Results: Intention-to-treat analysis shows a reduction in physical punishment and an increase in parental involvement, as well as a reduction in children behavioral problems. A per-protocol analysis revealed an additional effect: increase in observed parental practices. Conclusion: This cRCT provided evidence for the effectiveness of a parental training program for the promotion of positive parental practices in low and middle income countries. The observed effects of the program in decreasing physical punishment and children’s behavioral problems make it a promising strategy for prevention purpuses. Trial Registration: This study was registered under ISRCTN.com (ISRCTN90762146; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN90762146).
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".