↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Parent training interventions for parents with intellectual disability

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

26 X users
2 Wikipedia pages


30 Dimensions

Readers on

512 Mendeley
Parent training interventions for parents with intellectual disability
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007987.pub3
Pubmed ID

Esther Coren, Kerry Ramsbotham, Manfred Gschwandtner


Research suggests that the number of intellectually disabled people with children is increasing. Intellectual disabilities do not inevitably cause parenting difficulties, but it may impact on an individual's capacity to parent a child effectively. Children of parents with intellectual disabilities may be at increased risk of neglectful care, which could lead to health, developmental and behavioural problems, or increased risk of intellectual disability. Compared with other parents, those with intellectual disabilities are more likely to be involved in care proceedings. To assess the effectiveness of parent training interventions for parents with intellectual disabilities designed to support parenting, parent-child relations, safe parenting or family environments, or to develop parenting skills. In July 2017, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and six other databases as well as two trials registers. We also searched reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field to identify additional ongoing and unpublished studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing parent training interventions for parents with intellectual disabilities with treatment as usual or a control group. We used standardised Cochrane methods. As of July 2017, we identified four trials with 192 participants that met the review inclusion criteria. Participating parents were mostly mothers (seven fathers were included in two studies), and children's ages ranged from one month to six years and five months.One study was conducted in Australia, one in Canada, one in the Netherlands, and one in the USA. Each studied a different intervention and considered different outcomes. Three interventions were delivered at home, and one in a community venue (e.g. a church). Interventions varied in duration from seven weeks to 12 months. They included a range of practical childcare skills, home safety and developing parents' ability to respond sensitively to their children. Parents in the comparison groups included in the review received treatment as usual and most of these received the index intervention after the study was complete.One study was funded by the Ontario Mental Health Foundation and the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services Research Grants Program; one by the Alabama Development Disabilities Council; one by the Best Practice Parenting Education Initiative of the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services and the New South Wales Aging and Disability Department; and one by ZonMw, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.It was not possible for us to conduct a meta-analysis. The GRADE quality assessment varied from very low to moderate across the studies.Primary outcomesNo study reported on the 'attainment of specific parenting skill targets'.'Safe home practices' and 'understanding of child health': one study (30 parents, very low-quality evidence) reported some improvements in parents' knowledge of life-threatening emergencies, ability to recognise dangers, and identify precautions, in favour of the intervention group. It also found limited, very low-quality evidence that parent training improved parents' ability to understand child health, implement precautions, use medicines safely, recognise child illness and symptoms, and seek medical advice (i.e. visit the doctor). Another study (22 mothers, very low-quality evidence) reported improved attainment of skills related to childcare and safety, in favour of the intervention group.Secondary outcomes'Parent-child interaction': one study (40 mothers, very low-quality evidence) reported improved maternal-child interaction following parent training at 12 months follow-up. Another study (83 mothers, 2 fathers, moderate-quality evidence) reported that inclusion in the intervention group led to a steeper decline in parenting stress related to the child compared to the control group.'Parents' retention of child': one study (22 participants; very low-quality evidence) reported that before joining the programme nine of 11 (82%) families with a previous child had had the child removed from their care by child protection authorities due to maternal maltreatment, compared with only four of 22 (19%) families after participating in the programme (only one of these four mothers had also had a previous child removed).No study reported data on: 'return to independent care of child' or 'lifting of child-related court order'. There is some very low-quality evidence that some parents, mainly mothers, with intellectual disabilities are able to provide adequate parenting if they are given appropriate training and support to learn the parenting skills they need. However, there are few studies exploring how interventions might work, for whom and in what circumstances. In particular, there have been few studies that include fathers with intellectual disabilities, or that explore the views of parents themselves.There is a need for larger RCTs of parenting interventions, with longer follow-up, before conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of parent training for this group of parents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 512 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 512 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 63 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 11%
Student > Bachelor 54 11%
Researcher 53 10%
Other 25 5%
Other 75 15%
Unknown 188 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 13%
Psychology 63 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 61 12%
Social Sciences 43 8%
Unspecified 8 2%
Other 46 9%
Unknown 224 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2022.
All research outputs
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 340,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,492 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.