BACKGROUND: To conduct a systematic review of early intervention programs (0 to 5 years) utilising coaching practice characteristics, to identify (i) implementation fidelity; (ii) parent training processes, and (iii) outcome measures of capacity building in parents. The coaching practice characteristics of (1) joint planning, (2) observation, (3) action/practice, (4) reflection and (5) feedback identified by Rush and Shelden were utilised. METHOD: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was followed. A comprehensive search of 6 electronic databases was undertaken in March 2016 and updated in February 2018. RESULTS: Of 2397 articles, 18 papers met full inclusion criteria. Of these, 5 were randomised controlled trials. Only one specifically evaluated the impact of parent coaching versus therapist only delivered interventions. Risk of bias and study quality using Downs and Black checklist for clinical trial quality yielded the following descriptive ratings: seven studies: "poor" (scores 1 to 13); six studies: "fair" (scores 15 to 17); and five "good" (scores 20 to 24). CONCLUSION: Coaching in early intervention is well accepted. Nevertheless, this review identified a continued lack of operationalised definitions; inconsistency in the reporting of therapist training and adherence to active ingredients/coaching principles; and an absence of outcome measures focused on parent capacity.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help

• DOI
• PubMed
• PDF locator
• publisher