Parenting
Conditions
Keywords
Coparenting Unmarried African-American Prenatal
Brief summary
This R01 tests through RCT methodology efficacy of a new intervention designed specifically to aid development of positive coparenting alliances between at-risk (unmarried, uncoupled, low income) African American mothers and fathers having a first baby together.
Detailed description
Seventy-five randomly-assigned control group families will receive county services as-usual (TAU) for pregnant parents and assistance of the partnering health and human service agencies with referrals to desired services, while 75 experimental group families will receive the same services and aid, plus a 6-session prenatal intervention with a post-natal booster session. The intervention addresses the importance of safe, healthy families for early infant development, the impact a cooperative and sustained coparenting alliance can have in promoting positive infant development, challenges unmarried parents face cultivating a coparenting alliance together when their commitment to one another as romantic or married partners is in doubt, and ways to surmount these obstacles, maintain rapport, and sustain a strong alliance. Participating families, both at intake (prior to the intervention) and then again at 3 and 12 months post-partum, will report beliefs about fatherhood; extent of depressive symptomatology; and quality of the mother-father partnership, including intimate partner violence (IPV). State-of-the-field coparenting observations will be conducted at each follow-up, along with new measures of perceived coparenting communication and respect, father engagement, parent stress, and (at 12 months) infant socioemotional adjustment. Analyses will examine impact of the intervention on promoting more supportive, coordinated post-partum coparenting alliances and more positive adult and infant outcomes. Exploratory analyses will examine questions relevant to father associations with child adjustment and whether the dyadic coparent intervention has an impact on IPV.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALFocused Coparenting Consultation
Six 90-minute sessions completed within 10 weeks address importance of coparenting for child development; overcoming challenges to coparenting collaboratively; anger and conflict management and communication skills. Parents develop a coparenting plan to support one another's involvement as parents to the baby. A 90-minute booster session one month after the baby's birth reinforces lessons learned in the 6-session intervention.
Sponsors
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
University of South Florida
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
14 Years to 60 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
An applicant is considered eligible if the pregnancy is the mother's first with the baby's father; the mother and father are unmarried; and reported income places at or below the county and state poverty line. The target population is African American, but mixed race parents may also enroll so long as at least one parent is African American. Minor parents will be recruited only if legally emancipated or with consent of their parent or guardian (with an exception allowed if minor parent is estranged from parent or LAR). If a potential participant reports a prior history of IPV, s/he may still be eligible for participation pending a more detailed assessment completed by trained project staff using the Danger Assessment Scale (Campbell, 2003).
Exclusion criteria
Families are excluded if either partner 1) has recently (within the past year) been arrested and convicted for violence (assault) perpetrated against someone other than a current or former partner who is the co-parent of one of their children; 2) demonstrates evidence of psychotic symptoms or suicidal ideation on the Brief Symptom Inventory; or 3) is deemed high risk or in need of more intensive intervention. Risk determination is made by weighing the parent's report on the Danger Assessment Scale (DAS). As a rule of thumb, DAS scores of 9 or higher result in automatic exclusion from the study. However, even with a score below 9, a parent may disclose one or more of the following issues during administration of the DAS - any of which would result in exclusion from the study: 1) parent reports requiring medical care because of significant injuries due to partner's violence, 2) parent says she fears for her life, 3) parent reports that the partner has threatened with a weapon and owns a gun or has a gun in the household; 4) parent reports that the partner has threatened to kill her; 5) parent reports that violence has escalated recently; 6) parent reports the partner's use of illicit drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamines, hallucinogens, or opiates.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Father Involvement as Assessed by the Father Involvement Scale (Coley & Moris, 2002) | 3 months post-partum | A composite score based on sum of items ranges between 6 to 24 with higher scores signifying greater paternal involvement. |
| Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Communication Subscale | 12 months post-partum compared to 3 months post-partum | Scores on Parenting Alliance Measure range from 20 to 100 with higher scores indicating more positive perceived alliance between parents. Scores on the Communication subscale range from 17 to 85. |
| Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Respect Subscale | 12 months post-partum compared to 3 months post-partum | Scores on Parenting Alliance Measure range from 20 to 100 with higher scores indicating more positive perceived alliance between parents. Scores on the Respect subscale range from 3 to 15. |
| Intimate Partner Violence as Assessed by the Psychological Aggression Scale of the Revised-Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996). | 12 months post-partum compared to 3 months post-partum | Scores on the Psychological Aggression Scale range from 0 to 175 and higher scores indicate more frequent acts of psychological aggression by partner. |
| Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Negative Emotionality Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 12 months post-partum | Items are rated on the following 3-point scale: (0) Not true/rarely, (1) Somewhat true/sometimes, and (2) Very true/often. A No opportunity code allows parents to indicate that they have not had the opportunity to observe certain behaviors (e.g., behavior with peers). Scores on Negative Emotionality scale which includes 13 items range from 0 to 26 with higher scores are considered indicative of a deficit or delay. |
| Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Aggression Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 12 months post-partum | Items are rated on the following 3-point scale: (0) Not true/rarely, (1) Somewhat true/sometimes, and (2) Very true/often. A No opportunity code allows parents to indicate that they have not had the opportunity to observe certain behaviors (e.g., behavior with peers). Scores on the Aggression Scale which includes 12 items range from 0 to 24 and higher scores are considered indicative of a deficit or delay. |
| Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Compliance Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 12 months post-partum | Items are rated on the following 3-point scale: (0) Not true/rarely, (1) Somewhat true/sometimes, and (2) Very true/often. A No opportunity code allows parents to indicate that they have not had the opportunity to observe certain behaviors (e.g., behavior with peers). Scores on Compliance Scale which includes 8 items range from 0 to16 with lower scores considered indicative of a deficit or delay. |
| Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Sleep Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 12 months post-partum | Items are rated on the following 3-point scale: (0) Not true/rarely, (1) Somewhat true/sometimes, and (2) Very true/often. A No opportunity code allows parents to indicate that they have not had the opportunity to observe certain behaviors (e.g., behavior with peers). Scores on the Sleep Scale which includes 5 items range from 0 to 10 with higher scores considered indicative of a deficit or delay. |
| Father Engagement as Assessed by the Activities With Child Scale (Cabrera et al., 2004). | 12 months post-partum | This self report consists of 34 items on which the parent reports the frequency with which the father was engaged in various activities with the child in the past month. Questions were answered on a Likert-type scale from 1 (more than once a day) to 6 (not at all); all items were reverse scored such that higher scores reflect more frequent activity. Father engagement is assessed across six sub-scales (Socialization - 11 items, Management- 3 items, Didactic - 7 items, Physical play/warmth - 6 items, Caregiving - 7 items) with composite scores computed by averaging responses across items. Scores range from 34 to 204 for the total scale. Higher scores reflect more frequent activity with the child. |
| System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Positive Communication Patterns | Prenatal and 3 months post-partum | Composite of SCID observational measures of positive mother-father interaction (Problem Solving Communication\*\*, Support\*\*, Cohesiveness\*, Withdrawal\*\*, Positive Affect\*\*) \* Couple variable, there is only one score for the couple. \*\* Individual variable, there are two separate scores for mothers and fathers separately. Each sub-scale scores range from 1 to 5. Total scale scores were combined by averaging the individual and couple scales, with higher scores indicating more positive patterns in couple interaction (total scale score range 1-5). Change from Prenatal to 3 months post-partum is evaluated. |
| System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Negative Communication Patterns | Prenatal and 3 months post-partum | Composite of SCID observational measures of negative mother-father interaction (Negative Escalation\*, Verbal Aggression\*\*, Attempts to Control\*\*, Negativity/conflict\*\*, Coerciveness\*\*, Dysphoric Affect\*\*) \* Couple variable, there is only one score for the couple. \*\* Individual variable, there are two separate scores for mothers and fathers separately. Each sub-scale scores range from 1 to 5. Total scale scores were combined by summing up the individual scales, with higher scores indicating more negative patterns in couple interaction. Each sub-scale scores range from 1 to 5. Total scale scores were combined by averaging the individual and couple scales, with higher scores indicating more positive patterns in couple interaction (total scale score range 1-5). Change from prenatal to 3 months post-partum is evaluated. |
| Coparenting and Family Rating Scale (CFRS) Coparent Solidarity/Family Harmony | 3 months post-partum | Composite of CFRS observational measures of warmth (range 1-7), cooperation (range 1-7), and sensitivity (range 1-7) and negatively loaded disengagement (range 1-7). Total scale scores were combined by averaging up the sub-scale scores, with higher values indicating better coparent solidarity/family harmony (total scale score range 1-7). |
| Coparenting and Family Rating Scale (CFRS) Coparent Negativity/Hostility & Competitiveness | 3 months post-partum | Composite CFRS observational measures of competition (range 1-7), over stimulation (range 1-7), and verbal sparring (range 1-5). Total scale scores were combined by averaging up the sub-scale scores, with higher values indicating better coparent solidarity/family harmony (total scale score range 1-7). |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Monitoring | 12 months compared to 3 months | To assess infant triangular capacities, multi-shift gaze patterns in which infant looks from one parent to another, and then rapidly redirects gaze back to the first parent after having shifted once were counted. Four categories of triangular bids were defined, which corresponded to the different affective configurations: triangular engagement (TE), triangular monitoring (TM), triangular tension (TT), and triangular protest (TP). When the affective configurations addressed to the parents were not in the same category, the one addressed to P2 was selected as determinant of the triangular bid category. |
| Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Tension | 12 months compared to 3 months | To assess infant triangular capacities, multi-shift gaze patterns in which infant looks from one parent to another, and then rapidly redirects gaze back to the first parent after having shifted once were counted. Four categories of triangular bids were defined, which corresponded to the different affective configurations: triangular engagement (TE), triangular monitoring (TM), triangular tension (TT), and triangular protest (TP). When the affective configurations addressed to the parents were not in the same category, the one addressed to P2 was selected as determinant of the triangular bid category. |
| Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Protest | 12 months compared to 3 months | To assess infant triangular capacities, multi-shift gaze patterns in which infant looks from one parent to another, and then rapidly redirects gaze back to the first parent after having shifted once were counted. Four categories of triangular bids were defined, which corresponded to the different affective configurations: triangular engagement (TE), triangular monitoring (TM), triangular tension (TT), and triangular protest (TP). When the affective configurations addressed to the parents were not in the same category, the one addressed to P2 was selected as determinant of the triangular bid category. |
| Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Engagement | 12 months compared to 3 months | To assess infant triangular capacities, multi-shift gaze patterns in which infant looks from one parent to another, and then rapidly redirects gaze back to the first parent after having shifted once were counted. Four categories of triangular bids were defined, which corresponded to the different affective configurations: triangular engagement (TE), triangular monitoring (TM), triangular tension (TT), and triangular protest (TP). When the affective configurations addressed to the parents were not in the same category, the one addressed to P2 was selected as determinant of the triangular bid category. |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | 3 months post-partum compared to baseline | Scores on EDS range from 0 to 30 with higher scores indicating more depressive symptoms in the past week. |
| Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Difficult Child Subscale | 12 months post-partum compared to 3 months post-partum | Scores range from 12 to 60 on each of the three sub-scales, and total score ranges from 36 to 180; high scores on the sub-scales and PSI-SF total score indicating greater levels of stress. |
| Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction Subscale | 12 months post-partum compared to 3 months post-partum | Scores range from 12 to 60 on each of the three sub-scales, and total score ranges from 36 to 180; high scores on the sub-scales and PSI-SF total score indicating greater levels of stress. |
| Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parental Distress Subscale | 12 months post-partum compared to 3 months post-partum | Scores range from 12 to 60 on each of the three sub-scales, and total score ranges from 36 to 180; high scores on the sub-scales and PSI-SF total score indicating greater levels of stress. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult Receipt of Treatment As Usual/Resource and Referral supports, plus opportunity to complete six 90-minute Focused Coparenting Consultation (FCC) sessions followed by one postnatal booster session designed to strengthen the mother-father coparenting alliance
Focused Coparenting Consultation: Six 90-minute sessions completed within 10 weeks address importance of coparenting for child development; overcoming challenges to coparenting collaboratively; anger and conflict management and communication skills. Parents develop a coparenting plan to support one another's involvement as parents to the baby. A 90-minute booster session one month after the baby's birth reinforces lessons learned in the 6-session intervention. | 140 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Receipt of TAU/Resource and Referral supports | 136 |
| Total | 276 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Adverse Event | 3 | 5 |
| Overall Study | Death of Baby | 3 | 1 |
| Overall Study | Didn't meet study criteria | 8 | 0 |
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 24 | 38 |
| Overall Study | Withdrawal by Subject | 12 | 6 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Control: Treatment as Usual | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 25.00 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.61 | 25.62 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.05 | 25.31 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.83 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 6 Participants | 0 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 134 Participants | 136 Participants | 270 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| History of Interpersonal Partner Violence (IPV) | 70 Participants | 86 Participants | 156 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 123 Participants | 117 Participants | 240 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 3 Participants | 3 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 14 Participants | 16 Participants | 30 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 70 Participants | 68 Participants | 138 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 70 Participants | 68 Participants | 138 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 3 / 140 | 1 / 136 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 140 | 0 / 136 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 17 / 140 | 10 / 136 |
Outcome results
Primary
Coparenting and Family Rating Scale (CFRS) Coparent Negativity/Hostility & Competitiveness
Composite CFRS observational measures of competition (range 1-7), over stimulation (range 1-7), and verbal sparring (range 1-5). Total scale scores were combined by averaging up the sub-scale scores, with higher values indicating better coparent solidarity/family harmony (total scale score range 1-7).
Time frame: 12 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Coparenting and Family Rating Scale (CFRS) Coparent Negativity/Hostility & Competitiveness | 0.90 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.3 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Coparenting and Family Rating Scale (CFRS) Coparent Negativity/Hostility & Competitiveness | 0.90 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.46 |
p-value: 0.85Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.77Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Coparenting and Family Rating Scale (CFRS) Coparent Negativity/Hostility & Competitiveness
Composite CFRS observational measures of competition (range 1-7), over stimulation (range 1-7), and verbal sparring (range 1-5). Total scale scores were combined by averaging up the sub-scale scores, with higher values indicating better coparent solidarity/family harmony (total scale score range 1-7).
Time frame: 3 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Coparenting and Family Rating Scale (CFRS) Coparent Negativity/Hostility & Competitiveness | 0.97 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.49 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Coparenting and Family Rating Scale (CFRS) Coparent Negativity/Hostility & Competitiveness | 0.94 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.45 |
p-value: 0.77Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.85Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Coparenting and Family Rating Scale (CFRS) Coparent Solidarity/Family Harmony
Composite of CFRS observational measures of warmth (range 1-7), cooperation (range 1-7), and sensitivity (range 1-7) and negatively loaded disengagement (range 1-7). Total scale scores were combined by averaging up the sub-scale scores, with higher values indicating better coparent solidarity/family harmony (total scale score range 1-7).
Time frame: 3 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Coparenting and Family Rating Scale (CFRS) Coparent Solidarity/Family Harmony | 1.55 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.6 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Coparenting and Family Rating Scale (CFRS) Coparent Solidarity/Family Harmony | 1.50 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.56 |
p-value: 0.81Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.56Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Coparenting and Family Rating Scale (CFRS) Coparent Solidarity/Family Harmony
Composite of CFRS observational measures of warmth (range 1-7), cooperation (range 1-7), and sensitivity (range 1-7) and negatively loaded disengagement (range 1-7). Total scale scores were combined by averaging up the sub-scale scores, with higher values indicating better coparent solidarity/family harmony (total scale score range 1-7).
Time frame: 12 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Coparenting and Family Rating Scale (CFRS) Coparent Solidarity/Family Harmony | 1.49 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.67 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Coparenting and Family Rating Scale (CFRS) Coparent Solidarity/Family Harmony | 1.32 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.62 |
p-value: 0.56Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.81Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Father Engagement as Assessed by the Activities With Child Scale (Cabrera et al., 2004).
This self report consists of 34 items on which the parent reports the frequency with which the father was engaged in various activities with the child in the past month. Questions were answered on a Likert-type scale from 1 (more than once a day) to 6 (not at all); all items were reverse scored such that higher scores reflect more frequent activity. Father engagement is assessed across six sub-scales (Socialization - 11 items, Management- 3 items, Didactic - 7 items, Physical play/warmth - 6 items, Caregiving - 7 items) with composite scores computed by averaging responses across items. Scores range from 34 to 204 for the total scale. Higher scores reflect more frequent activity with the child.
Time frame: 12 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Father Engagement as Assessed by the Activities With Child Scale (Cabrera et al., 2004). | 110.51 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 44.49 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Father Engagement as Assessed by the Activities With Child Scale (Cabrera et al., 2004). | 143.61 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.62 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Father Engagement as Assessed by the Activities With Child Scale (Cabrera et al., 2004). | 112.89 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 44.81 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Father Engagement as Assessed by the Activities With Child Scale (Cabrera et al., 2004). | 136.58 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.57 |
p-value: 0.88Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.38Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Father Involvement as Assessed by the Father Involvement Scale (Coley & Moris, 2002)
A composite score based on sum of items ranges between 6 to 24 with higher scores signifying greater paternal involvement.
Time frame: 3 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Father Involvement as Assessed by the Father Involvement Scale (Coley & Moris, 2002) | 20.21 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.21 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Father Involvement as Assessed by the Father Involvement Scale (Coley & Moris, 2002) | 21.78 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.01 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Father Involvement as Assessed by the Father Involvement Scale (Coley & Moris, 2002) | 18.15 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.43 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Father Involvement as Assessed by the Father Involvement Scale (Coley & Moris, 2002) | 21.25 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.38 |
p-value: 0.07Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: <0.001Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Aggression Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006)
Items are rated on the following 3-point scale: (0) Not true/rarely, (1) Somewhat true/sometimes, and (2) Very true/often. A No opportunity code allows parents to indicate that they have not had the opportunity to observe certain behaviors (e.g., behavior with peers). Scores on the Aggression Scale which includes 12 items range from 0 to 24 and higher scores are considered indicative of a deficit or delay.
Time frame: 12 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Aggression Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 12.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.09 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Aggression Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 18.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.54 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Aggression Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 17.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.93 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Aggression Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 14.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.08 |
p-value: 0.02Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.56Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Compliance Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006)
Items are rated on the following 3-point scale: (0) Not true/rarely, (1) Somewhat true/sometimes, and (2) Very true/often. A No opportunity code allows parents to indicate that they have not had the opportunity to observe certain behaviors (e.g., behavior with peers). Scores on Compliance Scale which includes 8 items range from 0 to16 with lower scores considered indicative of a deficit or delay.
Time frame: 12 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Compliance Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 9.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.67 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Compliance Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 8.63 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.09 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Compliance Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 8.53 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.47 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Compliance Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 9.06 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.16 |
p-value: 0.3Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.36Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Negative Emotionality Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006)
Items are rated on the following 3-point scale: (0) Not true/rarely, (1) Somewhat true/sometimes, and (2) Very true/often. A No opportunity code allows parents to indicate that they have not had the opportunity to observe certain behaviors (e.g., behavior with peers). Scores on Negative Emotionality scale which includes 13 items range from 0 to 26 with higher scores are considered indicative of a deficit or delay.
Time frame: 12 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Negative Emotionality Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 6.83 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.5 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Negative Emotionality Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 7.14 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.75 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Negative Emotionality Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 8.73 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.85 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Negative Emotionality Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 8.28 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.56 |
p-value: 0.24Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: <0.05ANOVA
Primary
Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Sleep Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006)
Items are rated on the following 3-point scale: (0) Not true/rarely, (1) Somewhat true/sometimes, and (2) Very true/often. A No opportunity code allows parents to indicate that they have not had the opportunity to observe certain behaviors (e.g., behavior with peers). Scores on the Sleep Scale which includes 5 items range from 0 to 10 with higher scores considered indicative of a deficit or delay.
Time frame: 12 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Sleep Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 8.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.68 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Sleep Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 7.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.92 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Sleep Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 9.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.88 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Infant Socio-emotional Competencies as Assessed by the Sleep Scale of the Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA; Carter & Briggs-Gowan, 2006) | 7.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.58 |
p-value: 0.17Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.48Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Intimate Partner Violence as Assessed by the Psychological Aggression Scale of the Revised-Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996).
Scores on the Psychological Aggression Scale range from 0 to 175 and higher scores indicate more frequent acts of psychological aggression by partner.
Time frame: 12 months post-partum compared to 3 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Intimate Partner Violence as Assessed by the Psychological Aggression Scale of the Revised-Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996). | 12 months | 11.91 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 14.36 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Intimate Partner Violence as Assessed by the Psychological Aggression Scale of the Revised-Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996). | 3 months | 12.26 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 20 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Intimate Partner Violence as Assessed by the Psychological Aggression Scale of the Revised-Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996). | 3 months | 6.91 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.19 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Intimate Partner Violence as Assessed by the Psychological Aggression Scale of the Revised-Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996). | 12 months | 14.51 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.06 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Intimate Partner Violence as Assessed by the Psychological Aggression Scale of the Revised-Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996). | 12 months | 20.21 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.23 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Intimate Partner Violence as Assessed by the Psychological Aggression Scale of the Revised-Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996). | 3 months | 17.22 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 22.32 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Intimate Partner Violence as Assessed by the Psychological Aggression Scale of the Revised-Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996). | 12 months | 15.17 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 26.9 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Intimate Partner Violence as Assessed by the Psychological Aggression Scale of the Revised-Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996). | 3 months | 15.16 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.97 |
Comparison: We analyzed the CTS scales Psychological Aggression and Physical Assault. Inspection of the latter in the raw data and descriptives showed extremely consistent selection of the lowest value of the scale (no incidents of assault) across all respondents, so we did not conduct inferential tests.p-value: 0.39Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: <0.005Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Communication Subscale
Scores on Parenting Alliance Measure range from 20 to 100 with higher scores indicating more positive perceived alliance between parents. Scores on the Communication subscale range from 17 to 85.
Time frame: 12 months post-partum compared to 3 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Communication Subscale | 3 months | 64.78 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 27.9 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Communication Subscale | 12 months | 71.58 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 14.43 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Communication Subscale | 12 months | 72.79 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 14.43 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Communication Subscale | 3 months | 65.52 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 29.1 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Communication Subscale | 3 months | 53.41 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.04 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Communication Subscale | 12 months | 68.81 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 15.42 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Communication Subscale | 3 months | 53.43 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 35.59 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Communication Subscale | 12 months | 72.50 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 15.44 |
p-value: <0.001Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: <0.001Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Respect Subscale
Scores on Parenting Alliance Measure range from 20 to 100 with higher scores indicating more positive perceived alliance between parents. Scores on the Respect subscale range from 3 to 15.
Time frame: 12 months post-partum compared to 3 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Respect Subscale | 12 months | 13.38 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.28 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Respect Subscale | 3 months | 11.67 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.02 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Respect Subscale | 3 months | 11.63 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.24 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Respect Subscale | 12 months | 13.40 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.3 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Respect Subscale | 12 months | 12.67 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.53 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Respect Subscale | 3 months | 10.13 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.61 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Respect Subscale | 12 months | 12.85 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.14 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Perceived Coparenting Solidarity as Measured by Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM) Respect Subscale | 3 months | 9.28 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.4 |
p-value: <0.05Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: <0.05Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Negative Communication Patterns
Composite of SCID observational measures of negative mother-father interaction (Negative Escalation\*, Verbal Aggression\*\*, Attempts to Control\*\*, Negativity/conflict\*\*, Coerciveness\*\*, Dysphoric Affect\*\*) \* Couple variable, there is only one score for the couple. \*\* Individual variable, there are two separate scores for mothers and fathers separately. Each sub-scale scores range from 1 to 5. Total scale scores were combined by averaging the individual and couple scales, with higher scores indicating more positive patterns in couple interaction (total scale score range 1-5). Change from prenatal to 12 months post-partum is evaluated.
Time frame: Prenatal and 12 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Negative Communication Patterns | Prenatal | 1.80 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.67 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Negative Communication Patterns | 12 months | 1.78 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.61 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Negative Communication Patterns | Prenatal | 1.85 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.73 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Negative Communication Patterns | 12 months | 1.91 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.67 |
p-value: 0.33Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.69Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Negative Communication Patterns
Composite of SCID observational measures of negative mother-father interaction (Negative Escalation\*, Verbal Aggression\*\*, Attempts to Control\*\*, Negativity/conflict\*\*, Coerciveness\*\*, Dysphoric Affect\*\*) \* Couple variable, there is only one score for the couple. \*\* Individual variable, there are two separate scores for mothers and fathers separately. Each sub-scale scores range from 1 to 5. Total scale scores were combined by summing up the individual scales, with higher scores indicating more negative patterns in couple interaction. Each sub-scale scores range from 1 to 5. Total scale scores were combined by averaging the individual and couple scales, with higher scores indicating more positive patterns in couple interaction (total scale score range 1-5). Change from prenatal to 3 months post-partum is evaluated.
Time frame: Prenatal and 3 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Negative Communication Patterns | Prenatal | 1.80 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.67 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Negative Communication Patterns | 3 months | 1.60 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.64 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Negative Communication Patterns | Prenatal | 1.85 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.73 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Negative Communication Patterns | 3 months | 2.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.69 |
p-value: 0.07Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.69Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Positive Communication Patterns
Composite of SCID observational measures of positive mother-father interaction (Problem Solving Communication\*\*, Support\*\*, Cohesiveness\*, Withdrawal\*\*, Positive Affect\*\*) \* Couple variable, there is only one score for the couple. \*\* Individual variable, there are two separate scores for mothers and fathers separately. Each sub-scale scores range from 1 to 5. Total scale scores were combined by averaging the individual and couple scales, with higher scores indicating more positive patterns in couple interaction (total scale score range 1-5). Change from Prenatal to 3 months post-partum is evaluated.
Time frame: Prenatal and 3 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Positive Communication Patterns | Prenatal | 2.46 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.76 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Positive Communication Patterns | 3 months | 2.25 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.45 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Positive Communication Patterns | Prenatal | 2.53 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.68 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Positive Communication Patterns | 3 months | 2.15 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.56 |
p-value: 0.32Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.53Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Positive Communication Patterns
Composite of SCID observational measures of positive mother-father interaction (Problem Solving Communication\*\*, Support\*\*, Cohesiveness\*, Withdrawal\*\*, Positive Affect\*\*) \* Couple variable, there is only one score for the couple. \*\* Individual variable, there are two separate scores for mothers and fathers separately. Each sub-scale scores range from 1 to 5. Total scale scores were combined by averaging the individual and couple scales, with higher scores indicating more positive patterns in couple interaction (total scale score range 1-5). Change from prenatal to 12 months post-partum is evaluated.
Time frame: Prenatal and 12 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Positive Communication Patterns | Prenatal | 2.46 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.76 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Positive Communication Patterns | 12 months | 2.05 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.66 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Positive Communication Patterns | Prenatal | 2.53 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.68 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID) Positive Communication Patterns | 12 months | 1.99 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.38 |
p-value: 0.22Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.53Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Engagement
To assess infant triangular capacities, multi-shift gaze patterns in which infant looks from one parent to another, and then rapidly redirects gaze back to the first parent after having shifted once were counted. Four categories of triangular bids were defined, which corresponded to the different affective configurations: triangular engagement (TE), triangular monitoring (TM), triangular tension (TT), and triangular protest (TP). When the affective configurations addressed to the parents were not in the same category, the one addressed to P2 was selected as determinant of the triangular bid category.
Time frame: 12 months compared to 3 months
Population: Parents dyads with their infants were analyzed. The triad is the unit of analysis, and thus the Overall Number of Participants reflects the total of father+mother+child participants - number of triads times the three participants in each family unit.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Engagement | 12 months | 2.85 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 2.79 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Engagement | 3 months | 0.14 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 0.54 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Engagement | 12 months | 1.77 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 2.39 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Engagement | 3 months | 0.17 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 0.38 |
p-value: 0.92Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.05Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Monitoring
To assess infant triangular capacities, multi-shift gaze patterns in which infant looks from one parent to another, and then rapidly redirects gaze back to the first parent after having shifted once were counted. Four categories of triangular bids were defined, which corresponded to the different affective configurations: triangular engagement (TE), triangular monitoring (TM), triangular tension (TT), and triangular protest (TP). When the affective configurations addressed to the parents were not in the same category, the one addressed to P2 was selected as determinant of the triangular bid category.
Time frame: 12 months compared to 3 months
Population: Parents dyads with their infants were analyzed. The triad is the unit of analysis, and thus the Overall Number of Participants reflects the total of father+mother+child participants - number of triads times the three participants in each family unit.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Monitoring | 12 months | 1.94 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 2.32 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Monitoring | 3 months | 0.97 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 1.7 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Monitoring | 3 months | 0.85 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 1.41 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Monitoring | 12 months | 2.46 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 3.31 |
p-value: 0.81Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.34Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Protest
To assess infant triangular capacities, multi-shift gaze patterns in which infant looks from one parent to another, and then rapidly redirects gaze back to the first parent after having shifted once were counted. Four categories of triangular bids were defined, which corresponded to the different affective configurations: triangular engagement (TE), triangular monitoring (TM), triangular tension (TT), and triangular protest (TP). When the affective configurations addressed to the parents were not in the same category, the one addressed to P2 was selected as determinant of the triangular bid category.
Time frame: 12 months compared to 3 months
Population: Parents dyads with their infants were analyzed. The triad is the unit of analysis, and thus the Overall Number of Participants reflects the total of father+mother+child participants - number of triads times the three participants in each family unit.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Protest | 12 months | 0.33 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 0.96 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Protest | 3 months | 0.08 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 0.28 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Protest | 12 months | 0.34 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 0.99 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Protest | 3 months | 0.11 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 0.37 |
p-value: 0.88Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.95Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Tension
To assess infant triangular capacities, multi-shift gaze patterns in which infant looks from one parent to another, and then rapidly redirects gaze back to the first parent after having shifted once were counted. Four categories of triangular bids were defined, which corresponded to the different affective configurations: triangular engagement (TE), triangular monitoring (TM), triangular tension (TT), and triangular protest (TP). When the affective configurations addressed to the parents were not in the same category, the one addressed to P2 was selected as determinant of the triangular bid category.
Time frame: 12 months compared to 3 months
Population: Parents dyads with their infants were analyzed. The triad is the unit of analysis, and thus the Overall Number of Participants reflects the total of father+mother+child participants - number of triads times the three participants in each family unit.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Tension | 12 months | 1.03 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 2.27 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Tension | 3 months | 0.25 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 0.5 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Tension | 12 months | 0.83 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 1.71 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Infant Eye Gaze Triangular Tension | 3 months | 0.34 Number of looks | Standard Deviation 1.17 |
p-value: 0.76Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.53Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified
Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Difficult Child Subscale
Scores range from 12 to 60 on each of the three sub-scales, and total score ranges from 36 to 180; high scores on the sub-scales and PSI-SF total score indicating greater levels of stress.
Time frame: 12 months post-partum compared to 3 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Difficult Child Subscale | 12 months | 21.60 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.99 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Difficult Child Subscale | 3 months | 16.48 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.36 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Difficult Child Subscale | 3 months | 18.95 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 7.92 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Difficult Child Subscale | 12 months | 23.02 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.99 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Difficult Child Subscale | 12 months | 22.26 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.51 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Difficult Child Subscale | 3 months | 17.22 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.57 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Difficult Child Subscale | 12 months | 23.37 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.45 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Difficult Child Subscale | 3 months | 20.40 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.25 |
p-value: 0.48Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.27Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified
Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parental Distress Subscale
Scores range from 12 to 60 on each of the three sub-scales, and total score ranges from 36 to 180; high scores on the sub-scales and PSI-SF total score indicating greater levels of stress.
Time frame: 12 months post-partum compared to 3 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parental Distress Subscale | 12 months | 25.07 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.91 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parental Distress Subscale | 3 months | 26.18 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.74 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parental Distress Subscale | 3 months | 23.40 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.41 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parental Distress Subscale | 12 months | 23.24 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parental Distress Subscale | 12 months | 25.26 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.23 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parental Distress Subscale | 3 months | 26.04 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.52 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parental Distress Subscale | 12 months | 25.49 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.27 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parental Distress Subscale | 3 months | 23.83 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.18 |
p-value: 0.65Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.5Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified
Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction Subscale
Scores range from 12 to 60 on each of the three sub-scales, and total score ranges from 36 to 180; high scores on the sub-scales and PSI-SF total score indicating greater levels of stress.
Time frame: 12 months post-partum compared to 3 months post-partum
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction Subscale | 12 months | 17.07 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.73 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction Subscale | 3 months | 20.82 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.19 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction Subscale | 3 months | 23.76 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 7.38 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction Subscale | 12 months | 19.51 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.18 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction Subscale | 12 months | 18.40 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.55 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction Subscale | 3 months | 21.06 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.25 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction Subscale | 12 months | 19.60 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.95 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Level of Individual Parenting Stress as Assessed by the Parenting Stress Index Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction Subscale | 3 months | 22.85 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.28 |
p-value: 0.01Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.58Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified
Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987)
Scores on EDS range from 0 to 30 with higher scores indicating more depressive symptoms in the past week.
Time frame: 12 months post-partum compared to Baseline
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | 12 months | 5.49 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.71 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | Baseline | 6.69 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.2 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | Baseline | 6.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.89 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | 12 months | 5.24 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.13 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | Baseline | 7.49 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.28 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | 12 months | 5.40 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.7 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | 12 months | 5.19 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.6 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | Baseline | 7.54 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.04 |
p-value: 0.68Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.07Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified
Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987)
Scores on EDS range from 0 to 30 with higher scores indicating more depressive symptoms in the past week.
Time frame: 3 months post-partum compared to baseline
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | 3 months | 4.72 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.3 |
| Intervention: Treatment as Usual + Focused Coparenting Consult | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | Baseline | 6.69 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.2 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | Baseline | 6.00 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.89 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | 3 months | 5.10 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.83 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | 3 months | 6.15 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.17 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Women | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | Baseline | 7.49 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.28 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | 3 months | 5.25 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.89 |
| Control: Treatment as Usual Men | Recent Depressive Symptomatology as Gauged by the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS; Cox et al., 1987) | Baseline | 7.54 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.04 |
p-value: 0.47Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.07Mixed Models Analysis