IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v18y2022i1ne1209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Parenting interventions to support parent/child attachment and psychosocial adjustment in foster and adoptive parents and children: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Nina T. Dalgaard
  • Trine Filges
  • Bjørn C. A. Viinholt
  • Maiken Pontoppidan

Abstract

Background Adopted children and children placed in foster care are at increased risk of developing a range of mental health, behavioural, and psychosocial adjustment problems. Previous studies suggest that due to early experiences of separation and loss some children may have difficulties forming a secure attachment relationship with the adoptive/foster parents. Objectives The objectives of the present review were: (1) to assess the efficacy of attachment‐based interventions on measures of favourable parent/child outcomes (attachment security, dyadic interaction, parent/child psychosocial adjustment, behavioural and mental health problems, and placement breakdown) within foster and adoptive families with children aged between 0 and 17 years. (2) to identify factors that appear to be associated with more effective outcomes and factors that modify intervention effectiveness (e.g., age of the child at placement and at intervention start, programme duration, programme focus). Search Methods Relevant studies were identified through electronic searches of bibliographic databases, governmental and grey literature repositories, hand search in specific targeted journals, citation tracking, contact to international experts and Internet search engines. The database searches were carried out to October 2020. Selection Criteria The interventions of interest were parenting interventions aimed at helping the foster/adopted children and their parents to form or sustain a secure attachment relationship. The interventions had to be at least partly informed by attachment theory. Data Collection and Analysis The total number of potentially relevant studies constituted 17.822 hits after duplicates were removed. A total of 44 studies (27 different populations) met the inclusion criteria and were critically appraised by the review authors. Due to critical study quality, missing numeric data and re‐use of the same data, only 24 studies analysing 16 different populations could be used in the data synthesis (children, N = 1302; parents, N = 1344). Meta‐analysis using both child and parent outcomes were conducted on each metric separately. All analyses were inverse variance weighted using random effects statistical models. Random effects weighted mean effect sizes were calculated using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When possible, we conducted moderator analysis using meta‐regression and single factor sub group moderator analysis. Sensitivity analysis were conducted across study design and domains of the risk of bias assessment. Main Results Ten studies analysed the effect of attachment‐based interventions on the overall psychosocial adjustment of foster or adopted children as reported by their caregivers post intervention. Measures used include the Child Behaviour Checklist, The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, Brief Infant–Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA) and Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory. The random effects weighted standardised mean difference (SMD) favouring the intervention group was 0.37 (95% CI, 0.10–0.65) and statistically significant. Three studies analysed the effects of attachment‐based interventions on the observed attachment security of foster and adopted children as measured by independent observation. Measures include the Strange Situation Procedure, Attachment Q‐Set, and The Emotional Availability Clinical Screener. The random effects weighted SMD was 0.59 (95% CI, −0.40–1.57) and not statistically significant. Four studies analysed the effect of attachment‐based interventions on positive child behaviour post intervention as measured by independent observation of video‐taped interaction between the child and caregivers. Measures include Disruptive Behaviour Diagnostic Observation Schedule (DB‐DOS) and Emotional Availability Scales). The random effects weighted SMD was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.14–0.64) and statistically significant. Ten studies analysed the effect of attachment‐based interventions on positive parenting behaviour post intervention as measured by independent observation of video‐taped interaction between the child and caregivers or coding of audio‐taped recordings of parental speech. Measures include Adapted Ainsworth Scales for sensitivity and noninterference, Measurement of Empathy in Adult–Child Interaction, The Dyadic Parent–Child Interaction Coding System, Reflective functioning scale, and Emotional Availability Scales. The random effects weighted SMD was 1.56 (95% CI, 0.81–2.31) and statistically significant. Nine studies analysed the effect of attachment‐based interventions on self‐reported post intervention parenting stress (Parenting Stress Index). The random effects weighted SMD was 0.24 (95% CI, 0.03–0.46.) and statistically significant. Three studies analysed the effect of attachment‐based interventions on parental post intervention self‐reported depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory). The random effects weighted SMD was 0.59 (95% CI, −0.08–1.25.) and not statistically significant. Follow‐up analyses were carried out for the outcomes externalising behaviour, positive parenting, and parenting stress, but due to the low number of studies, results should be viewed with caution. Results of the single factor sub group moderator analysis suggest that it cannot be ruled out the effects differ depending on whether the interventions take place in the family home or in a clinical setting. However, it is unclear which location is associated with more positive effects as our findings differ between child and parent outcomes. Results of the sensitivity analysis showed no appreciable changes in the results following the removal of any of the studies in any of the analyses. Authors' Conclusions Parenting interventions based on attachment theory increase positive parent/child interactional behaviours, decrease parenting stress, and increase the overall psychosocial adjustment of children in foster and adoptive families postintervention. Due to the low number of studies evidence regarding the effects of attachment‐based parenting interventions on attachment security and disorganised attachment in foster and adopted children was inconclusive. Theoretically, it is possible that child attachment security and/or attachment disorganisation cannot change within the relatively short period of time that parenting interventions typically last. It is possible that if postintervention improvements in parenting behaviours are sustained over time, it may lead to possible improvement in child attachment security and a decrease in child disorganised attachment. Thus, more longitudinal research is needed. Furthermore, evidence regarding the long‐term effects of attachment‐based parenting interventions on any outcomes was inconclusive due to too few studies, but findings suggest that attachment‐based interventions increase positive parenting behaviour at follow‐up points 3–6 months after the intervention. No study included in the present review provided a measure of placement stability or breakdown as an outcome, which could be used in the meta‐analysis. This further emphasises the need for future longitudinal research in prevention of placement breakdown.

Suggested Citation

  • Nina T. Dalgaard & Trine Filges & Bjørn C. A. Viinholt & Maiken Pontoppidan, 2022. "Parenting interventions to support parent/child attachment and psychosocial adjustment in foster and adoptive parents and children: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:18:y:2022:i:1:n:e1209
    DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1209
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/cl2.1209?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tan, Tony Xing & Major, Deborah & Marn, Travis & Na, Eunkyung & Jackson, Andrea L., 2015. "Adopted children's country of origin and post-adoption parent–child relationship quality: Findings from the United States National Survey of Adoptive Parents (NSAP)," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 117-125.
    2. Heckman, James J. & Urzúa, Sergio, 2010. "Comparing IV with structural models: What simple IV can and cannot identify," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 156(1), pages 27-37, May.
    3. Jane Barlow & Cathy Bennett & Nick Midgley & Soili K. Larkin & Yinghui Wei, 2015. "Parent‐infant Psychotherapy for Improving Parental and Infant Mental Health: A Systematic Review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 1-223.
    4. Nina Thorup Dalgaard & Maiken Pontoppidan & Morten Kjær Thomsen & Bjørn Christian Arleth Viinholt & Trine Filges, 2020. "PROTOCOL: Parenting interventions to support parent/child attachment and psychosocial adjustment in foster and adoptive parents and children: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), March.
    5. Allen, Brian & Timmer, Susan G. & Urquiza, Anthony J., 2014. "Parent–Child Interaction Therapy as an attachment-based intervention: Theoretical rationale and pilot data with adopted children," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(P3), pages 334-341.
    6. Schoemaker, Nikita K. & Juffer, Femmie & Rippe, Ralph C.A. & Vermeer, Harriet J. & Stoltenborgh, Marije & Jagersma, Gabrine J. & Maras, Athanasios & Alink, Lenneke R.A., 2020. "Positive parenting in foster care: Testing the effectiveness of a video-feedback intervention program on foster parents’ behavior and attitudes," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    7. Conn, Anne-Marie & Szilagyi, Moira A. & Alpert-Gillis, Linda & Webster-Stratton, Carolyn & Manly, Jody Todd & Goldstein, Nicolas & Jee, Sandra H., 2018. "Pilot randomized controlled trial of foster parent training: A mixed-methods evaluation of parent and child outcomes," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 188-197.
    8. Oosterman, Mirjam & Schuengel, Carlo & Wim Slot, N. & Bullens, Ruud A.R. & Doreleijers, Theo A.H., 2007. "Disruptions in foster care: A review and meta-analysis," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 53-76, January.
    9. Sullivan, Dana J. & van Zyl, Michiel A., 2008. "The well-being of children in foster care: Exploring physical and mental health needs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 774-786, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nina Thorup Dalgaard & Maiken Pontoppidan & Morten Kjær Thomsen & Bjørn Christian Arleth Viinholt & Trine Filges, 2020. "PROTOCOL: Parenting interventions to support parent/child attachment and psychosocial adjustment in foster and adoptive parents and children: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), March.
    2. Dubois-Comtois, Karine & Bussières, Eve-Line & Cyr, Chantal & St-Onge, Janie & Baudry, Claire & Milot, Tristan & Labbé, Annie-Pier, 2021. "Are children and adolescents in foster care at greater risk of mental health problems than their counterparts? A meta-analysis," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    3. Stenason, Lauren & Romano, Elisa, 2023. "Number of placement changes among young people in care: Youth and caregiver associations," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    4. Lotty, Maria & Bantry-White, Eleanor & Dunn-Galvin, Audrey, 2020. "The experiences of foster carers and facilitators of Fostering Connections: The Trauma-informed Foster Care Program: A process study," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    5. Mack, Judith & Wanderer, Sina & Keitel, Janin & Bittner, Jana & Herrmann, Elisabeth & Ehrlich, Stefan & Roessner, Veit, 2017. "Better together? Cooperation between youth welfare office and child and adolescent psychiatry: A methodological approach," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 44-49.
    6. Vanschoonlandt, Femke & Vanderfaeillie, Johan & Van Holen, Frank & De Maeyer, Skrällan & Robberechts, Marijke, 2013. "Externalizing problems in young foster children: Prevalence rates, predictors and service use," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 716-724.
    7. Tregeagle, Susan & Cox, Elizabeth & Forbes, Catherine & Humphreys, Cathy & O'Neill, Cas, 2011. "Worker time and the cost of stability," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 1149-1158, July.
    8. Martina Bozzola & Robert Finger, 2021. "Stability of risk attitude, agricultural policies and production shocks: evidence from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(3), pages 477-501.
    9. Steven F. Lehrer & R. Vincent Pohl & Kyungchul Song, 2016. "Targeting Policies: Multiple Testing and Distributional Treatment Effects," NBER Working Papers 22950, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Sophie van Huellen & Duo Qin, 2019. "Compulsory Schooling and Returns to Education: A Re-Examination," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-20, September.
    11. Huber Martin & Wüthrich Kaspar, 2019. "Local Average and Quantile Treatment Effects Under Endogeneity: A Review," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-27, January.
    12. Áureo De Paula & Gil Shapira & Petra E. Todd, 2014. "How Beliefs About Hiv Status Affect Risky Behaviors: Evidence From Malawi," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 944-964, September.
    13. Woodfield, M.J. & Cargo, T. & Barnett, D. & Lambie, I., 2020. "Understanding New Zealand therapist experiences of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) training and implementation, and how these compare internationally," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    14. Timo Mitze & Alfredo R. Paloyo & Björn Alecke, 2015. "Is There a Purchase Limit on Regional Growth? A Quasi-experimental Evaluation of Investment Grants Using Matching Techniques," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 38(4), pages 388-412, October.
    15. Breen, Richard & Ermisch, John, 2021. "Instrumental Variable Estimation in Demographic Studies: The LATE interpretation of the IV estimator with heterogenous effects," SocArXiv vx9m7, Center for Open Science.
    16. Petra E. Todd & Kenneth I. Wolpin, 2010. "Structural Estimation and Policy Evaluation in Developing Countries," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 21-50, September.
    17. Patrick Kline & Christopher R. Walters, 2019. "On Heckits, LATE, and Numerical Equivalence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(2), pages 677-696, March.
    18. Lars Kirkebøen & Edwin Leuven & Magne Mogstad, 2014. "Field of Study, Earnings, and Self-Selection," NBER Working Papers 20816, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2010. "The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 3-30, Spring.
    20. Khoo, Evelyn & Skoog, Viktoria & Dalin, Rolf, 2012. "In and out of care. A profile and analysis of children in the out-of-home care system in Sweden," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 900-907.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:18:y:2022:i:1:n:e1209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.