You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
An evaluation of the parents under pressure programme: a study protocol for an RCT into its clinical and cost effectiveness
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-14-210 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jane Barlow, Sukhdev Sembi, Frances Gardner, Geraldine Macdonald, Stavros Petrou, Helen Parsons, Paul Harnett, Sharon Dawe |
| Abstract |
Many babies in the UK are born to drug-dependent parents, and dependence on psychoactive drugs during the postnatal period is associated with high rates of child maltreatment, with around a quarter of these children being subject to a child protection plan. Parents who are dependent on psychoactive drugs are at risk of a wide range of parenting problems, and studies have found reduced sensitivity and responsiveness to both the infant's physical and emotional needs. The poor outcomes that are associated with such drug dependency appear to be linked to the multiple difficulties experienced by such parents.An increase in understanding about the crucial importance of early relationships for infant well-being has led to a focus on the development and delivery of services that are aimed at supporting parenting and parent-infant interactions. The Parents under Pressure (PuP) programme is aimed at supporting parents who are dependent on psychoactive drugs or alcohol by providing them with methods of managing their emotional regulation, and of supporting their new baby's development. An evaluation of the PuP programme in Australia with parents on methadone maintenance of children aged 3 to 8 years found significant reductions in child abuse potential, rigid parenting attitudes and child behaviour problems. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 361 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 359 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 60 | 17% |
| Researcher | 52 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 45 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 28 | 8% |
| Other | 46 | 13% |
| Unknown | 97 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 123 | 34% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 33 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 6% |
| Unknown | 108 | 30% |