Table 4 Effectiveness on mother - infant dyadic outcomes
Mother- infant dyadic outcomes | Review | Intervention | Effectiveness on the outcome | Additional information on impact | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Positive impact | No impact | Inconclusive | ||||
Quality of the mother–infant relationship | Evans et al., 2014 [26] | SM, NSTEP-P, KC, TH, MITP | √ | – | – | Effect sizes ranged from small, 0.38 to large, 2.81 |
Symmetrical co-regulation | KC | √ | – | – | large effect size 2.72 | |
Asymmetrical co-regulation | KC | √ | – | – | large effect size −2.81 | |
Mutual attention | MITP | √ | – | – | large effect size 1.95 | |
Maternal sensitivity and/or responsiveness in interactions with the infant | Benzies et al., 2013 [30] | PBIP, COPE, MITP, M-MITP, NSTEP-P | – | – | √ | Overall effect was not significant. Pooled effect Z = 1.84 (P = 0.07). Included studies showed positive effect of MITP and M-MITP |
Zhang et al., 2014 [24] | H-HOPE, MITP, COPE, EI | √ |  |  | No effect size reported | |
Mother –infant attachment | McGregor et al., 2012 [35] | KC | √ | – | – | Five of the six studies reported significant improvements |
Mother-infant interaction | Goyal et al., 2013 [33] | Home based interventions (unspecified) | √ | – | – | No effect size reported. 13 of the 14 studies reported positive intervention effect on any parent-infant interaction measures |
McGregor et al., 2012 [35] | KC | √ | – | – | At 6 months, mother-infant interactions were significantly more optimal for the KC group (p < 0.05). | |
Zhang et al., 2014 [24] | MITP, M-MITP, COPE, H-HOPE, EI | √ | – | – | No effect size reported | |