Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-fcbfl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-29T20:44:15.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2025

Lisseth Rojas-Flores*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology and Marriage and Family Therapy, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA, USA
Melanie Ngan
Affiliation:
School of Psychology and Marriage and Family Therapy, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA, USA
Joey Fung
Affiliation:
School of Psychology and Marriage and Family Therapy, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA, USA
Carolyn Casada
Affiliation:
School of Psychology and Marriage and Family Therapy, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA, USA
Patrick Robertson
Affiliation:
School of Psychology and Marriage and Family Therapy, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA, USA
Alex Masibo
Affiliation:
World Vision International, Nairobi, Kenya
Briseida Cruz
Affiliation:
World Vision International, San Salvador, El Salvador
Marion Mortel
Affiliation:
World Vision Development Foundation (Philippines), Quezon City, Philippines
Ryan Kopper
Affiliation:
World Vision US, Federal Way, Washington DC, USA
Cherry Marcelo
Affiliation:
World Vision US, Federal Way, Washington DC, USA
Travis Roberts
Affiliation:
World Vision US, Federal Way, Washington DC, USA
Holta Trandafili
Affiliation:
World Vision US, Federal Way, Washington DC, USA
*
Corresponding author: Lisseth Rojas-Flores; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Parenting programs are effective ways to reduce child maltreatment and promote nurturing parent–child relationships. Yet, the potential of faith-based, positive parent programs, particularly those conducted globally at scale, remains underexplored. We conducted a pre-post and 6-month follow-up, single-group study of a faith- and community-based parenting program, Celebrating Families (CF), in 12 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Central America and South East Asia. Using a train-the-trainers model, faith leaders delivered group-based parenting workshops over 3–5 days to a nonrandomized sample of 2201 caregivers across 12 countries. Data was collected at three time points. Shifts in caregiver attitudes and beliefs were assessed pre- and post, and harsh parenting behaviors were measured at pre- and 6-months after CF parent program implementation. Acceptability was demonstrated by high attendance and high satisfaction ratings from facilitators and caregivers. Trained faith and community leaders feasibly delivered the CF parent groups and were rated by caregivers to have strong teaching skills. Qualitative analysis of their feedback at 6-month follow-up highlighted barriers to implementation and areas for improvement. Results with those caregivers who completed the program suggest large to medium effect size improvements in caregiver attitudes around harsh discipline and nurturing parenting by country and change in reported use of harsh parenting behaviors at 6 months. Findings suggest that CF is a feasible and acceptable program with promising short-term effects for caregivers of children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Impact statement

Parenting interventions are effective at improving child well-being by reducing harsh and punitive parent beliefs and behaviors and increasing nurturing relationships. However, the implementation of preventive interventions in the Majority World faces a number of challenges, including a lack of culturally sensitive programs, resources, trained facilitators and processes to increase reach and impact of programs and attend to child flourishing outcomes. For this study, we explore whether Celebrating Families, a faith-based parenting program, could be feasibly implemented in 12 sub-Saharan Africa, Central America and South East Asia countries, and whether faith leaders could successfully run the parent groups. Caregivers and facilitators reviewed the program positively and found the attention to their faith to be helpful. Preliminary results also show positive changes in harsh parenting attitudes and beliefs of caregivers immediately after parent workshops as well as a reduction in harsh parenting behaviors 6 months after participating in workshops. This study meets a gap in the implementation evidence by underscoring the capacity of faith-driven parent programs to mobilize local non-specialists and faith leaders toward the holistic well-being of children, effectively shifting harsh parenting attitudes and beliefs to reduce child maltreatment. This study also highlights the significant role of culturally and faith-sensitive parenting practices in bridging community gaps and fostering environments that support parents and children’s flourishing in low- and middle-income countries.

Introduction

Parenting programs in the Global South can reduce harsh parenting and promote nurturing parenting, thereby improving child well-being (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Montgomery and Knerr2016; WHO, 2022). While there is substantial evidence for the use of parenting programs to reduce problem behaviors in children (Backhaus et al., Reference Backhaus, Leijten, Jochim, Meléndez-Torres and Gardner2023b; Wang and Zhang, Reference Wang and Zhang2023), most preventative parenting studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have generally focused on young children (ages 1–5) (Jeong et al., Reference Jeong, Pitchik and Fink2021). Often middle childhood and adolescent populations (Backhaus et al., Reference Backhaus, Gardner, Melendez-Torres, Schafer, Knerr and Lachman2023a; WHO, 2016) and a strategic focus on positive, youth flourishing outcomes are not included in these interventions (Catalano et al., Reference Catalano, Skinner, Alvarado, Kapungu, Reavley, Patton, Jessee, Plaut, Moss, Bennett, Sawyer, Sebany, Sexton, Olenik and Petroni2019; Lerner et al., Reference Lerner, Tirrell, Gansert, Lerner, King, Geldhof, Dowling and Sim2021). Although there is emerging evidence from strengths-based perspectives on increasing positive child outcomes, there is a clear need for more culturally and strength-based parenting interventions in global settings. Strength-based family intervention programs demonstrate promising results in international settings by incorporating not only parenting-specific training but also cultural and communal factors related to family life and community engagement. Programs like the Strengthening Families Program (Kumpfer and Magalhães, Reference Kumpfer and Magalhães2018), the Tuko Pamoja Program (Puffer and Ayuku, Reference Puffer and Ayuku2022) among others delivered in religious settings show promising results in various high- and LMICs (Nicol et al., Reference Nicol, Iwu-Jaja, Hendricks, Nyasulu and Young2022). These programs highlight the increasing awareness that culturally sensitive programs, particularly those that not only respect but also leverage religious commitment, are needed.

As spiritual health is an often neglected but vital aspect of child well-being (CONSORTIUM, 2022), there remains a need to examine the impact of faith-based programs that incorporate parent and child spirituality. However, to our knowledge, the evidence for faith-based parent programs implemented at scale, especially in LMICs, is nonexistent to date. This study fills the gap by examining the feasibility, acceptability and pre-post changes of a faith-based positive parenting program, Celebrating Families (CF: World Vision International, 2014), implemented by trained local leaders in 12 countries from sub-Saharan Africa, Central America and South East Asia. CF is both faith-based and faith-driven. It is faith-based in that it teaches concepts drawn from the Christian faith (including the use of specific Biblical passages relevant to parenting) and leverages the faith of facilitators and participants in order to promote positive outcomes. It is faith-driven in that several – but not all – desired outcomes include increased spiritual health for both parents and children.

Parenting programs in LMICs are effective strategies to reduce child maltreatment and promote non-violent and nurturing parent–child relationships (Knerr et al., Reference Knerr, Gardner and Cluver2013; WHO, 2022). Although the evidence is relatively less robust than that found in high income countries, parenting programs in LMICs have been shown to reduce physical and emotional abuse (Wang and Zhang, Reference Wang and Zhang2023). Additionally, parenting programs in LMICs have been shown to foster nurturing parent–child relationships by improving parental knowledge and bolstering caregiver social support (Wang and Zhang, Reference Wang and Zhang2023; WHO, 2022). Overall, the existing evidence underscores the unique challenges of implementing parenting programs in LMICs and calls for continued evaluation and adaptation of such programs to address complex sociocultural factors.

The perception of safety in relationships is essential for child flourishing and positive development. In LMICs, many families live in contexts of adversity. Children and youth often face structural violence brought on by poverty and exposure to violence in and out of the home (Know Violence in Childhood, 2017); Ward et al, Reference Ward, Sanders, Gardner, Mikton and Dawes2015). A vast body of research reveals the detrimental effects of violence on children across physical, social, cognitive and emotional health domains (Akande, Reference Akande2000; Devries et al., Reference Devries, Knight, Child, Kyegombe, Hossain, Lees, Watts and Naker2017). In contrast, there is evidence that greater family connection is associated with a higher prevalence of flourishing among adolescents in global settings (Whitaker et al., Reference Whitaker, Dearth-Wesley, Herman, Van Wingerden and Winn2022). However, safety in relationships and environments continues to be neglected in studies of child thriving and flourishing (Ettinger et al., Reference Ettinger, Risser, Rahman, Rigas, Abromitis, Stokes, Chavis and Miller2022).

Spiritual health is another often overlooked aspect of holistic well-being. Spirituality and faith are recognized as important determinants of positive child development (CONSORTIUM, 2022). They have been shown to protect against stress, build resilience (Kim, Reference Kim2008; Salas-Wright et al., Reference Salas-Wright, Olate and Vaughn2013) and provide meaning and purpose for children growing up in difficult circumstances (Regnerus, Reference Regnerus2003; Tirrell et al., Reference Tirrell, Geldhof, King, Dowling, Sim, Williams, Iraheta, Lerner and Lerner2019). Studies also found that spirituality promotes life satisfaction (Holder et al., Reference Holder, Coleman, Krupa and Krupa2016; Tirrell et al., Reference Tirrell, Geldhof, King, Dowling, Sim, Williams, Iraheta, Lerner and Lerner2019) and prosocial traits such as kindness and empathy among children in global contexts (Leman et al., Reference Leman, Smith and Petersen2017).

There is a growing global interest in parenting interventions that are culturally and religiously-sensitive. As over eight out of every 10 adults and children globally endorse a faith or religious affiliation (Pew Research Center, 2012), faith and religiosity are vital to include when implementing parent programs internationally. An estimated 62% report a Christian religion affiliation in sub-Saharan Africa (Pew Research Center, 2012) and 97.5% in Central America (Johnson and Grim, Reference Johnson and Grim2020). The Philippines is the third-largest Catholic population in the world (Lipka, Reference Lipka2015). Caregivers can influence positive child development through the transmission of healthy spiritual and religious beliefs and practices (Baring et al., Reference Baring, Lee, Maria and Liu2016). Parenting programs that incorporate the spiritual nurturance of children may bolster the effectiveness of interventions targeting healthy child development.

Without doubt, religion can be used to justify harmful parenting practices. However, religious beliefs have the potential to transform entrenched parenting beliefs, attitudes and even practices (Petro et al., Reference Petro, Rich, Charlene Erasmus and Roman2017). For example, within the Judeo-Christian faith traditions, teachings that are particularly conducive to this process include the Christian concept of the Imago Dei teaches that all people, including parents and children, are made ‘in the image of God’, affirming their inherent dignity and worth. Within Christian moral teachings, parents are seen as primarily responsible for all aspects of their children’s well-being. These teachings also position children as gifts from God and as an integral part of the Christian community. This motivation can encourage parents to adopt behaviors promoting child well-being and flourishing, such as by creating safe home environments (El-Khani and Calam, Reference El-Khani, Calam, Mazzucchelli and Sanders2018).

A key way to transform the lives of children and their families is by implementing parenting programs in real-world settings. While implementing parenting programs in LMICs contributes to a larger global agenda (e.g., UN-SDGs, 2024), scaling up such programs in these contexts is often challenging due to lack of professionals available to implement them. However, evidence shows that trained non-professionals can produce almost the same benefits as professional-led groups, and train-the-trainers models show promise for bridging this gap (Tomlinson et al., Reference Tomlinson, Sherr, Macedo, Hunt and Skeen2017). The involvement of faith and other community leaders who possess convening power and are vital agents of community change can leverage their influence to change attitudes on corporal punishment and healthy parent–child relationships in highly effective ways that transcend cultural norms while remaining sensitive to the local context (Robinson, Reference Robinson2010; Rutledge and Eyber, Reference Rutledge and Eyber2019). Moreover, taking advantage of the existing service delivery infrastructure of large international development and non-governmental organizations (INGOs) can assist in capacity building and scaling interventions in LMICs.

In partnership with a large Christian international development INGO with its established service delivery infrastructure, World Vision International (WVI) and informed by a socioecological model (Bronfenbrenner, Reference Bronfenbrenner1979), this study seeks to examine the process of implementation and scaling of a faith-based parenting program in LMICs. CF is a faith-based parenting program developed by WVI (World Vision International, 2014) designed to reduce child maltreatment, enhance positive and spiritual parent child activities and promote gender equity in the home.

Using archival data collected from June 2022 to March 2023, this study examines the feasibility, acceptability and pre-post changes associated with the implementation of the CF faith-based parenting program in 12 countries in the Global South. We aimed to assess (1) the acceptability of the parent program for caregivers and facilitators, through caregiver attendance, attrition and satisfaction with the program, we hypothesized that caregivers would find the program acceptable; (2) the implementation process (feasibility) and the extent to which facilitator training and parent workshops were implemented as described. This was based on facilitator feedback on their perceived knowledge improvement following training and perceived barriers and recommendations for improvement/sustainability and (3) the immediate pre-post changes in positive parenting and harsh discipline attitudes and 6-month changes in harsh parenting behaviors. We hypothesized that caregivers would rate improved scores on positive parenting beliefs and reduced endorsements of harsh parenting beliefs and behaviors across time.

Methods

Study setting

Parent groups were implemented in 12 countries in Africa, Central America and Southeast Asia. These included seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa (the Democratic Republic of the Congo [DRC], Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe), one in South East Asia (Philippines) and four in Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua). Although there is significant social, political and cultural diversity across the countries, the circumstances for youth in these regions shared some similarities. Ten countries fall in the medium youth development categories according to the Global Youth Development Index (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2021), while DRC and Mozambique fall in the low youth development category. Moreover, all 12 countries fall within levels 2 and 3 of Rosling’s four levels of income (Gapminder, 2023; Rosling et al., Reference Rosling, Rönnlund and Rosling2018). These countries share similar challenging developmental environments for children regarding education, employment opportunity, health and well-being, equity and inclusion, political and civic participation and peace and security.

Selection process

This study employed a purposive, non-randomized, non-probability sample. There was no blinding of participants employed.

Caregivers: Eligible parents and caregivers were recruited from families that had participated in WV activities in each country (10–25 parents per group). Inclusion criteria for parent/caregiver were (1) age 18 or older and (2) primary caregiver of a child in the household aged 7–18. Targeted child respondents were recruited from all participating families. If there was more than one eligible child in the household, the participating adult was asked to identify one child only. Inclusion criteria for child respondents were (1) aged 7–18 years, (2) one caregiver participating in the study and (3) lived in the house with participating caregiver. Adults and children were excluded if they exhibited acute mental health problems or if the caregiver had participated in another parenting intervention in the past 12 months. Families received no compensation. Adult provided consent and children provided verbal assent. Throughout this paper, ‘parent’ includes adult caregivers even if they are not the biological parents, and ‘target child’ refers to the participating child/adolescent.

Participant demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1. A total of 2201 parents and 2035 target children participated in the study; 1741 parents completed the post-measure. The mean age of the target child was 10 years, 8 months (range = 7–18; SD = 2.7), and the majority were female (63%). Over one-third (35.8%) of participating families were considered economically disadvantaged per Multidimensional Poverty Index (MDPI). For caregiver attrition by region, see Supplementary Figures S1S3 in the Supplemental Materials.

Table 1. Participant demographic characteristics

Notes: Fac.: facilitators; Car.: caregivers; MDPI: Multidimensional Poverty Index; MPI-Poor: percentage of households considered MPI poor.

Facilitators: A total of 210 volunteer facilitators were identified by local leaders and WV staff and recruited from local churches and organizations to lead parent workshops. With its established service delivery infrastructure, the Christian International Development INGO had existing partnerships with local communities and faith actors with whom they have previously trained on the CF parenting program or other technical workshops (e.g., microfinance and livelihood). While the participating countries operate in unique contexts, the identification and selection of facilitators was focused mainly on faith leaders with the ability to communicate in English and the local language and who demonstrated strong group facilitation skills. All facilitators were trained or given a refresher training on the CF curriculum, ranging from 1 to 3 days. The mean age of facilitators was 43.4 years (range = 19–70). Gender parity differed by region. Central America had a majority of female facilitators (88.6%), while Africa had a majority of male facilitators (62.5%). In terms of their role in the community, across all three regions 64% (n = 65) of the facilitators identified themselves as Faith Leaders while 36% (n = 37) were Community Leaders. Specifically, in Africa 69% (n = 45) facilitators were Faith Leaders while 31% (n = 20) were Community Leaders. All of the facilitators (n = 12) in the Philippines were Faith Leaders; while in Central America, 32% (n = 8) of the facilitators were Faith Leaders and 68% (17) were Community Leaders (see additional facilitator demographic information in Table 1).

Data collection processes

A mixed-methods, pre-post and 6-month follow-up design was utilized in this study. Data was collected at three time points: (1) baseline/pre-workshop (T1, around July 2022), (2) immediately following the parenting workshop (T2) and (3) 6 months after the parent program (T3, around March 2023). Following the conclusion of the CF parent workshop and T2 survey, caregivers continued to meet at least once per month, in peer support groups; these groups were implemented for 6 months. This paper focuses only on caregivers who completed parent program and have data available at T1, T2 and T3 and group facilitator T3 data.

To account for varying levels of literacy, trained local data collectors (enumerators) verbally administered consent and assent forms and all questionnaires. Enumerators entered participants’ responses on smartphones or laptops to Kobo Toolbox (kobotoolbox.com, n.d.) an open-source mobile data collection software.

Intervention: CF curriculum

The CF parenting program is a 3–5-day group-based manualized curriculum that integrates best practices for family-based parenting with Christian faith principles. The program seeks to reduce child maltreatment and the use of harsh parenting practices such as corporal punishment, while increasing parent–child positive relationships and child-flourishing outcomes. It utilizes a strengths-based approach and seeks to ensure that all families have hope for the future, recognize harm from their pasts, are empowered with agency, and experience loving and gender-equitable spousal and caregiver–child relationships (see Table 2). The core principles underlying the program are theoretically informed by attachment theory (Thompson, Reference Thompson, Osofsky, Fitzgerald, Keren and Puura2024), intergenerational trauma (Starrs and Békés, Reference Starrs and Békés2024) and family systems theory (Becvar et al., Reference Becvar, Becvar and Reif2023). The Christian faith principles of the CF curriculum include a focus on forgiveness, grace and reconciliation (as modeled in the biblical Parable of the Prodigal Son, referenced in the training); the theological concept of the Imago Dei; teaching that all people are created in the image of God and thus accorded equal dignity and worth; and servant-hearted leadership that utilizes discipline to guide and protect, rather than punish, as taught in the Book of Proverbs and the New Testament (see Table 2; CF Parent Program Key Components).

Table 2. Celebrating families parent program key components

The curriculum was developed in 2011 and revised with local input from various countries (World Vision International, 2014). There is strong qualitative evidence regarding the benefits of the CF curriculum and methodology in various global settings. Most recently, qualitative case studies from Afghanistan, Myanmar and Tanzania with different family structures (e.g., nuclear, multi-generational) showed that CF has positive effects at the family level and challenges harmful cultural and social norms (Barett and Niyonkuru, Reference Barett and Niyonkuru2019). The curriculum has been adapted for many cultural contexts and languages, including Swahili, Amharic, Tagalog, Arabic, Spanish and French.

WV utilizes a train-the-trainer model to train local facilitators (e.g., faith or community leaders) in the manualized curriculum. Selected WV staff, local partners, faith leaders and community influencers participated in the training of facilitator (ToF) workshops led by certified CF trainers face-to-face over 5 days. During the training, facilitators were exposed to the full CF curriculum and learned how to deliver the workshops in the community. All facilitators received a certificate of completion and answered a survey about their level of satisfaction with the training.

The CF parent workshop was delivered in groups by these unpaid trained facilitators. Groups of 15–25 parents met in community venues, such as churches or community centers. The program included follow-up activities, such as peer support groups with participating parents to support behavioral change. In the present study, these groups were implemented for 6 months following the conclusion of the CF parent workshop.

This project was conducted as part of ongoing program evaluation efforts. Internationally recognized ethical guidelines for research with children (Graham et al., Reference Graham, Powell, Taylor, Anderson and Fitzgerald2013) were followed, including obtaining parental consent and child assent before data collection, maintaining confidentiality and ensuring that participants (including children) had the right to withdraw their participation at any point. Ethical approval for archival data analyses was obtained from the Fuller Theological Seminary Human Subjects Review Committee (IRB 19333854-1).

Measures and instruments

Questionnaires were translated into the respective majority language of each country, including French, Spanish, Tagalog and Portuguese, by a group of qualified WV staff and hired translators. All translators were competent in both languages in each country. Translations were revised by regional project coordinators and the researchers. Questionnaires were pre-tested with a small sample of caregivers in each country.

Demographic variables

At baseline, caregivers provided demographic information, including age, gender, religion, poverty level, and household location. Poverty was measured using the Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MDPI) (Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, 2018), which measures the incidence and intensity of poverty over three dimensions (health, education and living standards). Household location indicated whether the family resided in an urban, rural, or peri-urban area.

Implementation fidelity measures

Implementation fidelity of the ToF and CF workshops was measured through daily checklists. Trainers and facilitators reported whether they adhered to implementation procedures, such as following selection criteria, completing an attendance list, and/or providing childcare and food. Also, when an aspect was not implemented, facilitators were asked to report why (see Supplementary Table S7Facilitator Self-Reported Implementation Fidelity for CF Parent Workshops, found in Supplementary Materials). Parent attendance for each workshop was collected using attendance sheets completed by facilitators. Scans of these sheets were uploaded to Kobo Toolbox, and data was entered and analyzed by the research team.

Acceptability measures

At the T2 post-workshop, parents reported their satisfaction, using a 5-item Likert scale to rate the helpfulness of: the content of the program, group leaders’ teaching and leadership skills, group discussion and interaction and attention given to their religious beliefs. Parents were also asked if they would recommend the workshop to a friend using a yes/no response set. Finally, they responded to two open-ended items: (1) “What was most helpful about the program?” and (2) “What was the least helpful about the program?” Similarly, facilitators provided feedback on program implementation barriers and challenges via an online anonymous survey. Open-ended responses were coded to identify main themes (see Table 4).

Positive and harsh parenting attitudes and beliefs. A Celebrating Families Workshop Survey (World Vision International, 2020), consisting of 17-items assessing parent knowledge, beliefs and attitudes about parenting was administered at baseline (T1) and immediately following the parent workshop (T2). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses were conducted to ensure the factor structure was invariant across regions and countries. CFAs were conducted separately at each time point. Models yielded a good fit for a two-factor model (CFI = .988; TLI = .984; RMSEA = .045, 95% CI = [.040, .050]): Harsh Parenting Attitudes and Beliefs (HshP) and Positive Parenting and Spiritual Nurture Attitudes and Beliefs (PsP). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).The 5-item HshP scale assessed attitudes toward corporal punishment and use of violent parenting practices (e.g., shouting at the child, hitting; T1 α = .76, T2 α = .73). The 7-item PsP scale included items such as spending time with children and family and the importance of spiritual nurturance and virtues such as gratitude (T1 α = .77, T2 α = .78).

Harsh parenting behaviors. Using the MICS – Child Discipline Module for children age 5–17 (UNICEF, 2019), the most widely used assessment of child disciplinary practices in LMICs (Akmatov, Reference Akmatov2011), caregivers reported their use of violent discipline and harsh parenting practices (eight items, including shouting, slapping, called demeaning names, hitting with an object, beating) at time 1 and time 3 (6 months after parent program). These practices were summed to create a continuous score.

Data analyses

Qualitative analyses

Two open-ended responses to consumer satisfaction items were translated from the various languages into English using ChatGPT 3 and verified by bilingual research assistants. A considerable amount of repeated themes were noted by coders. Therefore, given the large caregiver sample size and to ensure quality, manageability and feasibility of qualitative analyses, we elected to code a random, representative subset of caregiver responses (33%; see Table 4). The caregiver response subsets were randomly selected from each region to ensure the subset was representative and key themes from each region could be identified. All facilitator responses were coded (see Table 3). Responses were analyzed in two stages based on grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin, Reference Strauss and Corbin1998) using Dedoose, a web-based qualitative research tool (Dedoose, 2023). Three coders read transcripts and categorized responses into major themes and subthemes. Four other independent coders then reviewed and coded participant transcripts using the identified themes/subthemes. Coders were of diverse ethnic-racial backgrounds. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Interrater reliability for caregiver satisfaction (κ = 0.78) and facilitators’ perceived barriers (κ = 0.93) indicated substantial agreement (Landis and Koch, Reference Landis and Koch1977). Frequency (F; total number of times a theme was mentioned) and extensiveness (E; total number of participants who commented at least once about a theme) were calculated by region (see Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3. Parent satisfaction frequency and extensiveness for ‘Most Helpful’ responses

Notes: Freq: standardized frequency = number of times a code was used in a particular region/total number of codes used in that region; Ext: standardized extensiveness = number of participants who used a certain code at least once/total number codes used at least once.

Table 4. Barriers reported by group facilitators – frequency and extensiveness percentages

Notes: Freq: standardized frequency = number of times a code was used in a particular region/total number of codes used in that region; Ext: standardized extensiveness = number of participants who used a certain code at least once/total number codes used at least once.

Quantitative analyses

To examine program acceptability, descriptive statistics were calculated. Paired t-tests comparing pretest to posttest results were stratified and implemented by region and then by country of participation (see Table 5). For each variable of comparison, listwise deletion was applied. To control for the inflated Type-I error rate potentially due to the multiple comparisons of the two key variables, we set the planned alpha level at .01 instead of .05. Cohen’s d was calculated as standardized effect size measures. All analyses were conducted in R and SPSS.

Table 5. Harsh and positive parenting attitudes and knowledge outcomes

Note: Effect sizes with complete cases.

Results

Attendance

Of the 2199 caregivers who completed baseline assessments, 495 did not participate in the CF parenting program and were, therefore, excluded from the study analyses. Caregiver attendance at parent group workshops was closely monitored. Across all three regions, 24.69% of participants attended less than 50% of CF sessions, 6.28% attended 50-74% of sessions, 2.96% attended 75-99% of sessions, and 66.08% attended all sessions. Overall, 69.04% of caregivers demonstrated high attendance (over 75% of sessions); these attendance rates are only limited to those who started the parent program. For a more detailed attendance breakdown by each region, see Supplementary Table S6 and Supplementary Figures S1S3 in the Supplemental Materials. Attendance was not available for Kenya. Reasons for absence included parental ill health, work, and childcare commitments.

Acceptability and fidelity

Facilitator satisfaction with training: Facilitator’s satisfaction with their training and overall experience were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores representing greater satisfaction. Facilitators (N = 161) across the three regions rated their overall training experience highly (Africa: M = 4.52, SD = 0.59; Central America: M = 4.59, SD = 0.58; the Philippines: M = 4.09, SD = 0.79). Facilitators rated the clarity and sufficiency of instructions and materials similarly. Additionally, facilitators reported perceived improvement in knowledge regarding the key messages of the curriculum, including positive parenting, non-violent discipline and child-safeguarding strategies and the overall spiritual nurture of children. Overall, the facilitator satisfaction with the program is captured by a male faith leader facilitating groups in Ethiopia: ‘This project is useful for our community, children, and parents’.

Caregiver satisfaction with parent program: Across all regions, parents reported high levels of satisfaction with the overall content of the program (Africa: M = 4.79, SD = 0.43; Central America: M = 4.43, SD = 0.52; the Philippines: M = 4.50, SD = 0.51). When asked if they would recommend the program to a friend, 54.3% of caregivers across all regions responded ‘definitely yes’, and 43.8% responded ‘yes’. Additionally, a majority of caregivers rated facilitators’ teaching skills (Africa: 98.71%; Central America: 99.09%; the Philippines: 96.75%) and leadership skills (Africa: 98.39%; Central America: 95.00%; the Philippines: 96.75%) as helpful or extremely helpful. The remaining 1.9% responded ‘maybe’, ‘no’, ‘definitely no’ or were missing responses. With regards to appropriateness, parents found the attention to their religious beliefs to be very helpful (Africa: M = 4.62, SD = 0.57; Central America: M = 4.34, SD = 0.53; the Philippines: M = 4.53, SD = 0.51).

Data from checklist forms were processed by country and region. Overall, the implementation of both the ToF and CF workshops followed the required protocols. Four countries noted delays in the printing process of certificates for facilitators, consistent with the complaints regarding the lack of certificates in the facilitator feedback.

Pre-post caregiver change

Parenting attitudes and knowledge pre- to post-parent program (T2 – T1): The final analyses included 2021 caregivers who attended all CF sessions and completed the pre- and post-evaluation scale. To analyze change, we compared scores of positive and harsh parenting attitudes and knowledge before and after receiving the parent program (see Table 5). For caregivers in all countries in Africa, paired t-tests on the HshP scale showed on average a decline of −3.71 points (range = 0–20; Mpre = 7.04; Mpost = 3.33), corresponding to a very large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.00; Sawilowsky, Reference Sawilowsky2009). Conversely, African caregivers on the Positive/Nurturing Parenting scale (PsP) scale showed a medium to large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.70) as evidenced by an increase of 3.68 points (range = 0–28; Mpre = 17.63; Mpost = 21.3). This value corresponds to a Cohen’s d of 0.70, which are considered a ‘medium to large’ effect size. In Central America, the paired t-tests for the Harsh Parenting showed on average observed a significant decline of −1.25 points (range = 0–20; Mpre = 4.40; Mpost = 3.15; p < 0.001, |d| = 0.41), while the on the PsP Parenting scale on average observed an increase of 3.49 points (range = 0–28; Mpre = 18.02; Mpost = 21.50; p < 0.001, |d| = 0.62). Cohen’s d of 0.41 and 0.62 were ‘medium’ effect sizes. Lastly, the paired t-tests, for caregivers in the Philippines showed on average observed, a significant decline of −2.26 points (range = 0–20; Mpre = 8.06; Mpost = 5.80); p < 0.001, |d| = 0.59) for the Harsh Parenting scale; whereas on the PsP scale on average observed an increase of 1.58 points (range = 0–28; Mpre = 15.99; Mpost = 17.57; p < 0.001, |d| = 0.32). Cohen’s d of 0.59–0.32 are considered a ‘medium to small’ effect size.

Harsh parenting behaviors pre- to 6 months (t3) after parent program (T3 – T1): We also compared scores of harsh parenting behaviors endorsed at baseline and 6 months (t3) after caregiver participation in CF parent program. In all countries in Africa, paired t-tests on the harsh parenting behaviors scale, showed an average decline of 1.26 points (range = 1–8; Mpre = 1.84; Mt3t = 0.58), corresponding to a medium to large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.73; Sawilowsky, Reference Sawilowsky2009). For the caregivers in the Philippines, paired t-tests, showed on average observed, a significant decline of 0.97 points (range = 1–8; Mpre = 2.16.; Mt3t = 1.18); p < 0.001, |d| = 0.65). Lastly, in Central America, the paired t-tests for the Harsh Parenting Behaviors showed on average observed a significant decline of 0.99 points (range = 1–8; Mpre = 1.10; Mt3 = 0.11; p < 0.001, |d| = 0.94) (see harsh parenting behavior mean differences by country in Table S8 in the Supplementary Materials).

In addition, we included other secondary outcome measures at baseline and 6-month follow-up, including measurement of caregiver psychological distress and social support, as well as child report of parent use of harsh parenting behaviors and child self-assessment of flourishing outcomes such as hope for future, positive relationship with family and peers among others. Preliminary analyses indicate outcomes are in the hypothesized direction (Rojas-Flores et al, Reference Rojas-Flores, Fung, Masibo, Klopper, Wilson, Ngan and Kimn.d.).

Facilitators’ perceived barriers for program implementation

Group facilitators suggested lessons for program implementation (see Table 4). Across all three regions, the top main barriers reported by facilitators included (1) logistical challenges, ranging from transportation challenges to bad weather to lack of materials (F = 38.9%, E = 33.5%); (2) challenges regarding parental participation in the program due to work schedules, repeated tardiness and a desire for involvement of both parents (F = 13.8%, E = 13.6%); and (3) needs for training beyond parenting, including economic training, training for certain developmental stages (i.e., adolescence) and training in navigating interpersonal conflict (F = 9.2%, E = 14.7%). One facilitator’s response summed up barriers encountered during this pilot study well: ‘It’s a new experience for our community to come together for talks, and the changes are not easy, but we did our best’ (Honduras, Male).

Notably, as an international development agency, WV provides other activities in communities within which it collaborates. Of the eleven possible WV activities provided in communities participating in this study, five were most endorsed: child sponsorship, education (which may be for adults or children), child protection, child participation (in other activities such as clubs) and spiritual nurture programs (see Table S9 in Supplemental Materials).

Discussion

This single-group study is among the first to examine the implementation and pre-post and 6-month follow-up changes in parent outcomes of a faith-based parenting program in twelve sub-Saharan African, South East Asian and Central American countries. Overall, with optimistic caution, the results suggest that the CF program is highly feasible to implement by trained faith leaders and well accepted by parents. We found medium to large immediate pre-post changes in positive parenting and harsh parenting attitudes and beliefs as well as harsh parent behaviors at 6 months after the CF parent program. These findings excluded participants that did not received the CF parent program and could suggest larger effects than would be expected in a pre-post design. Notwithstanding these limitations, results provide a strong rationale for future rigorous studies to examine the efficacy and causality of this novel faith-based parent program.

Acceptability and appropriateness: We explored the acceptability of this program and related factors of sustainability by soliciting parents’ feedback of the program. Overall, caregivers across the three regions highlighted that the emphasis on positive parenting and family relationships were most helpful (see Table 3). Additionally, caregivers expressed high satisfaction with the program’s content, group discussions and leadership of group facilitators.

Considering the compatibility of this faith-based parenting curriculum with an overwhelming majority of participating caregivers endorsing Christianity as their main faith, CF appears to be appropriate. Beyond this, parents from all regions found the attention to their faith during parent groups very helpful regardless of the caregiver’s religious beliefs and reported that they would recommend the program to a friend. Overall, caregivers recognized the benefits of leveraging their faith in the best interest of their children and considered it necessary for improved parent–child relationships. Taken together, these indicators suggest the acceptability and sustainability of this program in diverse global settings.

Feasibility: The implementation of the CF program using a train-the-trainers model and parent program group delivery was feasible. Preliminary findings suggest that enlisting and training local leaders in the CF model promotes changes in child protection attitudes and child development knowledge through the church, faith leaders and other community influencers. This change in attitudes and norms contributes to enhanced broader outcomes across multiple levels of influence in the child’s life (Bronfenbrenner, Reference Bronfenbrenner1979). The study findings suggest that utilizing local faith and community leaders through a train-the-trainers model is sustainable and effective.

Facilitators identified both challenges and benefits of implementing the CF parent program. Most barriers, such as limitations of physical environments, and difficulties with parent engagement, due to lack of time and family support, caregiver low education and inclement weather, were consistent with previous studies (WHO, 2022). Facilitator recommendations for improvement included providing the program to couples rather than only one caregiver, addressing psychological distress and providing economic development training to parents. Similarly, faith leaders voiced a desire for continued and expanded training beyond the delivery of CF parent groups. These concerns are corroborated by recommendations made based on a systematic review of parenting programs in LMICs (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Ssewanyana, Martin, Lye, Marfo, Marangu and Malti2021) which emphasized the importance of providing continued training to improve scalability, sustainability and quality assurance of parenting interventions across settings.

A unique strength of the implementation of CF is that it is built into the systems delivery supports of a large international development INGO (Britto et al., Reference Britto, Singh, Dua, Kaur and Yousafzai2018). The CF model aligns with WV’s local monitoring, evaluation and learning frameworks for rigorous program assessment as the parent program is situated and delivered within an established system of care that encompasses various sectors (e.g., child protection, nutrition, etc.) and mobilizes community stakeholders across ecological domains surrounding the child (Lansford et al., Reference Lansford, Betancourt, Boller, Popp, Pisani Altafim, Attanasio and Raghavan2022). Within this established system of international development, and given the high endorsement of child sponsorship in participating households, future studies examining child outcomes need to examine the potential effects of these added activities on the CF overall intervention effects. The successful implementation and preliminary evaluation of this faith-based positive parenting program highlights the significant role faith-based INGOs can play in bridging community gaps and fostering environments that support flourishing in LMICs.

Pre-post changes: Comparison of scores pre- and post-workshop suggests that the intervention significantly improved positive parenting attitudes and reduced harsh parenting attitudes. Significant change in parent attitudes and knowledge was apparent across all countries excepting El Salvador. The extremely small sample size in El Salvador rendered the results unreliable to draw any definitive conclusions about parent program changes in this country. A significant decrease in parent-rated harsh parenting attitudes score was seen with large to medium effect sizes by country. These findings are corroborated by previous studies demonstrating that parenting programs in LMICs can be effective in improving parent attitudes and beliefs about harsh parenting and knowledge of child development, potentially reducing child maltreatment (Knerr et al., Reference Knerr, Gardner and Cluver2013; WHO, 2022; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Ssewanyana, Martin, Lye, Marfo, Marangu and Malti2021). Similarly, our study found statistically significant increases in positive and nurturing parenting attitudes post-parent program across all regions and countries. Nonetheless, the inclusion of more standardized measures is an area for improvement in future designs. To our knowledge, this study is among the first to examine positive parenting and the spiritual nurturance of children attitudes in caregivers from multiple countries in the Global South. Research indicates that faith-based parenting programs in LMICs can be effective when they leverage the support of religious institutions and tailor their approach to the local context (Patrick et al., Reference Patrick, Rhoades, Small and Coatsworth2008).

Our findings also provide preliminary evidence for not only changes in caregivers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward harsh parenting and nurturing positive parenting but also changes in their use of harsh parenting practices. As predicted, pre- and 6 months after intervention t-test findings (improved scores from T1 to T3) in caregiver reduced use of harsh parenting practices (e.g., corporal punishment) consistently suggest that participating caregivers benefited from participating in the CF parent program. Addressing caregiver behavioral change with regards to their use of harsh parenting practices (e.g., hitting, name-calling) is an essential precursor to promoting not only physical and emotional safety in children (WHO, 2022) but their spiritual and holistic development (CONSORTIUM, 2022). These preliminary findings align with an extensive body of research on preventive parenting interventions in the Global South aimed at reducing harsh parenting, child maltreatment and corporal punishment (Backhaus et al., Reference Backhaus, Gardner, Melendez-Torres, Schafer, Knerr and Lachman2023a). Additionally, as most evidence-based parenting programs aimed at addressing harsh parenting and maltreatment are often designed from social learning theory and cognitive-behavioral principles (Pinto et al., Reference Pinto, Canário, Leijten, Rodrigo and Cruz2024), our findings suggests that other theoretical principles such addressing multigenerational transmission of violence, and attention to spirituality and faith in parenting, can bring about change in caregivers for whom faith is important.

In sum, the CF faith-based parent program may be feasible and appears to increase parental knowledge in relation to optimal child development and negative effects of harsh and punitive parenting. Our preliminary findings suggest the potential for shifting norms and practices underpinning violence against children and adolescents at the family level and possibly at the community level.

Limitations

Several limitations of this preliminary study merit attention. First, we recognize that without a comparison group, relying on a pre-post design introduces bias from time trends and other potential variables influencing outcomes beyond intervention’s effects. For instance, due to the nature of self-reporting, measurement of parenting knowledge and attitudes and satisfaction may be impacted by social desirability bias. These issues need to be addressed in future studies.

Notwithstanding these possibilities, our pre-post design’s strength lies in the extremely short intervention period, minimizing the possibility of other time-related influences that could have led to such a significant change in outcome. Most importantly, the 6-month follow-up findings provide evidence for behavioral change (reduction in harsh parenting behavior scores), which appear to corroborate the noted change in harsh parenting attitudes and beliefs immediately after parent intervention.

Emerging research suggests that harsh parenting is more prevalent in Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, than in other world regions (Devlin et al., Reference Devlin, Wight and Fenton2018). In our study, the data seems to indicate a similar pattern, where African countries in general had the highest endorsement of harsh parenting attitudes and behaviors at baseline compared to other regions. This region also showed the highest scores changes after the CF parenting program, suggesting that CF may be most effective to implement in the African countries. However, there are some limitations to the present study which must be taken into account when interpreting these findings. For example, given the higher base rates in Africa, the larger change scores could be an effect of regression to the mean.

Second, the generalizability of the findings presented here may be limited to LMIC contexts where there is a high prevalence of Christian caregivers. Despite the relative homogeneity of caregivers’ religious backgrounds, we recognize the continued need to unpack cultural differences in acceptability and parenting outcomes across the 12 countries participating in this study.

Third, considering the ambitious scaling up of the CF program, there were some unique implementation fidelity challenges. For instance, El Salvador encountered challenges in data collection and tracking of parents across time. This difficulty contributed to large caregiver attrition, and an extremely small sample resulting in unreliable, non-significant findings. A closer examination suggests compromised research monitoring capacity rather than caregivers’ rejection of the program, as exemplified by Kenya’s lack of parent workshop attendance records in contrast to full data collection across all three measurement points. These challenges highlight the continued need to provide strong and intentional capacity building with regards to program evaluation, implementation and assessment (see facilitator self-reported implementation fidelity for CF parent workshops Table S7 in Supplementary Materials). Future studies should be designed to assess the implementation of CF curriculum-specific content and, ideally, implementation fidelity evaluated by independent evaluators rather than solely on the self-report of group facilitators.

Fourth, short-term parenting interventions have been demonstrated to be effective in LMIC contexts (WHO, 2022), but caregivers may also need continued support to sustain positive effects over time, perhaps in the form of booster sessions (Backhaus et al., Reference Backhaus, Leijten, Jochim, Meléndez-Torres and Gardner2023b). As mentioned previously, immediately following the workshop parents were invited to participate in 6-month-long, peer-led support groups. Preliminary reports by facilitators suggest that these groups were feasible to deliver in community settings, beneficial and well-received by parents. Additionally, the acceptability of the group-based delivery in community settings was enhanced by their ability to address caregiver-specific needs, mobilize peer support and adapt to the cultural context of the participants through support groups. Future research should carefully evaluate the implementation fidelity and efficacy of these parent-led support groups, recognizing their potential to strengthen and sustain positive changes in parent attitudes and behavior over time.

Directions for future research

Our pre-post pilot study answers a timely call to examine whether involving local leaders in the implementation of parenting interventions can reduce violence against children. Recognizing that the effects of parenting interventions over time are mixed (Backhaus et al., Reference Backhaus, Leijten, Jochim, Meléndez-Torres and Gardner2023b), we intend to examine, in future studies, the effectiveness of this program using a casual design over time (6 months) via outcome variables including child and parent reports of behavioral change. With a rolling evaluation (multiple cohorts across 3 years) strategy designed to improve implementation quality and sustainability, we hope to have built-in feedback loops where data is collected and applied immediately to guide rapid improvements in service delivery across cohorts. We plan to test the CF program model using a randomized controlled trial in the near future.

Capacity building and awareness-raising of community and local partners promote the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 5 and 16) around gender equity and just, peaceful and inclusive societies (UN-SDGs, 2024). Nonetheless, we recognize that the influence of the CF parent program can be expanded through the inclusion of couples and other primary family caretakers. In fact, in several countries in Africa, group facilitators often requested fathers be recruited and involved in the parent program. Notably, the feedback corroborates the concerns about the dangers of implicitly reinforcing gender stereotypes by assuming that mothers will be the primary recipients of parenting interventions (Morawska et al., Reference Morawska, Baker and Johnston2021). In the future, couples/two caregiver participation in the parent program will be studied with a careful eye toward ensuring gender equity.

Conclusion

This study leverages community partnerships with faith communities and a train-the-trainers model to implement a faith-based parenting program – CFs – in 12 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Central America and South East Asia. With cautious optimism, results suggest the program was feasible to implement by local facilitators, acceptable to caregivers and effective in reducing harsh parenting attitudes and behaviors. This pilot trial adds to the evidence on holistic parenting programming to improve parenting outcomes among caregivers raising children and adolescents in the Global South. This study underscores the capacity of faith-driven parent programs to mobilize local non-specialists toward the holistic well-being of children, effectively shifting harsh parenting attitudes and beliefs and reducing harsh parenting practices to reduce child maltreatment. This study also highlights the significant role of culturally and faith-sensitive parenting practices in bridging community gaps and fostering environments that support parents and children’s flourishing in LMICs.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2025.25.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at http://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2025.25.

Data availability statement

The data supporting this study’s findings are available from World Vision, but restrictions apply. These data were used for the current research and are not publicly available. However, data may be available from World Vision upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of World Vision. We would like to acknowledge the many churches, community centers and local leaders that supported the implementation of this parent program; our committed local project coordinators and enumerators; and the generous children, adolescents and their families who have contributed to our growing understanding of how best to support families through faith-informed parent programs.

Author contribution

LRF, CM, HT, RK, AM, BC, BC and TR were involved in the design of the study and protocol. AM, BC and MA are project leaders in each region who orchestrated all enumerator training, participant recruitment and data collection. RK managed online data collection and cleaning and MN and TR reviewed the manuscript and were involved in the overseeing data collection processes. PR assisted with qualitative data analyses. All authors contributed to the writing and editing of the drafts and approved the final submission.

Financial support

The implementation of the parent program was conducted and funded by World Vision US and World Vision International. We conducted the analysis of archival deidentified data provided by the World Vision teams; funding for analyses were provided by World Vision. However, none of the funding sources contributed to the writing of the manuscript or decision to submit it for publication. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Competing interest

The authors declare the following competing interests: LRF reports developing a Theory of Change and guidance for project implementation for World Vision, which might be perceived to create a bias toward interpreting parenting interventions as effective.

Ethical statement

Secondary data ethical approval was sought from the ethics committee of Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, USA (IRB 19333854-1). Written consents were obtained from each participant prior to any data collection by World Vision.

Trial status

This non-randomized pilot study was not registered.

References

Akande, A (2000) Effects of exposure to violence and poverty on young children: the Southern African context. Early Child Development and Care 163(1), 6178. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443001630105.Google Scholar
Akmatov, MK (2011) Child abuse in 28 developing and transitional countries—results from the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys. International Journal of Epidemiology 40(1), 219227. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq168.Google Scholar
Backhaus, S, Gardner, F, Melendez-Torres, GJ, Schafer, M, Knerr, W and Lachman, J (2023a) WHO Guidelines on Parenting Interventions to Prevent Maltreatment and Enhance Parent–Child Relationships With Children Aged 0–17 Years: Report of the Systematic Reviews of Evidence. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Backhaus, S, Leijten, P, Jochim, J, Meléndez-Torres, GJ and Gardner, F (2023b) Effects over time of parenting interventions to reduce physical and emotional violence against children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine 60, 102003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102003Google Scholar
Barett, H and Niyonkuru, P (2019) Understanding ‘Celebrating Families’ contribution to family well-being: Key Findings from Tanzania. Coventry University: World Vision & Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations, pp. 19.Google Scholar
Baring, RV, Lee, R, Maria, MS and Liu, Y (2016) Configurations of student spirituality/religiosity: evidence from a Philippine university. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality 21(3–4), 163176. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364436X.2016.1207617Google Scholar
Becvar, RJ, Becvar, DS and Reif, LV (2023) Systems Theory and Family Therapy: A Primer. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Britto, PR, Singh, M, Dua, T, Kaur, R and Yousafzai, AK (2018) What implementation evidence matters: scaling-up nurturing interventions that promote early childhood development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1419(1), 516. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13720.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U (1979) The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Catalano, RF, Skinner, ML, Alvarado, G, Kapungu, C, Reavley, N, Patton, GC, Jessee, C, Plaut, D, Moss, C, Bennett, K, Sawyer, S, Sebany, M, Sexton, M, Olenik, C and Petroni, S (2019) Positive youth development programs in low-and middle-income countries: a conceptual framework and systematic review of efficacy. Journal of Adolescent Health 65(1), 1531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.01.024.Google Scholar
Commonwealth Secretariat (2021) Global youth development report 2020. Available at https://thecommonwealth.org/innovation/youth-development-index#results (accessed 15 January 2024).Google Scholar
CONSORTIUM (2022) Toolkit: Nurturing the Spiritual Development of Children in the Early Years: A Contribution to the Protection of Children from Violence and the Promotion of Their Holistic Well-Being. Arigatou International. ISBN 978-2-8399-3771-9. Available at https://childspiritualdevelopment.org/2022/11/17/toolkit/ (accessed 25 August 2024).Google Scholar
Dedoose (2023) Dedoose Version 9.2.5 cloud application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC. www.dedoose.com (accessed 25 November 2023).Google Scholar
Devlin, AM, Wight, D and Fenton, C (2018) Are parenting practices associated with the same child outcomes in sub-Saharan African countries as in high-income countries? A review and synthesis. BMJ Global Health 3(6), e000912. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000912.Google Scholar
Devries, KM, Knight, L, Child, JC, Kyegombe, N, Hossain, M, Lees, S, Watts, C and Naker, D (2017) Witnessing intimate partner violence and child maltreatment in Ugandan children: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open 7(2), e013583. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013583.Google Scholar
El-Khani, A and Calam, R (2018) The role of values and religious beliefs in positive parenting. In Mazzucchelli, TG and Sanders, MR (eds), The Power of Positive Parenting: Transforming the Lives of Children, Parents, and Communities Using the Triple P System. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 344353.Google Scholar
Ettinger, AK, Risser, L, Rahman, S, Rigas, D, Abromitis, R, Stokes, LR, Chavis, V and Miller, E (2022) Defining and measuring child and youth thriving: a scoping review. Pediatrics 150(5), e2022056902.Google Scholar
Gapminder (2023) Mean income per capita – v4. Free data via CC-BY. Available at https://www.gapm.io/dmincpcapcppp (accessed 7 March 2024).Google Scholar
Gardner, F, Montgomery, P and Knerr, W (2016) Transporting evidence-based parenting programs for child problem behavior (age 3–10) between countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 45(6), 749762. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1015134 (accessed 12 January 2024).Google Scholar
Graham, A, Powell, M, Taylor, N, Anderson, D and Fitzgerald, R (2013) Ethical Research Involving Children. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti.Google Scholar
Holder, M, Coleman, B, Krupa, T and Krupa, E (2016) Well-being’s relation to religiosity and spirituality in children and adolescents in Zambia. Journal of Happiness Studies 17, 12351253. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10902-015-9640-X.Google Scholar
Jeong, J, Pitchik, HO and Fink, G (2021) Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects of early parenting interventions in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMJ Global Health 6(3), e004067.Google Scholar
Johnson, TM and Grim, BJ (eds) (2020) World Religion Database. Boston: Brill. Available at https://worldreligiondatabase.org/.Google Scholar
Kim, J (2008) The protective effects of religiosity on maladjustment among maltreated and nonmaltreated children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(7), 711720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.09.011.Google Scholar
Knerr, W, Gardner, F and Cluver, LD (2013) Improving positive parenting skills and reducing harsh and abusive parenting in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Prevention Science 14(4), 352363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0314-1.Google Scholar
Know Violence in Childhood (2017) Ending violence in childhood. Global Report 2017. New Delhi: Know Violence in Childhood. Available from: https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/node/12380/pdf/globalreport2017endingviolenceinchildhood.pdf (accessed 16 February 2023).Google Scholar
Kumpfer, KL and Magalhães, C (2018) Strengthening families program: an evidence-based family intervention for parents of high-risk children and adolescents. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse 27(3), 174179. https://doi.org/10.1080/1067828X.2018.1443048.Google Scholar
Landis, JR and Koch, GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1), 159174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.Google Scholar
Lansford, JE, Betancourt, TS, Boller, K, Popp, J, Pisani Altafim, ER, Attanasio, O and Raghavan, C (2022) The future of parenting programs: II implementation. Parenting 22(3), 235257. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2022.2086807.Google Scholar
Leman, PJ, Smith, EP, Petersen, AC and SRCD Ethnic–Racial Issues and International Committees (2017) Introduction to the special section of Child Development on positive youth development in diverse and global contexts. Child Development 88(4), 10391044. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12860.Google Scholar
Lerner, RM, Tirrell, JM, Gansert, PK, Lerner, JV, King, PE, Geldhof, GJ, Dowling, EM and Sim, ATR (2021) Longitudinal research about, and program evaluations of, positive youth development in low- and middle-income countries: methodological issues and options. Journal of Youth Development 16, 100123. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2021.1040.Google Scholar
Lipka, M (2015) 5 facts about Catholicism in the Philippines. Available at https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/01/09/5-facts-about-catholicism-in-the-philippines/ (accessed 18 March 2024).Google Scholar
Morawska, A, Baker, S and Johnston, S (2021) “The parent trap”: Gender stereotypes and parenting roles in an Australian parenting website. Australian Journal of Psychology 73(3), 272281. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1906162.Google Scholar
Nicol, JU, Iwu-Jaja, C, Hendricks, L, Nyasulu, P and Young, T (2022). The impact of faith-based organizations on maternal and child health care outcomes in Africa: taking stock of research evidence. The Pan African Medical Journal 43, 119. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2022.43.168.32983.Google Scholar
Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (2018) Global Multidimensional Poverty Index 2018: The Most Detailed Picture to Date of the World’s Poorest People. United Kingdom: University of Oxford (accessed 21 May 2022).Google Scholar
Patrick, M, Rhoades, B, Small, M and Coatsworth, J (2008) Faith-placed parenting intervention. Journal of Community Psychology 36, 7480. https://doi.org/10.1002/JCOP.20218.Google Scholar
Petro, MR, Rich, EG, Charlene Erasmus, C and Roman, NV (2017) The effect of religion on parenting in order to guide parents in the way they parent: a systematic review. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health 20, 114139. https://doi.org/10.1080/19349637.2017.1341823.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center (2012) The global religious landscape: A report on the size and distribution of the world’s major religious groups as of 2010. Available at https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/ (accessed 21 September 2023).Google Scholar
Pinto, R, Canário, C, Leijten, P, Rodrigo, MJ and Cruz, O (2024) Implementation of parenting programs in real-world community settings: A scoping review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 27(1), 7490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-023-00465-0 (accessed 5 March 2024).Google Scholar
Puffer, ES and Ayuku, D (2022) A community-embedded implementation model for mental-health interventions: reaching the hardest to reach. Perspectives on Psychological Science 17(5), 12761290. https://doi-org.fuller.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/17456916211049362.Google Scholar
Regnerus, MD (2003) Religion and positive adolescent outcomes: a review of research and theory. Review of Religious Research 44, 394413. http://doi.org/10.2307/3512217.Google Scholar
Robinson, M (2010) Conflict, Child Protection and Religious Communities: A Review and Recommendations on Enhancing Protection Through Partnership. Religions for Peace and UNICEF. Available at https://jliflc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/conflict-child-protection.pdf (accessed 25 January 2024).Google Scholar
Rosling, H, Rönnlund, AR and Rosling, O (2018) Factfulness: Ten Reasons We’re Wrong About the World–and Why Things Are Better Than You Think. New York: Flatiron Books.Google Scholar
Rojas-Flores, L, Fung, J, Masibo, A, Klopper, R, Wilson, J, Ngan, M and Kim, S (n.d.) Faith-based parenting program and positive youth outcomes: Assessing for multilevel socioecological predictors and mediators in seven countries in Africa. Manuscript in progress.Google Scholar
Rutledge, K and Eyber, C (2019) Scoping study on faith actors’ involvement in the prevention, elimination and perpetuation of violence against children. Joint Learning Initiative on Faith and Local Communities Ending Violence Against Children Hub. Available at https://jliflc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/JLI-EVAC-LITERATURE-REVIEW-Final.pdf (accessed 10 January 2024).Google Scholar
Salas-Wright, CP, Olate, R and Vaughn, MG (2013) The protective effects of religious coping and spirituality on delinquency. Criminal Justice and Behavior 40(9), 9881008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813482307.Google Scholar
Sawilowsky, S (2009) New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods 8(2), 597599. https://doi.org/10.56801/10.56801/v8.i.452.Google Scholar
Starrs, CJ and Békés, V (2024) Historical intergenerational trauma transmission model: a comprehensive framework of family and offspring processes of transgenerational trauma. Traumatology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/trm0000505.Google Scholar
Strauss, A and Corbin, J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Thompson, RA (2024) Attachment theory and early childhood mental health. In Osofsky, JD, Fitzgerald, HE, Keren, M and Puura, K (eds), WAIMH Handbook of Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health. Switzerland AG: Springer Nature, 255274.Google Scholar
Tirrell, JM, Geldhof, GJ, King, PE, Dowling, EM, Sim, ATR, Williams, K, Iraheta, G, Lerner, JV and Lerner, RM (2019) Measuring spirituality, hope, and thriving among Salvadoran youth: initial findings from the compassion international study of positive youth development. Child & Youth Care Forum 48(2), 241268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-018-9454-1.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, M, Sherr, L, Macedo, A, Hunt, X and Skeen, S (2017) Paid staff or volunteers – does it make a difference? The impact of staffing on child outcomes for children attending community-based programmes in South Africa and Malawi. Global Health Action 10(1), 1381462. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2017.1381462.Google Scholar
UN-SDGs (2024). United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Available at https://sdgs.un.org/goals. (accessed 22 January 2024).Google Scholar
Wang, W and Zhang, H (2023) A scoping review of parenting programs for preventing violence against children in low- and middle-income countries. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 25(3), 21732188. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231207887.Google Scholar
Ward, C, Sanders, MR, Gardner, F, Mikton, C and Dawes, A (2015) Preventing child maltreatment in low-and middle-income countries: Parent support programs have the potential to buffer the effects of poverty. Child Abuse and Neglect 54, 97107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.11.002.Google Scholar
Whitaker, RC, Dearth-Wesley, T, Herman, AN, Van Wingerden, ASN and Winn, DW (2022) Family connection and flourishing among adolescents in 26 countries. Pediatrics 149(6), e2021055263. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-055263.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) (2016) INSPIRE: Seven Strategies for Ending Violence Against Children. World Health Organization. Luxembourg: WHO.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) (2022) WHO Guidelines on Parenting Interventions to Prevent Maltreatment and Enhance Parent-Child Interventions with Children Aged 0-17 years. Geneva: World Health Organization. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Available at https://www.who.int/publications (accessed 20 September 2024).Google Scholar
World Vision International (2014). Celebrating Families: A Journey Together. Facilitator Handbook. Published by Christian Commitments on behalf of World Vision International. Manual on file at the World Vision International Central Website.Google Scholar
World Vision International (2020) Celebrating Families Workshop Survey. Survey on file at the World Vision International Central Website.Google Scholar
Zhang, L, Ssewanyana, D, Martin, M-C, Lye, S, Marfo, K, Marangu, J and Malti, T (2021) Supporting child development through parenting interventions in low-to middle-income countries: an updated systematic review. Frontiers in Public Health 9, 671988. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.671988.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Participant demographic characteristics

Figure 1

Table 2. Celebrating families parent program key components

Figure 2

Table 3. Parent satisfaction frequency and extensiveness for ‘Most Helpful’ responses

Figure 3

Table 4. Barriers reported by group facilitators – frequency and extensiveness percentages

Figure 4

Table 5. Harsh and positive parenting attitudes and knowledge outcomes

Supplementary material: File

Rojas-Flores et al. supplementary material 1

Rojas-Flores et al. supplementary material
Download Rojas-Flores et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 22.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rojas-Flores et al. supplementary material 2

Rojas-Flores et al. supplementary material
Download Rojas-Flores et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 49.2 KB

Author comment: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R0/PR1

Comments

June 12, 2024

Editorial Office

FAO Global Mental Health

University Printing House

Shaftesbury Road

Cambridge CB2 8BS

United Kingdom

Dear Professors Bass and Chibanda:

Please consider the manuscript entitled “Supporting parents in the Global South: Implementation of a faith-based parent program in twelve countries” for publication as an empirical article in the Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health. This paper provides novel information on the implementation of a faith-based and community-based, manualized parenting program, Celebrating Families, in 12 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, and Southeast Asia.

On behalf of my coauthors (affiliations listed below), I affirm that this manuscript is not being considered for publication elsewhere, that none of the content has been published to date, and that we adhered to the research and publishing ethical standards and the institutional review board at Fuller Theological Seminary. All authors contributed sufficiently to the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

World Vision International implemented the project in 12 countries, and archival analyses were funded by World Vision US through a grant to me (the corresponding author). Regarding conflict of interests, note that I, along with other colleagues and students, developed a Theory of Change and guidance for the project implementation for World Vision, which might be perceived as creating a bias toward interpreting parenting interventions as effective. All data analyses were conducted by authors at Fuller Theological Seminary.

My co-authors and I are excited about this paper and eager to receive feedback. Please contact me, if you need any additional information. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Lisseth Rojas-Flores, Ph.D.

Corresponding Author:

• Lisseth Rojas-Flores, Ph.D., Professor of Clinical Psychology

School of Psychology and Marriage & Family Therapy

Fuller Theological Seminary

180 N. Oakland Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101

Phone: (626) 826-0957

Email: [email protected]

Co-Authors:

• Melanie Ngan, MA., M.S., School of Psychology and Marriage & Family Therapy, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, USA

• Joey Fung, Ph.D., Professor of Clinical Psychology, School of Psychology and Marriage & Family Therapy, Fuller Theological Seminary,Pasadena, California, USA

• Carolyn Casada, MA., M.S., School of Psychology and Marriage & Family Therapy, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, USA

• Patrick Robertson, MA, School of Psychology and Marriage & Family Therapy, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, USA

• Alex Masibo, World Vision International, Nairobi, Kenya

• Briseida Cruz, World Vision International, San Salvador, El Salvador

• Marion Mortel, World Vision International, Quezon City, Philippines

• Ryan Kopper, World Vision US, Washington DC, USA

• Cherry Marcelo, World Vision US, Seattle, USA

• Travis Roberts, MPH, World Vision US, Washington DC, USA

• Holta Tradafili, World Vision US, Washington DC, USA

Review: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Overall, I congratulate the authors on this outstanding work! They have implemented and evaluated a large multi-country and multi-continent program for thousands of parents – and they have written a clean and clear manuscript to disseminate these important findings with the research community. This timely study highlights into an important area with potential for enabling broad scaling of parenting programs to many parts of the world: leveraging faith communities. I thank the authors for their excellent work.

I have several suggestions which I hope will strengthen the clarity and rigor of this paper, listed below:

Background:

• You use the terms ‘faith-driven parent programs’ and ‘faith-based parenting programs’ from the start – but you don’t clearly define these terms. Could you please provide a definition for these terms early on to ensure readers are correctly understand what you mean by ‘faith-driven parent programs’ and ‘faith-based parenting programs’? (For example, questions in my mind: Do you mean parenting programs that teach faith and religious content? Do you mean parenting programs that teach parenting content yet rely on strength from faith to learn these skills? Or do you mean standard programs led by trusted volunteers and leaders connected to a faith community?) Clarity will help readers understand your specific key point.

• There are a few claims made in the background section that could benefit from further explanation and citations:

o “There is also increasing awareness that culturally sensitive programs, particularly those that not only respect but leverage religious commitment, are needed.” – could you please add a sentence to expound on 1. What leveraging religious commitment means and 2. Why leveraging religious commitment is needed? (Perhaps as it engages a core part of people’s self-identities, community values, and/or something else? It would be highly helpful if you could also add a citation to support the increasing awareness about this – if possible.)

o “As spiritual health is an often neglected but vital aspect of child well-being” – could you please provide a citation for spiritual health being a vital aspect of child well-being? (You do provide these citations later in the introduction, but please use the citation when you initially make this claim.)

Methods:

• Data Collection: First, could you clarify when exactly T2 is? Is it immediately following the program, on the same day it ends? Or is it one day later or one week later? Second, could you clarify more about who facilitated these surveys? Was it the same person who had facilitated the program, and the same person who facilitated their baseline survey, or someone else? This is important for understanding the risk of social desirability bias, and whether participants may have felt the need to ‘report higher’ than what they initially said. Third, could you explain why this paper does not include T3 6-month follow-up data for transparency? (E.g., Is this data still being cleaned? Were follow-up rates low?)

• In your description of the intervention, could you please list the ‘Christian faith principles’ included in your intervention? You state that the intervention includes ‘Christian faith principles’ but don’t share specifically what they are; listing these principles is important to understand what is included in this intervention.

• Data analysis: You don’t specific that paired t-tests were stratified and implemented first by region of participation, and then by country of participation, but given Table 5, it seems this was the case (which is very important given differences in these locations). Could you please specify this in the methods?

• Could you do a sensitivity analysis where you consider session attendance, and model the effect on outcomes when someone attends less than 25% of sessions, then 25%-50%, 50%-74%, 75%-99%, and 100%? (You could change these categories; I propose these just as an option.) This could be an important finding since the percent who attended ALL is only 66% -- so if this program is implemented again, it is of value to know whether there is any benefit for people who attend some sessions and not all. If simpler, you could perform this analysis in a linear regression framework, as done in this pre-post paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666623524000400.

Results and Discussion:

• Within the text of “Effectiveness: Caregiver Change Pre- to Post-Parent Program (T2 – T1)”, you only share the results in Africa. Please add in ALL results across all regions, since all regions are within your study, and please elaborate much more here. This is also important for people to compare where effects were largest to understand which areas this may be most effective in. From Table 5, it is clear that the effect sizes varied within countries in Africa quite meaningfully, and overall, the effect sizes were larger in African countries than Central American countries or Asian countries (especially for harsh discipline!) Please comprehensively report these results in the ‘Results’ section, and in the ‘Discussion Section’, please discuss what this nuance means for recommendations on where may be most effective to implement, rather than just stating results were statistically significant across all regions.

o A specific question to consider and hopefully unpack in the discussion: Were baseline values for harsh parenting worse at baseline in the countries with larger effect sizes? Is this why the mean differences are larger overall? Or were baseline values consistent across locations, but the actual effectiveness of the intervention truly differs between regions?

o I noted that in the discussion (under Preliminary Effectiveness), you state that results were not significant in El Salvador, with no caveat that you had an extremely small sample size in El Salvador. Please add a phrase to acknowledge the small sample which makes this result unreliable. (My reasoning: Especially for harsh parenting, your mean difference in El Salvador is consistent with other Central American countries; your p-value is just reasonably above .05 due to your small sample size. I just wish to cautious making a claim that the program in El Salvador is ineffective with this small of a sample size.)

• A major limitation is that you do not have an untreated comparison group to compare your intervention group to – which makes you reliant on a pre-post design, which is subject to bias from time trends / other potential variables which could have caused the change in outcomes, beyond the effect of your intervention. Please acknowledge this limitation in the limitations, and discuss how concerned we should be about this form of bias. A STRENGTH of your pre-post design is the intervention period is extremely short – which makes it unlikely other time trends could have taken place to lead to this sort of change in outcomes. Please discuss this, as well as any other potential reasons to reduce concern about this form of bias which is often present in pre-post studies.

• Lastly, it would be helpful for your main argument on the need for faith-based parenting programs to discuss how being faith-based changed this program, compared to if it was not faith-based? For example, here are questions in my mind (which you do not need to answer all of – but please do highlight anything noteworthy for readers): Are your effect sizes larger compared to non-faith-based parenting programming in the same region? Was recruitment faster given large faith-based networks in these majority-Christian areas? Was there better engagement because you worked within trusted communities? Were the outcomes influenced different than the outcomes that would have been influenced in non-faith based programming? Or, do you suspect this will enable further scale and reach given available networks? The authors do an excellent job demonstrating that parents found faith-based programming to be acceptable (“…benefits of leveraging their faith in the best interest of their children, and considered it necessary for improved parent-child relationships…”) -- but I wonder if the authors could go beyond assessing whether participants found it acceptable to whether it increased effectiveness.

A note for future work: With such a large sample rolled out over time, I encourage you to consider more rigorous quasi-experimental methods for further analyses in the future, such as rolled entry matching, or other methods which would enable you to compare people who were completing programming at endline (and are ‘treated’) with people who were enrolling at baseline (and are ‘untreated’). This could enable you to create a comparison group within your own sample, which would make your results much more rigorous. Additionally, if you do proceed with a pre-post design in the future, you could reduce concern about time trends by examining the baseline values over time to assess if there are meaningful changes. I do not request authors do this this prior to publication, as I suspect bias is minimal give your short intervention period – but I encourage the authors to consider these methods for future studies.

Thank you for conducting and publishing this important, creative work to strengthen families!

Review: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This article contributes to the scarce literature on parenting programs, and especially to the literature on faith-based programs which are highly relevant in many global settings. The large number of geographic locations is also certainly a strength of the study. Authors should be commended for this large undertaking.

Abstract:

• Specify length of follow-up

• Describe results in terms of magnitude rather than only as “significant”

• Very clearly describe that preliminary effectiveness results are from treatment completers only.

Introduction: The authors provide a helpful review of the literature and articulation of the gap that this study fills. The focus on the need for faith-based programming is valuable, as this may be new to many readers. A few areas for authors to consider:

• Authors should update and expand the literature referenced on the effectiveness of parenting programs globally and in low- and middle-income countries. There are additional review papers, as well as newer randomized trials of specific programs, that would provide a fuller picture of the state of the evidence.

• Similarly, authors should update citations related to more strengths-based family interventions (beyond those focused only on parenting) that also are showing positive results. The Nurturing Families Program is one showing promise, as well as the Strengthening Families Program and READY/Tuko Pamoja in Kenya (that was also delivered in churches). These are just a few examples, but I would encourage a brief revisiting of the literature for this point and the previous point.

• I would encourage authors to be cautious in suggesting that Christianity is more amenable to promoting positive parenting than other religions. This is mainly suggested by the phrase “and Christian faith in particular,” so I would suggest removing this phrase and perhaps expanding the argument a bit to speak to how religious and spiritual traditions more broadly have potential to promote positive parenting and family relationships. I think this is a very important point but that it is important to be more inclusive in providing this rationale.

Methods:

• Minor: I suggest removing “very similar” from line 98 with having “some similarities,” as the differences are so many. The following sentences do a nice job contextualizing this.

• More detail about some methodological pieces would be helpful. Below are some questions that wouldl be helpful to answer:

• Authors describe participants were selected from those who had participated in WV activities. How were those participants found/identified (e.g., from churches?)? What types of WV activities had they participated in?

• How many were identified, and how many accepted to participate?

• Were couples, or multiple adult caregivers from the same household, encouraged to participate together? If so, how often did this happen?

• How did families identify which target child they wanted to participate if there was more than one child available?

• Why were 6-month outcomes excluded from this paper? That is a large strength of the design, so including these data would be excellent.

• How were local facilitators identified, and how did they express interest? This is important for understanding the facilitator-level outcomes. Authors should provide much more information about the faciltiators in terms of their demographics and occupations.

• Please describe how sessions were scheduled, especially given the limitation that there were logistical barriers to participation. Often church-based or community-based interventions have the advantage of sessions being held on weekends or at the convenience of participants.

• Did the fidelity checklists include the completion of the actual components of the intervention (e.g., certain didactic points made, activities facilitated), and was any of the implementation data collected via external observation, or only self-report? The current description, including in Results, sounds like this was more related to session logistics rather than content. (If this is the case, please make sure to include this in the limitations/future directions, along with the lack of ratings of quality or facilitation skills).

• It is somewhat atypical not to use standardized measures of positive and harsh parenting, including beliefs/attitudes, since there are many that have been widely used in many different contexts. Authors should perhaps mention the rationale for not using any standardized measures but, more importantly, describe how the items were developed and whether they were developed to closely match the CF curriculum.

• Qualitative data analysis: It is unclear why authors would want to avoid saturation, as that is usually the goal of analysis. The concern might have been related to having more data than needed. If so, authors should comment on how they were certain of having reached saturation without including more participant responses.

• Quantitative analysis: Please describe how any missing data were handled, state planned alpha level for determining statistical significance, and describe whether standardized effect sizes were calculated. Please clearly indicate whether analyses were based on the intent-to-treat principle and give details on whether those who did not attend as often also participated in the post-test surveys at the same rate as those with higher levels of attendance. (In Results, it is stated that all participants completed the program, so that should be specified here in the analysis plan and clearly noted as a limitation within the Discussion.)

Results

• Please provide specific fidelity results beyond that they overall followed protocols.

• For Effectiveness, it is a major limitation that the only participants were those who attended all sessions. This introduces numerous sources of bias. Please described carefully how many people enrolled in the study were excluded and the reasons why. This is very likely to inflate the effect sizes to be much larger than those reported in trials that use an intent-to-treat principle and make strong efforts to track and reach participants who attended fewer (or no) sessions of an intervention.

• For Facilitators’ Perceived Barriers, please clarify how desire for both parents to attend was a barrier.

• Given the emphasis on feasibility, authors should also include information about facilitator retention in the program, including whether there were any facilitators trained who did not go on to deliver the program. This is especially valuable to know given that the facilitators were not compensated.

Discussion

• The first paragraph of the Discussion seems to overstate the conclusions that can be made from this study. Results are encouraging, but the measures were quite light-touch (including potentially fidelity measures that were unrelated to specific content), based only on self-report, and including only participants who voluntarily completed the entire program. Authors should temper the language here and qualify their conclusions.

• The following first paragraphs of the Discussion seems to provide some new results, which need to be placed in the Results section (e.g., the qualitative quotes).

• The final sections of the Discussion present important issues, limitations, and considerations for Future Directions. Authors should revisit the feedback in this review and from other reviewers to mention further methodological limitations. Without knowing the answers to the questions in the methods above, it is unclear which aspects are limitations versus those that just require more detailed explanation.

Recommendation: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R1/PR6

Comments

Dear Professors Chibanda and Janse van Rensburg,

We are very grateful for the favorable responses to this study, the thoughtfulness and timeliness of reviewers‘ feedback, and the opportunity to improve our work. We considered the reviewers’ comments and suggestions seriously and did our best to address each concern. In our response to the Decision letter, we provide a point-by-point outline of our revisions. As you see in our response, we took steps to address each of the issues raised by the two reviewers. We appreciate your editorial oversight and look forward to continuing this study’s publication in the Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health journal.

Thank you for your careful attention to our work.

Sincerely,

Lisseth Rojas-Flores, Ph.D.

Corresponding Author

Lisseth Rojas-Flores, Ph.D., Professor of Clinical Psychology

School of Psychology and Marriage & Family Therapy

Fuller Theological Seminary

180 N. Oakland Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101

Phone: (626) 826-0957

Email: [email protected]

Review: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Thank you for the opportunity to review this revised manuscript, and many of the reviewers’ comments have been adequately addressed. I remain very encouraged by these results and impressed by the scope of this study. I look forward to seeing future research that examines efficacy and causality, and this study provides a very strong rationale for pursuing those future studies. A few concerns remain.

Most importantly, this study is set up to find large effects in many ways, as reflected in the effect sizes that are more than double what is usually reported from prevention programs. The limitations of the design and preliminary nature of these results is still not coming through clearly enough. Though the authors did add some limitations and clarifications, they are quite subtle. I have the following recommendations to frame the study in light of the design. (This is not to minimize that the results certainly do point to the promise of the intervention and rationale for future research that will test efficacy with stronger designs, such as a comparison group. Tempering the current reporting of this study will add to the credibility of those future studies.)

• Abstract

o For first statement describing the study, a more specific statement could be: As such, we conduct a pre-post study of a faith-based and community-based parenting program, Celebrating Families, in 12 countries…(to remove reliably/effectively, which can’t be concluded with the design/measures)

o I do not think you have data to support this statement since you do not have data on whether they delivered the content or their group facilitation skills (no one observed or reported on this): “We found that the trained faith- and community leaders could 11 successfully run the parent groups.”

• You could state that they could feasibly run the parent groups.

• You can also say they were successfully recruited, which is also important.

• In the Abstract, I’d simply describe that they delivered it or that you found it was feasible for leaders to deliver. In the Results/Discussion could very precisely describe what you know—feasible with successful recruitment and that they were the ones delivering when you had promising results (with the implication that they probably performed well overall, though you don’t have data on that).

• Again, this is all very promising and important preliminary data, and future studies will actually show fidelity, competency, etc.

• This is not an intent-to-treat analysis since only the treated were included.

• Report specifically that 495 people who completed baseline did not participate and were excluded from the study; this gives a better sense of the untreated group. (I believe that the 75-100% attendance rate was only limited to those who started the program, which should also be very clear.)

• The fact that these individuals are receiving other programs is important (as authors also recognize and are conducting another analysis in a separate paper to look at the potential effects of this). Please provide information about how many and what types of programs participants are participating in; this could be summarized very briefly in the text and then provided in supplemental material.

• In the discussion, I think the key limitations and the caution in interpretation should be stated up front before results are presented, with a brief but clear statement that these findings could suggest larger effects than would be found in a pre-post design. (followed quickly with a statement that results are nonetheless encouraging, providing a strong rationale for future studies that can make causal conclusions). This can be brief but clear, with the full limitations remaining where they are currently in this section. The key ones to mention up front are: pre-post design, not including participants who did not participate in the treatment, and immediate post-test.

• It is very helpful that the harsh parenting 6-month results are now included. The results for the other outcomes should also be very briefly described despite being provided in a different paper since they are so informative in terms of interpreting the implications of this study; specific numbers/results are not needed but direction of change (If there is a preprint or full publication now available, please cite.)

• Fidelity Results should be tempered by being specific about what it means that protocols were followed; readers need to be reminded that this does not mean the content of the intervention; Given lack of fidelity data, I would suggest putting this later in the results section, perhaps combined with Acceptability (optional).

• Results and Discussion sections should not include any mention of “effectiveness,” but only about pre-post changes (including the heading in Results that currently describes Effectiveness and statement in Discussion that states “and effective in reducing harsh parenting attitudes and behaviors”). Wording throughout should refer to pre-post improvements, positive pre-post changes, etc.; the additions of “suggest” and “cautious optimism” are a step in the right direction but effectiveness requires a causal design.

Minor:

• For effect size calculations, specify which standard deviation was used (pre-test or post-test)

Review: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Thank you for your careful corrections and responses! I am happy to elect for this paper to be accepted for publication.

Recommendation: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R2/PR11

Comments

January 5, 2025

Dear Professor Chibanda and Janse van Rensburg,

REF: GMH-2024-0084.R2 - Supporting parents in the Global South: Implementation of a faith-based parent program in twelve countries

We are grateful for the invaluable feedback we received from the reviewers. We are thrilled with the exciting news that our paper has been moved to “accept with minor revisions,” and we eagerly anticipate its publication. The constructive comments have significantly strengthened our manuscript, and we truly appreciate the time and effort the reviewers have put into their thoughtful evaluation.

In response to the reviewers' requests for more information and clarification, we have expanded certain sections of the manuscript to provide additional details and to ensure full clarity on the points raised. As a result, the word count has exceeded the journal’s stipulated limit. We hope that the added content enhances the quality and comprehensiveness of the paper and provides the necessary insights the reviewers sought.

Once again, thank you for your guidance and support throughout this process. We look forward to the final steps toward publication and are confident that the manuscript is in a much stronger position now.

Best wishes for a successful and prosperous new year, and we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Lisseth Rojas-Flores, PhD. (Corresponding Author)

Recommendation: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R2/PR12

Comments

Please correct the spelling to Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia to “sub-Saharan Africa” and “South East Asia”.

Decision: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R2/PR13

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R3/PR14

Comments

Dear Reviewers:

We are delighted that our manuscript, GMH-2024-0084.R2 entitled “Supporting parents in the Global South: Implementation of a faith-based parent program in twelve countries” has been recommended for publication with minor revisions. We addressed the spelling errors noted in your decision letter and ensured compliance with all the journal’s formatting guidelines. We eagerly anticipate the publication of our manuscript in your esteemed journal. Thank you very much for your consideration and support.

Best regards,

Recommendation: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R3/PR15

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Supporting parents in the Global South: implementation of a faith-based parent program in 12 countries — R3/PR16

Comments

No accompanying comment.