1

Coparenting Intervention Programs: A Systematic

Literature Review
Programas de intervención en coparentalidad: una revisión sistemática
de la literatura
Programas de intervenção em coparentalidade: uma revisão sistemática da literatura

Thaís Ramos de Carvalho

Lívia Lira de Lima Guerra
Psychology graduate program, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos (ufsCar)
Ligia de Santis
Psychology graduate program, University San Francisco (usf)
Elizabeth Joan Barham
Psychology graduate program, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos (ufsCar)

Doi: https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/apl/a.10330

Abstract April 2020 with no restrictions involving the date of

The coparenting relationship affects parents’ and chil- publication. The keywords used were “coparenting”,
dren’s socioemotional well-being. Thus, we reviewed combined with any of the following terms “training”,
evidence in the scientific literature to describe the ob- “intervention”, or “program”, in Portuguese, English,
jectives and organization of coparenting intervention and Spanish. Based on the study criteria 34 texts about
programs, to examine the design of these studies and 17 intervention programs were examined to gain in-
summarize evidence concerning the effectiveness of formation about research design, program objectives
these programs. The following electronic databases and format, topics covered, intervention strategies, and
were used: Bireme, Psycnet, Periódicos capes, and evidence of program effectiveness. We observed that
IndexPsi Periódicos. The review was carried out in an experimental design was used in two-thirds of the

Thaís Ramos de Carvalho orcid id: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3787-3396

Lívia Lira de Lima Guerra orcid id: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2534-4462
Ligia de Santis orcid id: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5127-3285
Elizabeth Joan Barham orcid id: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7270-4918
This study was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (capes) – Brazil - Financing Code 001
and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (fapesp), grant numbers 2015/25053-5 and 2017/26295-8.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare relevant to the content of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Thaís Ramos de Carvalho, Federal University of São Carlos, Department
of Psychology, Km 235 Washington Luís highway - SP-310, São Carlos, SP, Brazil 13565-905. Email: [email protected]

To cite this article: Carvalho, T. R. Guerra, L. L. L., Santis, L., & Barham, E. J. (2022). Coparenting intervention programs: A systematic
literature review. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 40(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/apl/a.10330

Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515 1
 Thaís Ramos de Carvalho, Lívia Lira de Lima Guerra, Ligia de Santis, Elizabeth Joan Barham

studies with pretest, posttest, and follow-up evaluations. mejorar habilidades como la regulación emocional, la
In many programs, parenting was also addressed. An comunicación bidireccional y la toma de decisiones
array of psychoeducational intervention strategies was conjunta. Los programas fueron eficaces para ayudar
used to improve abilities such as emotional regula- a los padres a desarrollar una relación de coparentali-
tion, bidirectional communication, and joint decision- dad más positiva (por ejemplo, aumentando el apoyo
making. The programs were effective in helping parents y reduciendo los conflictos) y mejorar su crianza (por
to develop a more positive coparenting relationship (for ejemplo, reduciendo las conductas de crianza duras),
example, by increasing support and reducing conflicts) con estudios longitudinales que indican la estabilidad
and to improve their parenting (by reducing harsh pa- de dichos efectos. Estos resultados muestran que la
renting behaviors), with longitudinal studies indicating coparentalidad puede mejorarse y que trabajar en esa
the stability of these effects. These findings indicate relación es una forma de fortalecer el bienestar socioe-
that coparenting can be improved and that working mocional de padres e hijos.
on the coparenting relationship is an important way of Palabras clave: coparentalidad; intervención; evalua-
strengthening the socioemotional well-being of parents ción; crianza; ajuste familiar.
and their children.
Keywords: Coparenting; intervention; evaluation; pa- Resumo
renting; family adjustment. A relação coparental afeta o bem-estar socioemocional
de pais e filhos. Dada a sua importância, revisamos as
Resumen evidências na literatura científica para descrever os ob-
La relación de coparentalidad afecta el bienestar so- jetivos e a organização dos programas de intervenção
cioemocional de padres e hijos. Dada su importancia, coparental que foram avaliados, examinamos o desenho
revisamos la evidencia en la literatura científica para dos estudos de avaliação e resumimos as evidências
describir los objetivos y la organización de los progra- sobre sua eficácia. Foram utilizadas as bases de dados
mas de intervención en coparentalidad que han sido eletrônicas Bireme, Psycnet, Periódicos capes e Pe-
evaluados, examinar el diseño de los estudios de evalua- riódicos IndexPsi. A revisão foi realizada em abril de
ción y resumir la evidencia relativa a la eficacia de estos. 2020, sem restrições quanto à data de publicação. As
Se utilizaron las bases de datos electrónicas Bireme, palavras-chave utilizadas foram “coparenting”, combi-
Psycnet, Periódicos capes y IndexPsi Periódicos. La nada com qualquer um dos seguintes termos: “training”,
revisión se realizó en abril del 2020, sin restricciones “intervention” ou “program” em português, inglês e
en la fecha de publicación. La palabra clave utilizada espanhol. Foram identificados 34 textos sobre 17 pro-
fue coparenting, combinada con cualquiera de los si- gramas de intervenção. Esses artigos foram revisados​​
guientes términos: training, intervention, o program. para obter informações sobre o desenho da pesquisa,
En portugués, inglés y español. Se identificaron 34 objetivos e formato do programa, tópicos abordados,
textos de 17 programas de intervención. Estos artículos estratégias de intervenção e evidências da eficácia do
fueron examinados para obtener información sobre el programa. Descobrimos que dois terços dos estudos
diseño de la investigación, los objetivos y el formato usaram um desenho experimental com avaliações
del programa, los temas tratados, las estrategias de in- prévias, posteriores e de acompanhamento. A paren-
tervención y la evidencia de la eficacia del programa. talidade também foi abordada em muitos programas.
Observamos que en dos tercios de los estudios se uti- Uma série de estratégias de intervenção psicoeducati-
lizó un diseño experimental con evaluaciones previas, vas foram utilizadas para melhorar habilidades como
posteriores y de seguimiento. En muchos programas a regulação emocional, comunicação bidirecional e
también se abordó la crianza de los hijos. Se utilizó una tomada de decisão conjunta. Os programas foram efi-
serie de estrategias de intervención psicoeducativas para cazes em ajudar os pais a desenvolver uma relação de

2 Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515
 Coparenting Intervention Programs: A Systematic Literature Review

coparentalidade mais positiva (por exemplo, aumen- biological parents or other primary caregivers)
tando o apoio e reduzindo conflitos) e melhorar sua who take joint responsibility for the welfare of a
parentalidade (por exemplo, reduzindo comportamentos particular child. Although there are some distinc-
parentais severos), com estudos longitudinais indicando tions, the authors of all three models indicate that
a estabilidade desses efeitos. Esses resultados indicam coparenting partners need to be able to deal with
que a coparentalidade pode ser aprimorada e que tra- differences in their opinions about parenting, to
balhar a relação coparental é uma forma de fortalecer express their approval and support for the other
o bem-estar socioemocional de pais e filhos. parent, to assume responsibilities for family-related
Palavras-chave: coparentalidade; intervenção; ava- tasks, and to avoid involving the child in interpa-
liação; parentalidade; ajustamento familiar. rental conflicts by using the child to help manage
conflicts or by forming an alliance to exclude or
disqualify the other parent.
The quality of family interactions has a strong In addition to describing and delimiting the
influence on positive human development (Cowan concept of coparenting, many researchers have
& Cowan, 2002; Minuchin, 1982; Minuchin et al., investigated how coparenting relates to family ad-
1999). Researchers have also observed that the justment. For example, coparenting has a strong in-
coparenting relationship seems to be a factor that fluence on parent-child relationships and parenting
influences other family relationships, affecting the practices. Margolin et al. (2001) indicated that the
socioemotional wellbeing of each family member extent to which parents collaborate with each other
(Feinberg, 2003; Margolin et al., 2001; McHale, (positive coparenting) influences how they interact
1995). A coparenting partner is a person who shares with their children and deal with stress related to
the long-term responsibility for caring for a child their parenting roles. Böing and Crepaldi (2016)
with another. Working closely with another person reported similar findings, indicating that approval of
on such a complex and significant task as this and the partner’s parenting was an important predictor
over such a long period of time, however, can be of parenting styles. The more strongly the mothers
difficult (Guerra et al., 2020). This leads to the endorsed their husband’s parenting behaviors, the
question: can we help parents (or other primary more likely they were to report that their husbands
caregivers) establish more positive coparenting used a reciprocal, democratic parenting style. In
relationships? In this study, we reviewed findings addition, the greater the occurrence of undermin-
on the design and effects of programs that aimed ing behaviors in the coparenting relationship, as
to help parents (or other parental figures) work reported by fathers, the higher the probability both
together to manage the tasks involved in raising parents would use an overly permissive style of
their children. parenting (Böing & Crepaldi, 2016).
Identifying coparenting programs is not a Going one step further to look at how the co-
straightforward task, as programs that address parenting relationship affects children’s deve-
coparenting have often been added to parenting lopmental outcomes, Teubert and Pinquart (2010)
programs (Shapiro et al., 2011). Thus, it is im- conducted a meta-analysis, examining 59 studies
portant to define coparenting. Three of the most in which statistical information was reported on the
widely cited theoretical models of coparenting relationship between coparenting and indicators of
were developed by Margolin et al. (2001), Feinberg child adjustment. Positive coparenting (high levels
(2003), and Van Egeren and Hawkins (2004). The of cooperation and agreement and low levels of
authors of these models understand coparenting conflict and triangulation) had a strong positive asso-
as the interactions between two individuals (the ciation with desirable child development outcomes

Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515 3
 Thaís Ramos de Carvalho, Lívia Lira de Lima Guerra, Ligia de Santis, Elizabeth Joan Barham

(social adjustment and emotional attachment), and and including elements related to coparenting
a strong negative association with undesirable out- in parenting programs. Evidence on the effec-
comes (internalizing and externalizing behavior tiveness of intervention programs that included
problems). A more robust analysis of the effects coparenting as one of its components points to
of coparenting was made by examining only the improvements for various family members and
results of longitudinal studies (nine studies with for key relationships in the family system, including
an average duration of 37 months). The authors the promotion of marital satisfaction, better par-
concluded that the way parents interact with each enting practices, self-regulation in infants, social
other to raise their children is significantly related competence in children, and parental self-efficacy
to the children’s psychological adjustment. (Feinberg & Kan, 2008; Feinberg et al., 2009;
However, according to Sifuentes and Bosa 2015). However, we were unable to find a review
(2010), although evidence for the importance of study that could provide researchers and practi-
coparenting has been widely reported, most re- tioners with an overview of the intervention pro-
search has been conducted with parents whose grams that have been evaluated, the quality of the
children have a normal trajectory of development studies conducted to evaluate these programs, dif-
progress. Thus, the authors questioned whether ferences in the target population for each program,
parents of children with special needs, such as and the outcomes that have been reported. Thus,
autism, require more elaborate adaptations in the the goal of this paper was to review the scientific
family context and in the coparenting relationship literature to describe the objectives and organi-
between the parents. Compared to children who zation of the coparenting intervention programs,
do not have special needs, raising a child with examine the design of the evaluation studies, and
special needs requires more intensive parenting summarize evidence concerning the effectiveness
involvement and a greater need for additional help, of these programs.
but to the extent that the parents can support each
other in establishing helpful ways to respond to
their child’s needs, the quality of the coparenting Method
relationship would still be expected to influence
parent and child outcomes. Data collection procedures
Considering this and other evidence that points
to the influence of a positive coparenting rela- In accordance with the prisma statement (Libera-
tionship on the psychological adjustment of the ti et al., 2009), a systematic review was carried out
parents and on important development outcomes in April 2020 using the following databases: Bireme,
for the children (Feinberg et al., 2009), researchers Psycnet, Periódicos capes, and IndexPsi Periódi-
and practitioners began to invest in finding ways to cos. No restrictions were used concerning the date
improve this relationship. In their study, Feinberg of publication. Considering the objectives of this
et al. (2009) presented strong evidence that address- study, the following keyword combinations were
ing coparenting and other family relationships in used: “coparenting” and “training,” “intervention,”
intervention programs can benefit family dynamics “program” in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. All
and child development. the keywords were inserted in the “subject” field.
In the years that followed, additional efforts No restrictions were imposed regarding the date
were made to improve coparenting relationships of publication, the use of a comparison or control
through the development of interventions fo- group, a particular outcome variable, or any other
cused directly on the coparenting relationship aspects of study design (Liberati et al., 2009).

4 Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515
 Coparenting Intervention Programs: A Systematic Literature Review

Based on the prisma statement, additional searches were discussed until consensus was reached). These
may be conducted when the researchers need additional criteria were: (a) the study was not about
more information about any of the studies in terms an intervention program, (b) the coparenting re-
of procedures, outcomes, or about the intervention lationship was not addressed in the intervention
programs themselves. program, and (c) no program evaluation results
were presented. Based on these criteria, another
Exclusion criteria six articles were excluded, resulting in the retention
of 32 studies for qualitative analysis. There was
During the first phase of the review, the titles 94.7 % agreement among the evaluators about the
and abstracts of each article were independently inclusion or exclusion of each study. At this point,
analyzed by two researchers to decide on the ex- two additional texts were included (Gaskin-Butler
clusion of studies. Disagreements were resolved by et al., 2015; Ward et al., 2017) to obtain information
reaching consensus in discussions that included a about topics covered and intervention strategies used
third researcher. Only scientific articles which had in two of the programs, as this information was not
undergone peer review and had the full version described in the initial set of articles. In Figure 1, we
available for download were considered. Of the present a summary of the criteria used to exclude
245 publications initially identified, 57 met these articles and the number of articles excluded based
criteria. Texts retrieved multiple times in different on each criterion.
databases were considered only once, reducing the
total number of papers to 38. Data analysis procedures
After considering these initial criteria, a group of
three researchers applied further exclusion criteria; To increase the quality of the data analysis
they read the 38 studies (once again, disagreements process, three researchers analyzed the content

Figure 1. Criteria and number of texts accepted

Source: Prepared by the authors following the model of Moher et al. (2009).

Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515 5
 Thaís Ramos de Carvalho, Lívia Lira de Lima Guerra, Ligia de Santis, Elizabeth Joan Barham

of the 34 selected articles, obtaining information et al., 2011), Understanding Dad (Fagan et al.,
that describes 17 intervention programs. To guide 2015), and an Unnamed program, conducted by
the analysis of the programs found in the different Takeishi et al. (2019).
studies, the following information was registered: Although all the programs were designed to
program objectives, research design used to eval- improve the coparenting relationship, some of them
uate each program, program format (number of had additional goals related to improving the
sessions, individual or group setting, and target marital relationship, parenting, and father involve-
participant characteristics), topics covered, in- ment. In addition, the PApi and obp sought to help
tervention strategies used, evidence of program parents with the process of emotional adaptation
effectiveness, and study limitations. to divorce, and the Fathers for Change program
worked on issues related to the reduction of vio-
lence and substance abuse. In Table 1, we present
Results a summary of the information we gathered, in-
cluding the name of each program, the country
Sufficient information was found to examine 17 where the programs were evaluated, information
intervention programs, presented in alphabetical about the program-evaluation research design,
order: Adaptation of the Incredible Years (Lina- program format, topics covered, and evidence of
res et al., 2006), Bringing Baby Home (bbh) (Shapiro the effectiveness of each program.
et al., 2011), Co-Parent Court (cpc) (Marczak et al., Most of the programs were conducted in the
2015), Coparenting Intervention (Doss et al., 2014), usa, with only four programs conducted in other
Couple Care for Parents (Petch et al., 2012), Dads countries (Japan, Australia, Portugal, and Canada).
for Life (dfl) (Cookston et al., 2007), Family The Japanese program was based on the Family
Foundations (ff) (Brown, Feinberg & Kan, 2012; Foundations program. Two thirds of the programs
Brown, Goslin & Feinberg, 2012; Feinberg et al., (64.7 %) were evaluated using an experimental
2009; Feinberg et al., 2010; Feinberg et al., 2014; study design (random assignment to intervention
Feinberg et al., 2015; Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler and control groups) with a pre-test, a post-test, and at
et al., 2016; Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al., 2016; least one follow-up evaluation. Replication studies
Feinberg & Kan, 2008; Jones et al., 2014; Jones were found for three programs: Family Foundations,
et al., 2018; Kan & Feinberg, 2015; Solmeyer et al., Prosaaf, and Together We Can.
2013), Fathers for Change (Stover, 2015), Figuring There were variations in the structure of the
It Out for the Child (fioc) (Gaskin-Butler et al., intervention programs, considering the number of
2015; McHale et al., 2015), Minnesota Early sessions (ranging from 2 to 24), format (group, in-
Learning Design (meld) (Fagan, 2008), Over- dividual, or mixed), and the topics covered. Nearly
coming Barriers Program (obp) (Saini, 2019; all the programs used a group intervention format,
Ward et al., 2017), Pais por inteiro (papi) [100 % often mixed with individual sessions; 12 of the pro-
parents] (Lamela et al., 2010), Promoting Strong grams were comparatively brief (up to 8 sessions).
African American Families Program (Prosaaf) The obp was conducted in a “camp” (or retreat) con-
(Beach et al., 2014; Lavner et al., 2019), Sup- text. Most of the programs were offered during the
porting Father Involvement (sfi) (Epstein et al., transition to parenthood period, but four programs
2015), Together We Can (twc) (Adler-Baeder et al., were designed for divorced parents, and one was
2016; Garneau & Adler-Baeder, 2015; Kirkland for parents with adolescent children.

6 Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515
 Coparenting Intervention Programs: A Systematic Literature Review

Table 1.
Brief description of the Coparenting Intervention Programs, study participants and design, topics addressed, and
evidence of program effectiveness

Program Description1 Topics2 Effectiveness

Coparenting: open
24 group sessions with
communication, conflict
biological and adoptive parents
1. Adaptation of resolution involving family Coparenting: improvements in
of neglected children who were
the Incredible visits, laundry, cleaning, family coparenting
in sheltered care
Years Program routines, and discipline Parenting: improvements in
N = 128, the majority were
usa Parenting: playing, praise, parenting
mothers
rewards, effective limit setting,
Pre, Post, Follow-up, eg, cg
how to deal with “bad behavior”
Coparenting: teamwork,
12 individual or dyadic sessions avoiding involving the child in
2. Bringing Baby Coparenting: reduction in
for parents expecting a child marital conflicts
Home negative aspects of coparenting
N = 181 Parenting: father involvement,
usa (competition)
Pre, Post, Follow-up, eg, cg child development
Marital relationship
Coparenting: coparenting skills,
learning to negotiate rules and Coparenting: improvements
4 individual and group sessions support in mothers’ perceptions of the
3. Co-Parent
with divorced parents Parenting: changes in attitudes coparenting relationship
Court
N = 178 mothers, 55 fathers and behaviors to promote Parenting: increase in the
usa
Pre, Post, Follow-up, eg, cg parenting, development of a amount of time that the fathers
parenting plan spent with their children
Family support: social assistance
Coparenting: preparation of a
coparenting plan (to manage
4 sessions for couples expecting
potential obstacles), impacts of
4. Coparenting their first child (between the 6th
postpartum depression, stress Coparenting: improvements in
Intervention and 8th month of pregnancy)
and anxiety for co-parenting, parenting alliance (for mothers)
usa N = 90 couples (180 parents)
problem solving
Pre, Post, Follow-up, eg, cg
Parenting: setting limits for the
child
Coparenting: communication, Parenting: reductions in
conflict management, parental intrusiveness and
6 sessions (1 prenatal group, 2 support from partners, stress hostility among high-risk
prenatal home visits; 1 postnatal management, expectations about women
5. Couple Care for
home visit, and 3 postnatal housework and baby care Couple: prevention of a
Parents
phone calls) Parenting: childcare knowledge reduction in relationship
Australia
N = 250 couples and skills satisfaction in high-risk women
Pre, Post, Follow-up, eg, cg Couple: balancing time for (tendency towards similar
couple, self, and family; effects for men); reduction in
affection and intimacy relationship stress
10 individual and group Coparenting: managing Coparenting: improvements
sessions with divorced fathers interparental conflict in perceptions of co-parental
6. Dads for Life (non-custodial or joint custody Parenting: father-child relation, support and general coparenting
usa fathers) parenting skills (listening, (for mothers)
N = 203 communication, and effective Couple: reduction in marital
Pre, Post, Follow-up, eg, cg discipline) conflicts

Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515 7
 Thaís Ramos de Carvalho, Lívia Lira de Lima Guerra, Ligia de Santis, Elizabeth Joan Barham

Program Description1 Topics2 Effectiveness

Coparenting: higher
coparenting support, closeness
Coparenting: emotional
Parenting: improvements in
5 prenatal and 4 postnatal group self-regulation, conflict
parental self-efficacy, reduction
sessions with couples expecting resolution, problem solving,
7. Family in parental stress
their first child communication, mutual support
Foundations Couple: higher marital
Study 1: N = 169; strategies for parenting, division
usa satisfaction
Study 2: N = 399 of labor
Others: reduction in depression
Pre, Post, Follow-up, R, eg, cg Parenting: providing emotional
and anxiety (mothers); better
security, child stimulation
sleep regulation and social
competence (children)
16 individual and group Coparenting: communication
Coparenting: no differences
sessions with fathers with co- Parenting: parenting skills;
8. Fathers for were found
occurrence of partner violence parenting role as a motivator for
Change Parenting: reduction in violence
and substance abuse change
usa and intrusive behaviors in the
N = 18 Self: strategies to reduce
father-child relationship
Pre, Post, Follow-up, eg, cg violence and substance abuse
Coparenting: communication,
active listening techniques, Coparenting: improvements
7 group sessions with anger management, conflict in communication, problem
9. Figuring It Out unmarried, African-American resolution, problem-solving, solving, support, positive affect,
for the Child parents rapport, solidarity, joint goal- and cohesion; reductions in
usa N = 20 setting aggression, coercion, attempts
Pre, Post Parenting: parental to control, negativity, and
consciousness-raising (insight), conflict
father involvement
Coparenting: division of
Coparenting: improvements
10. Minnesota 5 group sessions for fathers labor, communication, conflict
in parenting alliance,
Early Learning expecting a child resolution, and teamwork
communication, support
Design N = 154 Parenting: father involvement,
Parenting: improvements in
usa Pre, Post, Follow-up, eg, cg benefits of positive coparenting
father engagement
for babies
Coparenting: goals,
motivations, expectations,
changing cognitive distortions,
Coparenting: decrease in
emotional regulation,
conflicts between parents
11. Overcoming 40 participants communication, managing
Parenting: improvement in
Barriers (divorced or separated)3 conflicts using parallel
parent-child relationship (when
usa, Canada Pre, Post parenting or parenting
self-evaluations of participation
coordination
were positive)
Parenting: child safety,
managing and responding to
alienated child
12. Pais por 8 group sessions with divorced Coparenting: conflicts and Coparenting: improvements in
inteiro [100 % fathers (n = 7) and mothers coparenting negotiation quality of coparenting
parents] (n = 9) – not dyads Self: emotions involved in Self: improvements in
Portugal Pre, Post, eg, cg divorce adjustment to divorce

8 Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515
 Coparenting Intervention Programs: A Systematic Literature Review

Program Description1 Topics2 Effectiveness

Coparenting: communication,
expectations, rules, support,
conflict resolution, joint Coparenting: improvements
6 sessions for African-American
13. Promoting activities in co-parenting, reduction in
couples with pre-adolescent or
Strong African Parenting: child support, no arguing in front of adolescent
adolescent children
American nonsense parenting, everyday children
Study 1: N = 331
Families Program parenting (school issues, Couple: improvements
Study 2: N = 346 families
usa dangerous behaviors), ethnic in couple satisfaction and
Pre, Post, Follow-up, r, eg, cg
pride, emotional connections communication
Context: job stress, racism,
finances, extended family
Coparenting: quality of the
coparenting relationship
Self: individual mental health
16 group sessions with parents
14. Supporting and well-being
who had a youngest child up to Couple: reduction in conflict
Father Couple: quality of the marital
11 years old among couples who initially had
Involvement relationship
N = 371 high levels of conflict
usa Parenting: quality of the
Pre, Post, eg, cg
parenting relationship
Context: stressors of family life,
use of social support
Coparenting: improvements
in coparenting agreement
6 sessions for Afro-American
Coparenting: coparenting skills: (stepmothers); reduction in
and low-income mothers
caring for your partner, sharing, coparenting disagreements
15. Together We (n = 73), grandmothers
connecting, and managing Parenting: improvements
Can (n = 7); Study 2: 314
Parenting: parenting skills in parenting effectiveness;
usa low-income mothers; Study 3:
Self: choosing, knowing, caring reduction in use of punitive
96 stepparents
for yourself parenting behaviors
Pre, Post, Follow-up, r, eg, cg
Child: improvements in social
competence
Coparenting: effective
communication, conflict
16. Understanding 8 group sessions with mothers Parenting: improvements in
resolution, quality of the
Dad N = 34 self-efficacy, knowledge, and
relationship with the father
usa Pre, Post attitudes of mothers
Parenting: maternal influence on
father-child involvement
Coparenting: improvements in
coparenting support
Coparenting: conflict Child: improvements in child’s
17. Unnamed 2 sessions
resolution, problem solving, soothability
Japan N = 21 couples
communication, and mutual Couple: improvements in the
Pre, Post
support strategies couple relationship
Self: improvements in parents’
mental health
¹ Pre = pretest, Post = posttest, eg = experimental group, cg = control group, r = replication study
2
In addition to using information from the texts found through the systematic literature search, two additional references were used to com-
plete information on the topics covered and intervention strategies used in the fioc and Overcoming Barriers programs.
3
The references found did not indicate the number of sessions used to offer the program; they indicated that it was offered in a ‘camp’ (or
retreat) context.

Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515 9
 Thaís Ramos de Carvalho, Lívia Lira de Lima Guerra, Ligia de Santis, Elizabeth Joan Barham

The programs covered coparenting issues but couple’s relationship satisfaction were also re-
also offered guidance on topics such as parenting, ported for four of the programs.
the couple’s relationship, and participant’s well- Additional indirect effects of improvements in
being. In addition, most programs used a variety coparenting were also measured. Improvements
of intervention strategies, such as modeling (using in the parents’ emotional well-being (lower de-
videos or film clips), instructing (using program pression and anxiety, better adjustment to divorce)
pamphlets or participant manuals, readings, and were evaluated and confirmed for four programs.
discussions), behavioral training (via role-play Furthermore, the Family Foundations program
activities, games, working on communication was successful in establishing positive coparenting
strategies, teaching problem-solving techniques, relationships, as expected, which appears to have
improving stress and anger management abilities), buffered the negative impacts of parenting stress on
emotional involvement (using self-revelation), the mothers’ mental health (depression and anxiety
and tasks for establishing behavior changes in the symptoms), the babies’ birthweight, and the number
parents’ home environment (using homework and of days of hospitalization at birth. During follow-up
a coparenting plan). studies, further benefits for the children were ob-
The effects of the intervention programs were served, including greater soothability, better sleep
mostly evaluated using self-report instruments, regulation, and higher social competence.
although some researchers used observational mea- A buffering effect of coparenting was also re-
sures or interviews. In one study, the effects of the ported for the Coparenting Intervention program,
Family Foundations program were also tested using which was also effective in helping the parents
a biological measure (the parents’ cortisol levels). establish a good coparenting relationship. When
In three studies, however, although improving the this relationship was better, it contributed to pre-
coparenting relationship was a program goal, this venting unhealthy levels of perceived stress.
relationship was not evaluated. Improvements in Although many of the studies were of high scien-
the coparenting relationship were observed for 13 tific caliber, the authors of the studies we reviewed
of the 17 programs, with some researchers report- noted various research limitations. Some noted
ing general improvements while others indicated problems such as small sample sizes, non-represen-
changes in more specific areas of coparenting, tative samples regarding the phenomenon of interest
such as increased coparenting support, closeness, (truncated variance problems), non-generalizable
communication, and agreement, as well as reduc- effects due to targeting particular groups of parents
tions in coparenting disagreements and conflicts. (e. g., divorced, high-risk, or low-income parents/
Given that the quality of the coparenting rela- fathers), use of only one measurement method (e. g.,
tionship is intertwined with parenting behaviors only self-report instruments or only observational
and the quality of the marital relationship, we measures), use of instruments lacking studies to
also examined results related to these outcomes. examine evidence of validity, difficulties evaluating
Although not all the programs focused on parent- the effects of any specific component of the program
ing or the couple’s relationship, improvements in due to the use of a complex intervention strategy (for
parenting were reported for 9 of the 12 programs example, activities on coparenting and parenting),
that addressed parenting, including results such small effect sizes, not enough sessions focused on
as a greater sense of parenting self-efficacy, lower developing coparenting skills, no evaluation of
parental intrusiveness and hostility, higher father the effects of the program on the child, absence
engagement, and improvements in parent-child of a control group, no follow-up evaluation, and no
relationships. Significant improvements in the replication studies to confirm the results.

10 Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515
 Coparenting Intervention Programs: A Systematic Literature Review

Discussion lationship changes over time, as the children move

from one developmental stage to the next and
An important issue in intervention work on as the parents’ circumstances change. The results
family functioning is to decide who to work with of the intervention studies that were carried out
(the target population) and at what point in their with parents of older children (Frascarolo et al.,
lives. Many of the coparenting programs were of- 2018) and divorced parents (for example, Lamela
fered during the transition to parenthood period, as et al., 2010) signal that, even when the children
this is a phase when parents may be more open to are older and interparental conflict is higher, many
outside assistance and a time when they are actively parents can improve their coparenting relationship.
investing in constructing a positive coparenting According to Shapiro et al. (2011), most early
relationship (Feinberg, 2002; Feinberg et al., 2009). coparenting programs were designed to promote
Another finding that justifies working with parents a more collaborative relationship among divorced
during the transition to parenthood period is that rates parents. Later, researchers began to test coparent-
of depression, anxiety, and marital conflict usual- ing as a means of encouraging father involvement,
ly increase substantially during this period, with while others focused on promoting good quality
negative effects on child development (Feinberg coparenting relationships as the main objective
et al., 2009). of their intervention program. Despite this diver-
Another factor that varied across studies and sity, the structure of the programs was generally
programs was the target population—some re- similar to those of earlier studies in the area of
searchers worked with couples, while others worked family intervention research (Cowan & Cowan,
only with mothers or only with fathers. The Fathers 1995, 2002; Hawkins et al., 2008; Micham-Smith
for Change, meld, and dfl1 intervention programs & Henry, 2007).
were offered only to fathers; the Understanding In all the programs, at least one of the objectives
Dad program was offered only to mothers. The was to promote a more positive coparenting relation-
fact that a given program was offered to only one ship. However, most of the programs had additional
member of the parenting dyad does not mean that objectives, such as improving parenting behaviors
the program cannot be used with the other parent or the marital relationship. Complex problems, such
(or with both parents together). However, these as family adjustment, require multi-component
programs would need to be evaluated to establish intervention programs (Moore et al., 2015). The
their effectiveness with an expanded population. combination of objectives reflected the researchers’
Among the interventions that were offered to both expectations that better quality coparenting relation-
parents, one presented evidence of efficacy only ships, based on bidirectional communication and
for the mothers (the Coparenting Intervention pro- collaboration, can fortify their efforts to improve
gram), which also points to the need to understand parent-child interactions, as well as to develop the
differences in program efficacy related to the par- non-parenting components of the couple’s rela-
ticipant’s gender. tionship, as the associations between coparenting
Although prevention work during the transition and other family relationships have already been
to parenthood is of unquestionable importance, documented in the scientific literature (Barzel &
interventions that are appropriate for other stages Reid, 2011; Feinberg et al., 2007; Feinberg et al.,
of family life are also needed. The coparenting re- 2012; Morrill et al., 2010; Norlin & Broberg, 2013;
Pedro & Ribeiro, 2015; Venâncio, 2015).
1
Although the mothers were not invited to participate in these
In general, professional help aided the parents
programs, they completed the study measures. to improve interpersonal skills that are important

Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515 11
 Thaís Ramos de Carvalho, Lívia Lira de Lima Guerra, Ligia de Santis, Elizabeth Joan Barham

for coparenting, such as communication, problem parenthood. In the Family Foundations program,
solving, improving stress, anger management for example, stronger coparenting relationships
abilities, and being supportive. Most of the pro- attenuated mothers’ mental health problems and
grams were prepared by program developers who were also associated with a lower incidence of
organized activities based on a behavioral change problems related to the baby’s birth weight and
model that addresses links between thoughts, feel- of other complications that lead to extended hospi-
ings, and interpersonal behaviors (as described by tal stays. It is important to highlight, however, that
Moore et al., 2015). Thus, parents built up skills the number of replication studies and longitudinal
in a cumulative and integrative way, with each program-evaluation studies is still small.
skill increasing their ability to manage stressful Finally, it is important to consider the limita-
coparenting situations. tions of this review study linked to methodological
The intervention strategies used in the programs issues. The choice of keywords, databases, and
reviewed involved active learning techniques often languages contribute to finding studies on the
used in cognitive-behavioral therapy (Guerra et al., topic of interest, but there may be other studies
2020). These strategies included social learning that were not included in the present review that
strategies (such as modeling, instructing, behavioral describe additional results or other intervention
feedback, and social reinforcement), emotional en- programs focused on coparenting. Thus, review
gagement strategies (such as self-revelation), the studies that use other keywords and that cover
development of self-monitoring and self-regulation research published in other languages are needed
abilities (with respect to thoughts, feelings, and to add to the results found.
verbal behavior), and tasks to promote transferring
new skills to the home environment. These are im-
pactful strategies that can help people expand their Final considerations
interpersonal skills, leading to long-term benefits.
Although there were many differences among In this paper, we described intervention pro-
the programs, improvements in the coparenting re- grams that had, as one of their objectives, the
lationship were reported in most of the studies. This promotion of a positive coparenting relationship
provides evidence that the quality of the coparent- and examined evidence of the effectiveness of each
ing relationship can be improved using professional program. It is important for researchers and profes-
intervention techniques, such as the strategies sionals to have access to a summary of findings on
described in the programs we examined. A higher the effects of intervention programs that address
quality coparenting relationship helps parents work coparenting, so they can examine evidence about
together to negotiate the difficulties of raising a how to foster this relationship and about some of
child (Feinberg, 2003). the benefits of helping parents to interact positively
It also appears that improvements in coparenting with each other to raise their child.
were typically accompanied by improvements in The outcomes reported characterize an advance
parenting and satisfaction with the marital rela- in coparenting research, as the results of interven-
tionship, confirming that coparenting, parenting, tion studies, compared to correlational studies,
and the quality of the marital relationship, seem to offer more robust scientific evidence. We already
go hand in hand (Feinberg et al., 2009). Further- knew that coparenting was associated with family
more, for some programs, additional impacts were functioning (McHale & Rasmussen, 1998). Now we
evaluated, considering a variety of problems that know that it is possible to improve the coparent-
typically occur during the period of transition to ing relationship and that these improvements can

12 Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515
 Coparenting Intervention Programs: A Systematic Literature Review

help parents to interact more constructively with a more cooperative coparenting relationship affect
their children and with each other, not only in the the children as teenagers, the emotional well-being
coparenting relationship but also in their marital of young adults who have left their parents’ home,
relationship, contributing to the parents’ and their and coparenting behaviors when the grown-up
children’s socioemotional wellbeing. children become parents? The answers to these
The programs reviewed dealt with multiple questions may contribute to reducing long-standing
aspects of family life. Although the focus on co- social problems and to promoting more positive
parenting represents a relatively new contribution, socioemotional interactions in family contexts
it is important to realize that working only on co- and beyond.
parenting is probably not sufficient to reach the
reported outcomes for the children’s development
and for parents’ mental health. To make further References
progress in coparenting, we offer three suggestions.
First, coparenting programs should be evaluated in Adler-Baeder, F., Garneau, C., Vaughn, B., Mcgill,
a wider range of cultural contexts. Findings from a J., Harcourt, K. T., Ketring, S., & Smith, T.
greater number of countries will help to identify (2016). The effects of mother participation in
ways to improve them. In the present review, al- relationship education on coparenting, parenting,
though we searched for studies using North and and child social competence: Modeling spillo-
South American databases and were able to analyze ver effects for low-income minority preschool
texts written in English, Portuguese, or Spanish, children. Family Process, 57(1), 1–18. http://
only four of the studies we reviewed were con- doi.org/10.1111/famp.12267
ducted outside the USA. Barzel, M., & Reid, G. J. (2011). A preliminary
Additionally, given the rapid evolution of tech- examination of the psychometric properties
nologies and the increasing use of these tools, it of the Coparenting Questionnaire and the Dia-
will be important to develop interventions that can betes-Specific Coparenting Questionnaire in
be applied in multiple formats (such as face-to- families of children with Type I diabetes. Journal
face and online versions). This could favor the of Pediatric Psychology, 36(5), 606–617. http://
dissemination of these programs, permitting not doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsq103
only an increase in the number of people assisted Beach, S. R. H., Barton, A.W., Lei, M. K., Brody,
but also leading to the possibility of reaching a G. H., Kogan, S. M., Hurt, T. R., Fincham,
greater range of people. Some parents are more F. D., & Stanley, S. M. (2014). The effect of
likely to benefit from in-person programs at lo- communication change on long-term reductions
cal community centers, while others, for logistical in child exposure to conflict: Impact of the
reasons, can more easily participate if they do not Promoting Strong African American Families
have to travel or leave work early. (Prosaaf) program. Family Process, 53(4),
Finally, given that research on coparenting 580–595. http://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12085
programs is still at an intermediate stage of evi- Böing, E., & Crepaldi, M. A. (2016). Relação pais e
dence-gathering, researchers should invest in con- filhos: compreendendo o interjogo das relações
ducting longitudinal studies. For example, can parentais e coparentais. Educar em Revista, 59,
programs such as the ones reviewed permanently 17–33. http://doi.org/10.1590/0104-4060.44615
interrupt the transmission of interpersonal behaviors Brown, L. D., Feinberg, M. E., & Kan, M. L.
that lead to intimate partner violence, parental de- (2012). Predicting engagement in a transition
pression, divorce, and harsh parenting? How does to parenthood program for couples. Evaluation

Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515 13
 Thaís Ramos de Carvalho, Lívia Lira de Lima Guerra, Ligia de Santis, Elizabeth Joan Barham

and Program Planning, 35, 1–8. http://doi. cess, 54(4), 581–589. http://doi.org/10.1111/
org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.05.001 famp.12137
Brown, L. D., Goslin, M. C., & Feinberg, M. E. Feinberg, M. E. (2002). Coparenting and the tran-
(2012). Relating engagement to outcomes in sition to parenthood: A framework for preven-
prevention: The case of a parenting program
tion. Clinical Child and Family Psychology
for couples. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 50, 17–25. http://doi.org/10.1007/ Review, 5, 173–195. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:
s10464-011-9467-5 1019695015110
Cookston, J. T., Braver, S. L., Griffin, W. A., De Lusé, Feinberg, M. E. (2003). The internal structure and
S. R., & Miles, J. C. (2007). Effects of the dads ecological context of coparenting: A framework
for life intervention on interparental conflict and for research and intervention. Parent: Scien-
coparenting in the first two years after divorce. ce and Practice, 3(2), 95–131. http://doi.
Family Process, 46(1), 123–137. http://doi. org/10.1207/S15327922PAR0302_01
org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2006.00196.x Feinberg, M. E., Brown, L. D., & Kan, M. L. (2012). A
Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1995). Interventions to multi-domain self-report measure of coparenting.
ease the transition to parenthood: Why they are Parenting, Science and Practice, 12(1), 1–21.
needed and what they can do. Family Relations: http://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.638870
Journal of Applied Family & Child Studies, Feinberg, M. E., Jones, D. E., Hostetler, M. L., Roe-
44(4), 412–423. http://doi.org/10.2307/584997 ttger, M. E., Paul, I. M., & Ehrenthal, D. B.
Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2002). Interventions (2016). Couple-focused prevention at the tran-
as tests of family systems theories: Marital sition to parenthood, a randomized trial: Effects
and family relationships in children’s deve- on coparenting, parenting, family violence,
lopment. Development and Psychopatholo- and parent and child adjustment. Society for
gy, 14(4), 731–759. http://doi.org/10.1017/ Prevention Research, 17, 751–764. http://doi.
S0954579402004054 org/10.1007/s11121-016-0674-z
Doss, B. D., Cicila, L. N., Hsueh, A. C., Morrison, K. Feinberg, M. E., Jones, D. E., Kan, M. L., & Goslin,
R., & Carhart, K. (2014). A randomized contro- M. C. (2010). Effects of family foundations on
lled trial of brief coparenting and relationship parents and children: 3.5 years after baseline.
interventions during the transition to paren- Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5), 532–542.
thood. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(4), http://doi.org/10.1037/a0020837
483–494. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0037311 Feinberg, M. E., Jones, D. E., Roettger, M. E.,
Epstein, K., Pruett, M. K., Cowan, P., Cowan, C., Hostetler, M. L., Sakuma, K., Paul, I. M., &
Pradhan, L., Mah, E., & Pruett, K. (2015). More Ehrenthal, D. B. (2016). Preventive effects on
than one way to get there: Pathways of change birth outcomes: Buffering impact on maternal
in coparenting conflict after a preventive in- stress, depression, and anxiety. Maternal and
tervention. Family Process, 54(4), 610–618. Child Health Journal, 20, 56–65. http://doi.
http://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12138 org/10.1007/s10995-015-1801-3
Fagan, J. (2008). Randomized study of a pre-birth co- Feinberg, M. E., Jones, D. E., Roettger, M. E., Sol-
parenting intervention with adolescent and young meyer, A. R., & Hostetler, M. L. (2014). Long-
fathers. Family Relations, 57(3), 309–323. ht- term follow-up of a randomized trial of family
tp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00502.x foundations: Effects on children’s emotional,
Fagan, J., Cherson, M., Brown, C., & Vecere, E. behavioral, and school adjustment. Journal of
(2015). Pilot study of a program to increase Family Psychology, 28(6), 821–831. http://doi.
mothers’ understanding of dads. Family Pro- org/10.1037/fam0000037

14 Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515
 Coparenting Intervention Programs: A Systematic Literature Review

Feinberg, M. E., & Kan, M. L. (2008). Establishing em coparentalidade: tópicos abordados e técni-
family foundations: Intervention effects on cas cognitivo-comportamentais utilizadas. In
coparenting, parent/infant well-being, and pa- B. Cardoso & K. Paim (Eds.), Terapias cogni-
rent-child relations. Journal of Family Psycholo- tivo-comportamentais para casais e famílias:
gy, 22(2), 253–263. http://doi.org/10.1037/0893- bases teóricas, pesquisas e intervenções (pp.
3200.22.2.253 397–420). Synopsis.
Feinberg M. E., Kan M. L., & Goslin M. C. (2009). Hawkins, A. J., Lovejoy, K. R., Holmes, E. K., Blan-
Enhancing coparenting, parenting, and child chard, V. L., & Fawcett, E. (2008). Increasing
self-regulation: Effects of family foundations fathers’ involvement in childcare with a cou-
1 year after birth. Prevention Science, 10, 276– ple-focused intervention during the transition to
285. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-009-0130-4 parenthood. Family Relations, 57(1), 49–59. ht-
Feinberg, M. E., Kan, M. L., & Hetherington, E. M. tp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00482.x
(2007). The longitudinal influence of coparen- Jones, D. E., Feinberg, M. E., & Hostetler, M.
ting conflict on parental negativity and adoles- L. (2014). Costs to implement an effective
cent maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and transition-to-parenthood program for cou-
Family, 69(3), 687–702. http://doi.org/10.1111/ ples: Analysis of the Family Foundations
j.1741-3737.2007.00400.x program. Evaluation and Program Planning,
Feinberg, M. E., Roettger, M. E., Jones, D. E., Paul, I. 44, 59–67. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprog-
M., & Kan, M. L. (2015). Effects of a psychoso- plan.2014.02.001
cial couple-based prevention program on adver- Jones, D., Feinberg, M., Hostetler, M., Roettger, M.,
se birth outcomes. Maternal and Child Health Paul, I. M., & Ehrenthal, D. B. (2018). Family
Journal, 19, 102–111. http://doi.org/10.1007/ and child outcomes 2 years after a transition
s10995-014-1500-5 to parenthood intervention. Family Relations,
Frascarolo, F., Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., & Philipp, D. 67(2), 270–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/fa-
(2018). The child and the couple: From zero to re.12309
fifteen. Journal of Child and Family Studies, Kan, M. L., & Feinberg, M. E. (2015). Impacts of
27, 3073–3084. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10826- a coparenting-focused intervention on links
018-1090-8 between pre-birth intimate partner violence and
Garneau, C. L., & Adler-Baeder, F. (2015). Chan- observed parenting. Journal of Family Violence,
ges in stepparents’ coparenting and parenting 30, 363–372. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-
following participation in a community-based 015-9678-x
relationship education program. Family Pro- Kirkland, C. L., Skuban, E. M., Adler-Baeder, F.,
cess, 54(4), 590–599. http://doi.org/10.1111/ Ketring, S. A., Bradford, A., Smith, T., & Lu-
famp.12133 cier-Greer, M. (2011). Effects of relationship/
Gaskin-Butler, V. T., McKay, K., Gallardo, G., marriage education on co-parenting and chil-
Salman-Engin, S., Little, T., & McHale, J. P. dren’s social skills: Examining rural minority
(2015). Thinking 3 rather than 2 + 1: How a parents’ experiences. Early Childhood Research
coparenting framework can transform infant and Practice, 13(2). https://ecrp.illinois.edu/
mental health efforts with unmarried African v13n2/kirkland.html
American parents. From Zero to Three, 35(5), Lamela, D., Castro, M., & Figueiredo, B. (2010).
49–58. http://hdl.handle.net/11693/48858 Pais por inteiro: Preliminary evaluation of the
Guerra, L. L. L., Carvalho, T. R. C., Santis, L., & effectiveness of a group intervention for di-
Barham, E. J. (2020). Programas de intervenção vorced parents. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica,

Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515 15
 Thaís Ramos de Carvalho, Lívia Lira de Lima Guerra, Ligia de Santis, Elizabeth Joan Barham

23(2), 334–344. http://doi.org/10.1590/S0102- McHale, J. P., Salman-Engin, S., & Coovert, M.

79722010000200016 D. (2015). Improvements in unmarried Afri-
Lavner, J. A., Barton, A. W., & Beach, S. R. H. (2019). can-American parents’ rapport, communication,
Improving couples’ relationship functioning and problem-solving following a prenatal co-
leads to improved coparenting: A randomized parenting intervention. Family Process, 54(4),
controlled trial with rural African American 619–629. http://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12147
couples. Behavior Therapy, 50(6), 1016–1029. Mitcham-Smith, M., & Henry, W. J. (2007). High
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2018.12.006 conflict divorce solutions: Parents’ coordination
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, as an innovative coparenting intervention. The
C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, Family Journal, 15(4), 368–373. http://doi.
M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, org/10.1177/1066480707303751
D. (2009). The prisma statement for reporting Minuchin, S. (1982). Families: Functioning and
systematic reviews and meta-analyses of stu- Treatment (Jurema Alcides Cunha, Trad.). Artes
dies that evaluate health care interventions: Médicas.
Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, Minuchin, P., Colapinto, J., & Minuchin, S. (1999).
6(7), Article e1000100. http://doi.org/10.1371/ Working with poor families. Artes Médicas.
journal.pmed.1000100 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., &
Linares, L. O., Montalto, D. M., Li, M., & Oza, V. The prisma Group (2009). Preferred reporting
S. O. (2006). A promising parenting interven- items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:
tion in foster care. Journal of Consulting and The prisma statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), Arti-
Clinical Psychology, 74(1), 32–41. http://doi. cle e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.1.32 pmed.1000097
Marczak, M. S., Becher, E. H., Hardman, A. M., Galos, Moore, G. F., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bo-
D. L., & Ruhland, E. R. (2015). Strengthening nell, C., Hardeman, W., Moore, L., O’Cathain,
the role of unmarried fathers: Findings from the A., Tinati, T., Wight, D., & Baird, J. (2015).
co-parent court project. Family Process, 54(4), Process evaluation of complex interventions:
630–638. http://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12134 Medical Research Council guidance. British
Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & John, R. S. (2001). Medical Journal, 350, Article h1258. https://
Coparenting: A link between marital conflict doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1258
and parenting in two-parent families. Journal Morril, M. I., Hines, D. A., Mahmood, S., & Córdova, J.
of Family Psychology, 15(1), 3–21. http://doi. V. (2010). Pathways between marriage and pa-
org/10.1037/0893-3200.15.1.3 renting for wives and husbands: The role of co-
McHale, J. P. (1995). Coparenting and triadic interac- parenting. Family Processes, 49(1), 59–73. http://
tions during infancy: The roles of marital distress doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01308.x
and child gender. Developmental Psychology, Norlin, D., & Broberg, M. (2013). Parents of chil-
31(6), 985–996. http://doi.org/10.1037/0012- dren with and without intellectual disability:
1649.31.6.985 Couple relationship and individual well-being.
McHale, J. P., & Rasmussen, J. L. (1998). Copar- Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,
ental and family group-level dynamics during 57(6), 552–566. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
infancy: Early family precursors of child and 2788.2012.01564.x
family functioning during preschool. Develop- Pedro, M. F., & Ribeiro, M. T. (2015). Portuguese
ment and Psychopathology, 10(1), 39–59. http:// adaptation of the coparenting questionnaire:
doi.org/10.1017/S0954579498001527 Confirmatory factor analysis and validity and

16 Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515
 Coparenting Intervention Programs: A Systematic Literature Review

reliability studies. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, Stover, C. S. (2015). Fathers for change for substance
28(1), 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678- use and intimate partner violence: Initial com-
7153.201528113 munity pilot. Family Process, 54(4), 600–609.
Petch, J. F., Halford, W. K., Creedy, D. K., & Gam- http://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12136
ble, J. (2012). A randomized controlled trial of Takeishi, Y., Nakamura, Y., Kawajiri, M., Atoga-
a couple relationship and coparenting program mi, F., & Yoshizawa, T. (2019). Developing a
(Couple care for Parents) for high- and low- prenatal couple education program focusing
risk new parents. Journal of Consulting and on coparenting for Japanese couples: A quasi-
Clinical Psychology, 80(4), 662–673. http:// experimental study. The Tohoku Journal of
doi.org/10.1037/a0028781 Experimental Medicine, 249(1), 9–17. http://
Saini, M. (2019). Strengthening coparenting relation- doi.org/10.1620/tjem.249.9
ships to improve strained parent–child relation- Teubert, D., & Pinquart, M. (2010). The association
ships: A follow-up study of parents’ experiences between coparenting and child adjustment: A
of attending the Overcoming Barriers Program. meta-analysis. Parenting: Science and Practice,
Family Court Review, 57(2), 217–230. http:// 10(4), 286–307. http://doi.org/10.1080/15295
doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12405 192.2010.492040
Shapiro, A. F., Nahm, E. Y., Gottman, J. M., & Con- Van Egeren, L., & Hawkins, D. (2004). Coming to
tent, K. (2011). Bringing baby home together: terms with coparenting: Implications of defini-
Examining the impact of a couple-focused tion and measurement. Journal of Adult Deve-
intervention on the dynamics within family lopment, 11, 165–178. http://doi.org/10.1023/
play. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, B:JADE.0000035625.74672.0b
81(3), 337–350. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939- Venâncio, A. B. (2015). Envolvimento paterno, co-
0025.2011.01102.x parentalidade e equilíbrio trabalho-família:
Sifuentes, M., & Bosa, C. A. (2010). Criando pré-es- um estudo correlacional (Master’s disserta-
colares com autismo: Características e desa- tion, Lisbon University). http://repositorio.
fios da coparentalidade. Psicologia em Estu- ul.pt/bitstream/10451/23012/1/ulfpie047627_
do, 15(3), 477–485. www.redalyc.org/articulo. tm.pdf
oa?id=287122134005 Ward, P., Deutsch, R. M., & Sullivan, M. J. (2017).
Solmeyer, A. R., Feinberg, M. E., Coffman, D. L., & Overview of the Overcoming Barriers Approach.
Jones, D. E. (2013). The effects of the Family In A. M. Judge & R. M. Deutsch (Eds.), Over-
Foundations Prevention Program on coparenting coming parent-child contact problems: Family-
and child adjustment: A mediation analysis. based interventions for resistance, rejection,
Society for Prevention Research, 15, 213–223. and alienation (pp. 131–151). Oxford Uni-
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0366-x versity Press.

Received: February 7, 2022

Approved: September 2, 2022

Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana / Bogotá (Colombia) / Vol. 40(2) / pp. 1-17 / 2022 / ISSNe2145-4515 17