Child maltreatment prevention: a systematic review of reviews
Christopher Mikton & Alexander Butchart
Volume 87, Number 5, May 2009, 353-361
Table 1. Effectiveness scores for universal and selective child maltreatment prevention interventions, according to a systematic review of reviews
| Reviews by type | Home visiting |
Parent education programmes |
Sexual abuse prevention |
Abusive head trauma |
Multi-component interventions |
Media-based public awareness |
Support and mutual aid groups |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct measure | Risk factor | Direct measure | Risk factor | Direct measure | Risk factor | Direct measure | Risk factor | Direct measure | Risk factor | Direct measure | Risk factor | Direct measure | Risk factor | ||
| Review of reviews | |||||||||||||||
| Barlow et al., 2006 |
4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 2a | |||||||||
| Bull et al., 2004 |
3a | ||||||||||||||
| Meta-analysesb | |||||||||||||||
| Davis & Gidycz, 2000 |
3 | 5 (1.07) | |||||||||||||
| Geeraert et al., 2004 |
5 (0.26) | 5 (0.29) | |||||||||||||
| Lundahl et al., 2006 |
5 (0.45) | 5 (0.52) | |||||||||||||
| MacLeod & Nelson, 2000 |
5 (0.41)c | 5 (0.58)c | 5 (1.26)c | 5 (0.38)c | |||||||||||
| Sweet & Appelbaum, 2004 |
3 | 5 (0.24)d | |||||||||||||
| Zwi et al., 2007 |
3 | 5e | |||||||||||||
| Systematic reviews | |||||||||||||||
| Bilukha et al., 2005 |
5 (39%) | ||||||||||||||
| Elkan et al., 2000 |
3 | ||||||||||||||
| Higgins et al., 2006 |
3 | 5 | |||||||||||||
| Holzer et al., 2006 |
4 | 5 | |||||||||||||
| Klevens, 2003 |
3 | ||||||||||||||
| MacMillan, 2000 |
5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | ||||||||||
| MacIntyre & Carr, 2000 |
3 | 5 | |||||||||||||
| Comprehensivereviews | |||||||||||||||
| Chaffin & Schmidt, 2006 |
3 | 3 | |||||||||||||
| Daro & McCurdy, 2007 |
5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | |||||||
| Hébert & Tourigny, 2004 |
3 | 5 | |||||||||||||
| Kees & Bonner, 2005 |
3 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | ||||||||||
| Krugman et al., 2007 |
4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | ||||||||||
| Mace, 2000 |
3 | 5 | |||||||||||||
| MacMillan et al., 2007 |
4 | 3 | 5 | ||||||||||||
| Olds et al., 2000 |
4 | 5 | |||||||||||||
| Olds et al., 2007 |
4 | ||||||||||||||
| Rubin et al., 2001 |
4 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||
| Other | |||||||||||||||
| Chaffin, 2005 |
3 | ||||||||||||||
| Overall evaluation | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | |||
1, judged to be harmful or, if no explicit judgment given, found to have a detrimental effect in two or more well-designed studies or a systematic review; 2, judged not to be effective or, if no explicit judgment given, found to have no effect in two of more well-designed studies or a systematic review; 3, judged to have insufficient, weak, or mixed evidence supporting it; 4, judged to be promising or, if no explicit judgment given, found to be supported by one well-designed study; 5, judged to be effective or, if no explicit judgment given, found to be supported by two or more well-designed studies or a systematic review.
a In several cases it was not possible to distinguish between evaluations of effectiveness involving direct measures or risk factors.
b Only significant effect sizes reported.
c Total mean effect size for (proactive) programmes for all outcomes (out-of-home placements, direct and proxy measures of child maltreatment, measures of parent attitudes, observation of parent behaviour, measures of home environment).
d Potential abuse only.
e Effect sizes for different types of outcomes: behaviour change: odds ratio, OR: 6.76; increase in questionnaire-based knowledge: OR: 0.59; increase in vignette-based knowledge: OR: 0.37.