Effects of parenting interventions on child and caregiver cortisol levels: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Nurturing care, in which children are raised in engaging and safe environments, may reduce child stress and shape hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis functioning. Hence, parent-training programs may impact child cortisol levels, as well as behavioral, social and health outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the impact of parent-training interventions on children’s and caregivers’ cortisol levels, and meta-analyzed the results. Methods In January 2020, searches in PubMed, LILACS, ERIC, Web of Science, Scielo, Scopus, PsycNET and POPLINE databases were conducted, and two independent researchers screened the results for eligible studies – randomized trials that assessed the impact of parent-training interventions on child or caregiver cortisol levels. Random effects were used to pool the estimates, separately for children and caregivers, and for children’s morning and evening cortisol levels, as well as change across the day. Results A total of 27 eligible studies were found. Data from 19 studies were extracted and included in the meta-analyses, with 18 estimates of child cortisol levels and 5 estimates for caregiver cortisol levels. The pooled effect size (standardized mean difference) for the effects of parent training programs on morning child cortisol was 0.01 (95%CI: − 0.14 to 0.16; I 2 : 47.5%), and for caregivers it was 0.04 (95%CI: − 0.22 to 0.30; I 2 : 0.0%). Similar null results were observed for child evening cortisol and for the slope between morning and evening child cortisol. No evidence of publication bias was found. Conclusion Existing evidence shows no effect of parent-training interventions on child or caregiver post-intervention cortisol. Researchers are encouraged to adopt standardized protocols to improve evaluation standards, to test for intervention effects on psychosocial outcomes that are theorized to mediate the effects on biomarkers, and to use additional biomarkers for chronic stress.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".