Evaluating the Impact of the How‐to Parenting Program on Child Mental Health: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Grade Schools
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The How-to Parenting Program teaches parents how to provide autonomy support, structure, and affiliation, the three components of the parenting style shown to be beneficial for children's mental health. Using a waitlist RCT, we assessed its impact on school-aged children's externalizing and internalizing problems. We also tested whether family composition, participating parents' gender, child age, sex, and baseline mental health modified its effects. Parents (N = 293; 80.20% mothers) were randomly assigned to the French version of the 7-week program or a waitlist condition (i.e., immediate delivery vs. end of study). Parents rated child externalizing and internalizing problems before and after program delivery, as well as 6 and 12 months later. Controlling for unbalanced covariates and baseline levels of problems, multilevel multivariate analyses revealed that compared to the waitlist, the How-to Parenting Program led to greater decreases in children's externalizing problems immediately after program delivery and that this benefit was sustained over at least 6 months. However, decreases in children's internalizing problems were similar across both conditions. Considering this RCT's methodological strengths (e.g., intent-to-treat analyses) and limitations (e.g., intervention diffusion), along with the floor effects inherent to our universal prevention approach, the How-to Parenting Program's benefits, though small in size, indicate that it could prove an effective public mental health prevention strategy.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it