Influences on Fathers’ Information- and Support-Seeking for Parenting

Abstract

The study aimed to document the preferences of fathers in accessing and using parenting supports and to investigate the influence of a range of family contextual factors including paternal mental health, child disability, the co-parenting relationship and parenting sense of efficacy on fathers’ help-seeking. Participants included a representative sample of 1,044 fathers of zero- to 18-year-olds. Results suggest that most fathers feel supported in their parenting role and rely on their own efforts (e.g. online searches) for information to support their parenting in preference to in-person interactions with professionals or attendance at groups. The co-parenting relationship and paternal mental health were also identified as important factors impacting on paternal help-seeking behaviours. These results from one of the largest surveys of fathers of its kind provide credible insights into the parenting help-seeking experiences and support needs of fathers, with clear implications for policy makers and service providers.

Keywords

fathers parenting help-seeking mental health co-parenting self-efficacy

Expectations of fathers in relation to their involvement in parenting activities and their use of parenting supports have increased over recent decades (see Burgess, 2007). One consequence of these increased expectations has been the tendency to focus research efforts on quantifying the impact of fathers' attempts to balance work and family life, and on addressing correlates of fathers’ low rates of engagement with parenting programs (Panter-Brick et al., 2014), and more recently, examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on fathers’ time spent in interactions with their children (e.g. Craig & Churchill, 2021). Less is known about how parenting information and advice is best provided to fathers, or what factors may influence parenting information-seeking and support-seeking (referred to subsequently as ‘help-seeking’) among fathers. Addressing this paucity of research about the parenting help-seeking behaviours and preferences of fathers, the current study examines the experiences of a large representative sample of fathers of children from birth to 18 years.

Research attests to generally lower rates of help-seeking and support use by men compared to women (e.g. Berger, Addis, Green, Mackowiak & Goldberg, 2013) and this also appears to hold true for fathers compared with mothers (e.g. Bögels & Phares, 2008; Fabiano, 2007; Flippin & Crais, 2011; Isacco Hofscher & Molloy, 2016). Yet, father involvement in parenting interventions has been found to be important to children’s wellbeing and to the effectiveness of parenting programs. Where fathers are included in parenting interventions, there are benefits for fathers, children, mothers and the family more broadly (e.g. Bagner, 2013; Bagner & Eyberg, 2003; Burgess, 2009; Panter-Brick et al., 2014). Benefits include enhanced parenting skills and knowledge, increased confidence, satisfaction and self-efficacy in the parenting role, reductions in parenting stress (e.g. Burgess, 2009), improved child behaviour (e.g. Lundahl, Tollefson, Risser, & Lovejoy, 2008), improved family functioning and a stronger co-parenting relationship (e.g. Ireland, Sanders, & Markie-Dadds, 2003; Lee & Hunsley, 2006). Father involvement in parenting interventions has also been demonstrated to increase social support within the family unit and improve consistency in parenting approaches following intervention (e.g. Tiano & McNeil, 2005). Father involvement in parenting programs may reduce program drop-out and sustain positive outcomes following intervention (e.g. Bagner & Eyberg, 2003; Lundahl et al., 2008; Webster-Stratton, 1985). Involving both parents in parenting programs has benefits beyond those seen when just one parent is involved in the program (e.g. Bagner, 2013).

There is a growing body of evidence which describes the impact of a range of factors on fathers’ participation in parenting interventions including program and service characteristics (Lechowicz et al., 2019; Palm & Fagan, 2008; Panter-Brick et al., 2014), practitioners’ knowledge and beliefs regarding father involvement (Berlyn, 2008; McBride & Rane, 1997) and contextual factors such as hours of employment (Berlyn, 2008), socio-economic status (Roggman et al., 2002; Sanders, Dittman, Keown, Farruggia, & Rose, 2010; Wong, Roubinov, Gonzales, Dumka, & Millsap, 2013) and education level (Palm & Fagan, 2008). Research has also identified common attitudinal barriers to fathers’ help-seeking including a preference for self-reliance and problem minimisation or hopelessness (Giallo, Dunning & Gent, 2017), while other research points to family factors such as child behavioural or emotional concerns and economic stress as drivers of fathers’ participation in programs (Sicouri et al., 2018; Sanders et al., 2010; Tully et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2013).

Despite emerging evidence about potential barriers to fathers’ engagement with parenting supports, little is known about the role of other paternal and family circumstances such as mental health, parenting self-efficacy (PSE) and the co-parenting relationship, in combination with some of the practical barriers (e.g. time of day programs are offered) which can influence fathers’ decisions to participate.

The role of fathers’ mental health as a factor in support use deserves greater attention, especially given emerging evidence that poor paternal mental health is likely to be a challenge for a concerning proportion of fathers. Our study of 1,044 Australian fathers found one in five fathers had experienced symptoms of depression or anxiety since becoming a parent (Wade, Matthews, Forbes, Vertkas, Burn, Cann, in submission; see also reviews by Leach et al., 2016 and Paulson & Bazemore, 2010). Our examination of parenting practices using a large representative sample of Australian fathers of 0- to 18-year-old children identified. While most fathers were confident in their parenting role, fathers with poor mental health had lower PSE and reported more negative interactions with their child (Wade et al., in submission).

The findings about the influence of poor paternal mental health and low PSE are consistent with the extant literature which has demonstrated that fathers’ mental health and PSE can influence parenting behaviour and can impact on children’s mental, academic and social functioning (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2007; Baxter & Smart, 2010; Davis, Davis, Freed, & Clark, 2011; Giallo, Cooklin, Wade, D’Esposito, & Nicholson, 2014; Giallo et al., 2015; Giallo, Treyvaud, Cooklin, & Wade, 2013; Jones & Prinz, 2005; McLaughlin et al., 2012; Pape & Collins, 2011; Rominov, Pilkington, Giallo, & Whelan, 2016; Weissman et al., 2006; Wade, Llewellyn & Matthews, 2015). However, little is known about the role of fathers’ mental health and PSE on fathers’ use of parenting supports.

A further factor identified as influential to fathers’ parenting (Wade et al., in submission) but not widely considered in assessments about influences on support seeking is the co-parenting relationship. Our research identified one aspect of the co-parenting relationship – parental agreement about how to parent the child – had a particularly strong association with fathers’ parenting behaviour. However, its role in shaping fathers’ help-seeking behaviours is not well understood.

Despite gaps in our understanding about influences on fathers’ use of parenting supports, some research provides evidence about the help-seeking and support preferences of fathers. Recent studies have shown fathers prefer to access parenting information online (e.g. Frank, Keown, Dittman, & Sanders, 2015; Giallo et al., 2017; Tully et al., 2017). Other support preferences for fathers appear to be routinely accessed professionals such as general practitioners and infant wellbeing nurses (e.g. Giallo et al., 2017). Other research has investigated the effectiveness of targeted father-engagement strategies for parenting interventions. Burn et al. (2019) discuss the promise of a brief online and face-to-face professional training program in improving father engagement in evidence-based parenting interventions. Leach et al., (2019) describe an experiment testing different messaging and targeting of advertisements to recruit fathers to participate in a survey about parenting, employment and health. The authors found ‘extremely low’ (p. 871) rates of father recruitment when gender-neutral language (e.g. ‘parents’) was used in advertising, with the vast majority (96%) of fathers recruited following advertising aimed specifically at fathers. The importance of appealing to fathers explicitly in promotional materials for parenting interventions has been highlighted by others as playing a key influential role in father engagement (e.g. Sicouri et al., 2018). This may stem from underlying assumptions about the relative importance of fathers compared to mothers in the caregiving role, with fathers expecting programs to be targeting mothers as the key caregiver and therefore not viewing themselves as a targeted beneficiary.

Research by Tully et al. (2019) also attests to the effectiveness of social media and digital campaigns to promote awareness of and participation in parenting programs among fathers.

Thus, while the extant literature about fathers’ help-seeking behaviours does provide some indications about the support preferences and needs of fathers, further research is needed to understand how a broad range of potential influences interact to shape men’s help-seeking preferences and support use. Such information will enhance understanding about the approaches to delivering parenting information and support that are most acceptable to fathers, with implications for investment of resources at the population-level.

Aims

The current study explores the help-seeking behaviours and preferences of fathers through examination of a rich and representative dataset. This paper describes how particular characteristics of fathers – including mental health, PSE and the co-parenting relationship – relate to how fathers access information and advice about parenting, with a view to better targeted parenting information and support for fathers.

Method

Inclusion Criteria

A computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey conducted in 2016 collected data from 2600 parents in the state of Victoria, Australia (Wade et al., 2018). To be eligible, participants needed to be parents or caregivers who were aged 16 years and over and have sufficient spoken English to participate, which would be determined by the experienced CATI interviewer at the start of the interview (e.g. if the person answering the phone did not respond to the introductory sentences and initial question, the interviewer might ask if the person understands English, or thank the person for their time and discontinue the phone call). A ‘parent’ was defined as any person functioning in a parenting role who views themselves as a parent of a child who at the time of the survey was aged 0–18 years inclusive. Respondents were required to spend at least 4 days per month living with the child, which was deemed by the survey developers to be important for answering many of the questions with sufficient experience and knowledge. Parents who had more than one child aged under 18 were asked to complete the survey in regard to the child whose last birthday was closest to the time of conducting the survey (hereon referred to as the ‘focus child’). This was to ensure random selection of the focus child across parents.

Measures

The Parenting Today in Victoria survey (copy of the full survey is available at: https://www.parentingrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Parenting-Today-in-Victoria-Technical-Report-May-2017-2.pdf) included two validated scales as well as individual items tapping into constructs of interest that were developed specifically for the purposes of this study.

The first validated scale was the Kessler-6 scale (K6; Kessler et al., 2003), which measures current psychological distress. Participants are asked to indicate how often during the past 30 days they had felt nervous, hopeless, restless or fidgety, extremely sad, worthless and that everything was an effort. Responses are given on a 5-point scale (1 = all of the time; 5 = none of the time), with an initial score range of 6–30 reversed and then converted to the more widely used convention (range 0–24) with higher scores representing greater distress. Respondents scoring above 12 were considered to be reporting serious psychological distress; those with a score of 3–12 were considered to have moderate levels of distress and those scoring 0–2 were considered to be experiencing low distress. The K6 demonstrated good internal consistency in the Parenting Today in Victoria sample (α = .80).

The second established scale – the Me as a Parent Scale (MaaPs; Hamilton, Matthews, & Crawford, 2014) – measures parents’ perceptions of their parenting or PSE. MaaPs items can be summed into four subscales (Parenting Self-Efficacy, Personal Agency, Self-Management and Self-Sufficiency) and a total score. Subscales incorporate four items each, and the total score is the sum of all 16 items. Response options range on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score range is 16–80, where a high score means the parent feels more confident, effective and in control regarding parenting the focus child. The MaaPs demonstrated good internal consistency in the Parenting Today in Victoria sample (total score, α = .87; subscales, α = .68–.83).

Some individual items used for the current study were adapted from existing surveys. For example, two items about parental help-seeking were taken from a survey of fathers for the Like Father Like Son Project (Tully et al., 2017). Other items were devised by the researchers specifically for this survey. For instance, created items addressed parenting support received from the child’s other parent or their own partner (respondent could decide which person was the most significant other person in their child’s life – could be a non-biological ‘step-parent’ or non-resident parent, for example). Most created items were rated on a dichotomous (yes/no) or 5-point Likert scale. Items were asked of all parents, with the exception of items about partner support – asked only of parents who indicated there was a partner or other parent helping them raise the focus child.

Procedure

Data Collection

The study was approved by the Parenting Research Centre Human Research Ethics Committee (App32). Parents were recruited through random dialling of landline and mobile numbers. A plain language information statement was read aloud to participants at the beginning of the telephone interview, and verbal consent was obtained by the CATI facilitator prior to data collection.

Data Analysis

Analyses were performed using SPSS, version 24. Pearson’s chi-square (χ²) was used to examine bivariate differences in the proportion of parents reporting particular outcomes for ordinal or categorical data. We used logistic regression to explore predictors of fathers’ use of different types of help-seeking for parenting. We set statistical significance at p < .001 to reduce the likelihood of a Type II error as a result of the large number of analyses conducted for this study. However, where relevant (e.g. in tables), we have also reported p values of lower magnitude.

Created Variables

We derived variables from items in the survey which were used in the analyses. Variables entered into the model were as follows: fathers’ age was transformed into four categories (16–34 years, 23–44 years, 45–54 years and 55+ years); education was transformed into four categories (secondary school only, vocational qualification, post-school diploma and degree or higher); income was transformed into three categories (low = below average weekly income [AWE]; medium = 1–1.5 times the AWE and high = 2+ times AWE); employment was transformed into three categories (full-time employment, part-time or casual and not in paid work); child age was transformed into four categories (0–2 years, 3–5 years, 6–12 years and 13–18 years); co-parenting agreement was transformed into two categories (those responding ‘occasionally’ or ‘never’ vs those responding ‘all’ or ‘most of the time’); parenting self-efficacy was measured by the three groupings of MaaPs Total scores (poor, moderate and high); mental health was measured as either better or poorer, by classifying each participant (i.e. the total sample of mothers and fathers) according to their K6 scores (serious, moderate or low psychological distress) in combination with history of any past problem since becoming a parent (anxiety, depression or substance abuse). Those in the ‘poorer’ mental health group had serious or moderate K6 distress scores regardless of past problems. The ‘better’ mental health group had moderate K6 scores plus no past problems, or they had low K6 scores regardless of past problems. To create a variable reflecting fathers’ help-seeking, we asked fathers where they obtained information and advice about raising their child, and we used their responses to derive five variables reflecting whether each father accessed information and/or advice (yes or no) about parenting from (a) family members, including their own partner, (b) other informal sources, including friends, community leaders and colleagues, (c) their own research, including online, books, TV or brochures, (d) individual professionals such as GPs, speech pathologists or psychologists and (e) from Maternal and Child Health Nurses, parenting groups or seminars.

Results

Sample Characteristics

Participants included 1,044 fathers out of a total sample of 2,600 parents who completed the 2016 Parenting Today in Victoria CATI survey. To ensure representativeness, population weighted data were included for the purposes of the current study (see [deleted to de-identify], 2018 for details about weighting). The weighted dataset resulted in a total of 2,535 cases (i.e. with no missing data for weighting variables), including 1,006 fathers.

Fathers were defined as male respondents who had a parenting role. Most (95%) were the biological parent of the focus child. The focus child for 21% of the fathers was in the age range 0–2 years, 18% had a focus child aged 3–5 years, 38% had a focus child aged 6–12 years and 23% had a focus child aged 13–18 years. For 51% of fathers, their focus child was male, and for 49%, the focus child was female. Around 95% of the fathers in the sample spent most days in a month (>21 days) residing with the focus child. Most fathers (87%) were living with a partner (not necessarily the child’s parent, and no information was available about the gender of their partner). Of those not living with a partner, 10% shared care of the child with their ex-partner. Most fathers (79%) were in paid full-time employment, with 14% in part-time or casual work and 7% not in paid work. Forty-seven percent had at least a bachelor’s degree (higher than the broader Victorian parenting population of 37%, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016) and 13% spoke a language other than English at home. Many fathers reported they had experienced symptoms of depression (18%) or anxiety (19%) since becoming a parent and 3% of fathers reported serious levels of current psychological distress. In our sample of fathers, 20% met criteria for having ‘poorer’ mental health (see Wade et al., in submission).

Most fathers (88.5%) agreed or strongly agreed they had someone they trusted who they could turn to for advice if they were having problems; however, they were less likely than mothers (93.5%) to say so, χ²(4) = 58.264, p < .001.

A high percentage (83.8%) of fathers agreed or strongly agreed their family were the people they turned to first when looking for help and support in raising their child. While this was close to the proportion of mothers (81.7%), the difference between fathers and mothers was moderately significant, χ²(4) = 13.912, p < .01.

There were also significant (p < .001) parent sex differences in the proportion of parents who obtained parenting advice or information from all categories of sources, except family (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Fathers’ and Mothers’ Use of Supports for Parenting, N (%).

	Fathers (n = 1,006)	Mothers (n = 1,528)	χ² (df = 1)	Sig (p value)
Gets parenting information/advice from …
(a) Family, including own partner	843 (83.8%)	1248 (81.7%)	1.893	.169
(b) Other informal sources (e.g. friends and colleagues)	813 (80.8%)	1348 (88.2%)	26.497	<.001***
(c) Own research (e.g. online)	858 (85.3%)	1392 (91.1%)	20.585	<.001***
(d) Individual professionals (e.g. GPs and psychologists)	821 (81.6%)	1377 (90.1%)	38.238	<.001***
(e) MCHN, parenting groups and seminars	315 (31.3%)	699 (45.7%)	52.455	<.001***

Notes: ***p <.001. GPs = general practitioners; MCHN = Maternal and Child Health Nurses.

To examine factors that influenced or would influence how fathers sought parenting information and advice, we first performed bivariate chi-square analyses to identify demographic, co-parenting and wellbeing (mental health and PSE) factors that were associated with each of the five types of support listed in Table 1. Then we entered the nine variables which showed significant (p < .01) associations with any type of support into a series of five logistic regressions, with results presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Logistic Regressions for Each Type of Help-Seeking for Parenting Among Fathers.

	B	SE B	Wald χ²	p	OR	95% CI OR
Family, including own partner (8% of variance explained)
Fathers’ age	−.393	.146	7.240	.007	.675	[.507, .899]
Fathers’ education	−.057	.079	.512	.474	.945	[.809, 1.104]
Household income	−.334	.139	5.737	.017	.716	[.545, .941]
Fathers’ employment	−.403	.174	5.369	.020	.668	[.475, .940]
Child age	.126	.116	1.164	.281	1.134	[.902,1.424]
Child complex needs	−.001	.249	.000	.995	.999	[.613, 1.626]
Co-parenting agreement	1.285	.358	12.863	.000	3.616	[1.791, 7.301]
Parenting self-efficacy	−.022	.122	.033	.857	.978	[.770, 1.243]
Fathers’ mental health	−.674	.227	8.787	.003	.510	[.327, .796]
Other informal support (7% of variance explained)
Fathers’ age	−.302	.132	5.250	.022	.739	[.571, .957]
Fathers’ education	.209	.074	7.923	.005	1.232	[1.065, 1.425]
Household income	.165	.124	1.768	.184	1.179	[.925, 1.503]
Fathers’ employment	−.034	.164	.043	.836	.967	[.701, 1.333]
Child age	−.086	.108	.633	.426	.918	[.743, 1.134]
Child complex needs	.563	.265	4.525	.033	1.756	[1.045, 2.950]
Co-parenting agreement	−.056	.406	.019	.891	.946	[.427, 2.097]
Parenting self-efficacy	.257	.112	5.254	.022	1.293	[1.038, 1.611]
Fathers’ mental health	.291	.240	1.467	.226	1.337	[.836, 2.140]
Self-directed (11% of variance explained)
Fathers’ age	.033	.154	.046	.830	1.034	[.765, 1.396]
Fathers’ education	.415	.092	20.487	.000	1.514	[1.265, 1.812]
Household income	.036	.145	.060	.806	1.036	[.780, 1.378]
Fathers’ employment	−.006	.191	.001	.974	.994	[.683, 1.445]
Child age	−.380	.132	8.315	.004	.684	[.528, .885]
Child complex needs	.368	.292	1.594	.207	1.445	[.816, 2.561]
Co-parenting agreement	−.117	.457	.065	.798	.890	[.364, 2.178]
Parenting self-efficacy	.393	.130	9.087	.003	1.482	[1.147, 1.913]
Fathers’ mental health	.052	.261	.039	.843	1.053	[.631, 1.757]
Individual professional support (7% of variance explained)
Fathers’ age	.119	.137	.754	.385	1.126	[.861, 1.473]
Fathers’ education	.270	.075	12.823	.000	1.310	[1.130, 1.519]
Household income	.079	.123	.409	.523	1.082	[.850, 1.377]
Fathers’ employment	.235	.190	1.526	.217	1.265	[.871, 1.836]
Child age	.062	.107	.330	.566	1.064	[.862, 1.312]
Child complex needs	.992	.319	9.662	.002	2.696	[1.443, 5.039]
Co-parenting agreement	.502	.391	1.647	.199	1.652	[.767, 3.557]
Parenting self-efficacy	.031	.116	.069	.793	1.031	[.821, 1.295]
Fathers’ mental health	.534	.264	4.091	.043	1.706	[1.017, 2.861]
MCHN, parenting groups and seminars (4% of variance explained)
Fathers’ age	.092	.114	.656	.418	1.097	[.877, 1.371]
Fathers’ education	.142	.061	5.431	.020	1.153	[1.023, 1.300]
Household income	.092	.104	.787	.375	1.097	[.895, 1.344]
Fathers’ employment	.218	.144	2.293	.130	1.244	[.938, 1.649]
Child age	−.198	.090	4.815	.028	.820	[.687, .979]
Child complex needs	.269	.195	1.906	.167	1.308	[.893, 1.916]
Co-parenting agreement	−.101	.356	.081	.776	.904	[.449, 1.817]
Parenting self-efficacy	.174	.095	3.324	.068	1.190	[.987, 1.434]
Fathers’ mental health	.265	.190	1.942	.163	1.304	[.898, 1.892]

Notes: OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; AWE = average weekly income; MCHN = Maternal and Child Health Nurses.

While the models explain small amounts of the total variability in fathers’ use of each type of parenting support (Nagelkerke’s R² ranged from 4% to 11%), and the models are better at predicting use of each support type as opposed to predicting when a father did not use a support type, each model does identify multiple factors that contribute unique predictive power to the variance in the different forms of fathers’ help-seeking related to their parenting. For the first model, the strongest predictor of fathers’ use of family (including their own partner, where available) for information and advice about parenting was the extent to which parents usually agreed about how to parent the child (p < .001), while fathers’ age and mental health also contributed to the model (p < .01). In other words, when fathers perceived that parents agreed on parenting their child at least ‘most of the time’, they were almost four times more likely to use family supports, but they were less likely to use family supports if they were older and if they had better mental health. Household income and fathers’ employment played a smaller role (p < .05) in predicting use of family for information and advice about parenting.

For the second model, fathers’ education was the strongest predictor (p < .01) of fathers’ use of other informal supports such as friends and colleagues for information and advice about parenting, while fathers’ age and PSE and having a child with complex needs contributed less (p < .05) to the model. Therefore, fathers with higher educational attainment were slightly more likely (OR = 1.23) to use informal supports for their parenting, while older fathers, those with lower PSE and those whose child did not have complex needs were slightly less likely to use informal supports.

For the third model, fathers’ education was the strongest predictor (p < .001) of fathers’ reliance on self-directed methods of parenting information seeking, while child age and fathers’ PSE also contributed significant unique predictive power to the model (p < .01). Thus, fathers with higher education were one and a half times more likely to use self-directed methods of help-seeking, while those with lower PSE and older children were somewhat less likely to use self-directed methods.

For the fourth model, fathers’ education was the strongest predictor (p < .001) of their use of professionals such as GPs and psychologists to get information and advice about parenting. A higher educational level was associated with greater likelihood (OR = 1.31) of using such professionals, while having a child with complex needs (p < .01, OR = 2.70) and better paternal mental health (p < .05, OR = 1.71) meant increased likelihood of using such professionals for parenting support.

For the final model related to use of Maternal and Child Health Nurses, parenting groups and seminars, very little variance was explained (4%), and while fathers’ education and child age contributed uniquely to the model, their individual influence was weak (p < .05 in each case).

Fathers’ Participation in Parenting Groups or Programs

Few fathers (9%) said they had attended parenting groups beyond those offered to first time parents within the universally available Maternal and Child Health Service. Fathers’ reasons for not attending parenting groups are provided in Table 3. We also asked fathers what aspects of parenting programs would influence their decision to participate. We asked them to rate several aspects from 0 (not at all important) to 10 (extremely important), as shown in Table 4. The mean importance score as rated by fathers was highest for knowing the program is designed for both mothers and fathers (M = 8.44), followed by knowing the person running the group is trained (M = 8.35), knowing the program has been tested in research and is effective (M = 8.31) and the program being offered at a convenient time (M = 8.31).

Table 3.

Fathers’ Reasons for Not Attending Parenting Groups (N = 1006).

Reason for not attending^a	n (%)
Don’t feel I need help	424 (42.1%)
Didn’t know about them	176 (17.5%)
No time to participate	157 (15.6%)
Not suitable for me/my family	133 (13.2%)
Not available where I live	78 (7.8%)
Don’t feel comfortable asking for help	54 (5.4%)
Not on at convenient time or location	42 (4.2%)

^aAll fathers responded Yes or No to each reason; multiple reasons per respondent were possible.

Table 4.

Fathers’ Ratings About the Importance of Aspects of Parenting Programs (N = 1006).

Attribute	Mean importance (0–10) score^a
Knowing the program is designed for both mothers and fathers	8.44
Knowing the person running the group is trained	8.35
Knowing the program has been tested in research and is effective	8.31
The program is on at a convenient time	8.31
Understanding what’s involved in the program	8.23
Having information about the likely benefits to participation	7.97
The location of the program is convenient	7.82
Feeling like the person running the program understands me	7.79
Getting a personal recommendation from another parent	7.16
If the person running the program is the same gender as me	2.12

^a0 (not at all important) to 10 (extremely important).

Discussion

Results from the Parenting Today in Victoria study – incorporating one of the largest surveys of fathers of its kind – demonstrate most fathers felt supported in their role as fathers. Close to nine in ten said they had someone in their life they could turn to if they needed help. However, fathers were less likely than mothers to say they had someone they trusted for advice if needed; and they used professionals, friends, groups or seminars for parenting information significantly less than mothers. These results are consistent with previous research which suggests that fathers are less likely to seek parenting support than mothers and in particular, are less likely to seek formal sources of support (e.g. Fabiano, 2007; Flippin & Crais, 2011). These findings also have implications for service providers, highlighting the importance of offering parenting information and resources using a range of different modalities that accommodate the preferences of both mothers and fathers.

Our findings also highlight the important role of co-parenting agreement in fathers’ use of parenting supports, particularly when fathers have poorer mental health (fathers with poorer mental health were more likely to rely on family for support in their parenting). These findings indicate that parenting support offerings should consider how parents work in partnership, particularly in the presence of mental health issues, in preference to distinguishing individual roles for mothers and fathers (Ramchandani & Iles, 2014).

Parenting support may need to be targeted or refined to adjust for the individual needs of fathers with particular characteristics. For instance, noting our data identified fathers with poorer mental health were less likely to seek parenting information and advice from individual professionals such as GPs or psychologists, efforts may be required to ensure fathers with mental health challenges are able to access parenting support via a parenting partner or other family members, or that reliable and credible online parenting information is widely promoted using methods that are likely to reach fathers who are experiencing mental health difficulties.

Our findings add to the extant literature about the particular help-seeking behaviours and preferences of fathers. When asked where they obtained information and advice about raising their child, most fathers (nearly nine in ten) said they did their own research (e.g. online) and eight in ten used people in their personal networks (e.g. family, friends, neighbours and colleagues) for parenting advice. Many also sought information about parenting from professionals – from individual professionals such as GPs or psychologists (82%) or from Maternal and Child Health Nurses, parenting groups or parenting seminars (31%). However, for all types of support except their own family, fathers were significantly less likely to access support than mothers.

Fathers’ use of these different modes of parenting support appeared to be most strongly influenced by the educational level that fathers had reached and their mental health. Fathers’ education was relevant (fathers with a diploma, degree or post-graduate education were up to 1.5 times more likely to use) for all modes of parenting support except getting information and advice from family (including own partner). This is consistent with previous research that has found greater rates of participation in parenting programs among fathers of higher social advantage (better educated, higher income and being in paid employment) (Palm & Fagan, 2008; Sanders et al., 2010).

It also seems from our data if fathers’ mental health was poor, they relied on family for parenting support, but were more likely to use external supports (e.g. professionals) if they had good mental health. PSE also played a role in predicting fathers’ use of some modes of parenting support (i.e. those with lower PSE were less likely to use friends and colleagues or to engage in self-directed help-seeking for their parenting support) as did fathers’ age (older fathers were less likely to use informal supports – even accounting for child age). Child age played a role in two types of help-seeking among fathers: (1) self-directed help-seeking, and (2) MCHN, parenting groups and seminars; whereby fathers of older children were less likely to use self-directed methods and parenting groups. This may reflect the availability of parenting information relevant to different child age ranges, with the greatest proliferation of resources targeted at parents of young children.

Fathers in our sample tended to rely on their own efforts (e.g. online searching) for information to support their parenting in preference to in-person interactions with professionals. This is consistent with literature suggesting fathers’ help-seeking preference is to go online for parenting information (e.g. Frank et al., 2015; Giallo et al., 2017; Tully et al., 2017) and may go some way to explaining the often-observed trend of poor engagement in face-to-face parenting programs among fathers (Fabiano, 2007; Flippin & Crais, 2011; Sanders et al., 2010; Stahlschmidt et al., 2013). Given low rates of use of parenting groups or seminars by fathers (i.e. fewer than one in ten in our sample said they had attended a parenting group beyond those offered to first time parents through the universally available and well-accessed Maternal and Child Health Service), it may not be surprising that very little predictive power was observed in the logistic regression explaining influences on fathers’ use of parenting groups or seminars.

Understanding fathers’ preferences for, and barriers to, help-seeking can help improve how information can be targeted to fathers. It seems the main reason fathers did not access support was they did not feel they needed help (two in five fathers indicated this to be the case). This finding is consistent with other Australian research which also found relevance/need to be the most endorsed reason for non-participation in parenting programs (Tully et al., 2017). Indeed, patterns of help-seeking among fathers may mirror help-seeking among men more broadly, particularly when it comes to mental health. Stigma associated with mental ill-health can prevent many men from acknowledging a problem and from seeking help either from formal services or friends and family (Darwin et al., 2017). Further, Salari and Filus (2017) identified that fathers’ intention to participate in parenting programs was most influenced by perceptions of child difficulties and perceived benefits associated with the program. Lack of awareness may also be a barrier: many fathers in our study (almost one in five) indicated they were not aware of parents’ groups. This points to the need for more targeted information to fathers about the benefits and options for support in child rearing. Some fathers indicated they did not participate in parents’ groups because they had no time (16%), and the offering of parenting programs at convenient times of the day was rated by fathers as important in influencing their decision to participate. Other important influences on decisions to participate included knowing the program was designed for both mothers and fathers, the facilitator being trained, knowing the program had been tested and was effective and the father being able to understand what was involved in the program. Consistent with previous research (Tully et al., 2017), fathers ranked having the program facilitated by a man as relatively unimportant (i.e. 2/10). Clearly, being informed about the credentials and characteristics of the program itself was a key factor for fathers, implying the need to describe the evidence-base of the program, the requirements of participants and the credibility of the trainer in promotional materials.

Implications

Our study provides valuable insights into how fathers engage in parenting support. Attention to fathers’ support needs is particularly salient in light of findings that fathers are less likely than mothers to have a trusted person they can turn to for advice and are less likely to access formal supports with their parenting. Given that one in five of the fathers in our representative survey reported current or past mental health concerns, these findings have particular implications for how we think about and interact with fathers who may be struggling with their own mental health, and underscore the importance of considering fathers’ mental health in the design and promotion of parenting supports to fathers.

The findings also highlight the need for particular efforts to engage disadvantaged fathers (e.g. those with low educational attainment) in parenting support programs. Evidence supports the effectiveness of parenting programs for socially disadvantaged families (e.g. Gardner et al., 2019; Leijten, Raaijmakers, Orobio de Castro, van den Ban, & Matthys, 2017); thus, benefits are likely when parents are afforded the opportunity to engage with such programs.

There are also implications for how parenting information can be successfully targeted to fathers. Changes to gender norms over time, particularly in relation to women’s workforce participation, paired with post-COVID-19 increases in fathers' time spent in the home (Craig & Churchill, 2021; Shafer, Scheibling & Milkie, 2020), have implications for fathers’ and mothers’ willingness and availability to participate in parenting programs. The impacts of COVID-19 are also likely to have influenced the way parents engage with parenting supports, with shifts towards tele-practice potentially more in line with fathers’ preferences for help-seeking. In considering ways to promote greater engagement of fathers in parenting programs, Ramchandani and Iles (2014) argue for consideration of mother engagement, alongside father engagement – focussing on how parents work in partnership rather than distinguishing individual roles. Evidence demonstrates that involving both parents in parenting programs has benefits beyond those seen when just one parent is involved in the program (e.g. May et al., 2013).

Nevertheless, our results show that when fathers looked for information and advice about raising their children they tended to rely on their own research, including online rather than seeking out professional support. This attests to the need to ensure fathers have awareness of and access to credible parenting information in formats that allow access anywhere and anytime, and that allow individual exploration – for example, online parenting information and webinars that can be delivered out of hours or viewed privately. Again, in the ‘COVID-normal’ world, reliance on digital parenting programs and supports is likely to continue for many parents.

Consistent with previous research (Burn et al., 2019), our findings highlight an opportunity for building the capacity of practitioners in engaging fathers in parenting interventions by them ensuring fathers are aware of the availability of parenting supports and communicating the importance and benefits associated with father involvement in programs. Such approaches may have additional benefits for fathers and their families, including improved outcomes for mothers, fathers and the broader family unit (e.g. Bagner, 2013).

Limitations

This study makes important contributions to the field; however, the findings need to be considered within the context of certain limitations. Although the project used a randomised sampling strategy, had a high response rate and employed data weighting to enhance representativeness, the survey was only administered in English and may not have captured data from a representative proportion of parents from different cultural backgrounds. Consequently, the sample included a smaller proportion of participants speaking English as a second language than would be expected from the Victorian population. Data was not captured from respondents about the sex of the focus child’s other parent or the respondent’s current partner; therefore, the study risks generalising findings about heterosexual fathers to those in same sex relationships. Also, the CATI methodology relied on the surveying of parents via telephone or mobile phone, which may have limited our ability to reach groups of parents without access to this technology (e.g. potentially some homeless families, new migrants and refugees). The cross-sectional nature of the study’s design limits our capacity to make causal inferences, and there are further limitations to the study associated with potential social desirability bias and the use of a single informant. It is also important to note that models constructed for the current analyses did not account for all of the observed variability, which could be accounted for by factors that were not measured in our survey.

Conclusion

Using the credible data available through the large, representative Parenting Today in Victoria study, this paper provides new information about fathers’ help-seeking behaviours and preferences in relation to their parenting. While most fathers report feeling supported in their parenting role, many rely on their own efforts to identify parenting information. Fathers’ mental health and the support they receive from a co-parent are two important factors likely to influence fathers’ actions in seeking out and taking on parenting information and advice. These findings have important implications for policy makers and service providers in ensuring fathers have access to high-quality parenting information and support as needed.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the parents who shared their views with us as part of this study and acknowledge the contributions of members of the Parenting Research Centre’s Parenting Today in Victoria project team, including Dr. Christine Millward who contributed to analysis for an early version of this paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Victorian Government.

ORCID iD

Catherine Wade

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics . (2016). Census data for Victorian parents of children aged 0–18 years and their partners. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Bagner

D. M.

(2013). Father’s role in parent training for children with developmental delay. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(4), 650–657. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033465

Bagner

D. M.

Eyberg

S. M.

(2003). Father involvement in parent training: When does it matter? Journal of Clinincal Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32(4), 599–605. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3204_13

Baxter

Smart

(2010). Fathering in Australia among couple families with young children (occasional paper No. 37). Canberra: Australian Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.

Berger

Addis

Green

Mackowiak

Goldberg

(2013). Men’s reactions to mental health labels, forms of help-seeking, and sources of help-seeking advice. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14(4), 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030175

Berlyn

(2008). Engaging fathers in child and family services: participation, perceptions and good practice. Stronger families and communities strategy 2004–2009. Canberra: Dept. of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.

Bögels

Phares

(2008). Fathers’ role in the etiology, prevention and treatment of child anxiety: A review and new model. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(4), 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.07.011

Bronte-Tinkew

Moore

K. A.

Matthews

Carrano

(2007). Symptoms of major depression in a sample of fathers of infants. Journal of Family Issues, 28(1), 61–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X06293609

Burgess

(2007). The costs and benefits of active fatherhood. London: Fathers Direct.

10.

Burgess

(2009). Fathers and parenting interventions: What works? United Kingdom: Fatherhood Institute.

11.

Burn

Tully

L. A.

Jiang

Piotrowska

P. J.

Collins

D. A. J.

Sargeant

Dadds

M. R.

(2019). Evaluating practitioner training to improve competencies and organizational practices for engaging fathers in parenting interventions. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 50(2), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-018-0836-2

12.

Craig

Churchill

(2021). Dual-earner parent couples’ work and care during COVID-19. Gender, Work and Organization, 28(S1), 514–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12497

13.

Darwin

Galdas

Hinchliff

Littlewood

McMillan

McGowan

Gilbody

(2017). Fathers’ views and experiences of their own mental health during pregnancy and the first postnatal year: A qualitative interview study of men participating in the UK Born and Bred in Yorkshire (BaBY) cohort. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 17(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1229-4

14.

Davis

R. N.

Davis

M. M.

Freed

G. L.

Clark

S. J.

(2011). Fathers’ depression related to positive and negative parenting behaviors with 1-year-old children. Pediatrics, 127(4), 612–618. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-1779

15.

Wade

Matthews

Bent

C. A.

Neill

Petrovic

Fisher

Michaux

Cann

(2018). Parenting today: A state-wide representative survey of contemporary parenting experiences. Children Australia, 43(1), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/cha.2018.7

16.

Fabiano

G. A.

(2007). Father participation in behavioral parent training for ADHD: Review and recommendations for increasing inclusion and engagement. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 683–693. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.683

17.

Flippin

Crais

E. R.

(2011). The need for more effective father involvement in early autism intervention a systematic review and recommendations. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(1), 24–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815111400415

18.

Frank

T. J.

Keown

L. J.

Dittman

C. K.

Sanders

M. R.

(2015). Using father preference data to increase father engagement in evidence-based parenting programs. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(4), 937–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9904-9

19.

Gardner

Leijten

Harris

Mann

Hutchings

Beecham

Seabra-Santos

M. J.

(2019). Equity effects of parenting interventions for child conduct problems: A pan-European individual participant data meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 6(6), 518–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30162-2

20.

Giallo

Cooklin

Brown

Christensen

Kingston

Liu

Nicholson

(2015). Trajectories of fathers' psychological distress across the early parenting period: Implications for parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(5), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000109

21.

Giallo

Cooklin

Wade

D’Esposito

Nicholson

J. M.

(2014). Fathers’ postnatal mental health and child well-being at age five: The mediating role of parenting behavior. Journal of Family Issues, 35(11), 1543–1562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13477411

22.

Giallo

Dunning

Gent

(2017). Attitudinal barriers to help-seeking and preferences for mental health support among Australian fathers. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 35(3), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2017.1298084

23.

Giallo

Treyvaud

Cooklin

Wade

(2013). Mothers’ and fathers’ involvement in home activities with their children: Psychosocial factors and the role of parental self-efficacy. Early Child Development and Care, 183(3–4), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2012.711587

24.

Hamilton

V. E.

Matthews

J. M.

Crawford

S. B.

(2014). Development and preliminary validation of a parenting self-regulation scale: Me as a parent. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(10), 2853–2864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0089-z

25.

Ireland

J. L.

Sanders

M. R.

Markie-Dadds

(2003). The impact of parent training on marital functioning: A comparison of two group versions of the Triple P-positive parenting program for parents of children with early-onset conduct problems. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 31(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465803002017

26.

Isacco

Hofscher

Molloy

(2016). An examination of fathers’ mental health help seeking: A brief report. American Journal of Men’s Health, 10(6), NP33–NP38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988315581395

27.

Jones

Prinz

(2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(3), 341–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2004.12.004

28.

Kessler

R. C.

Barker

P. R

Colpe

L. J.

Epstein

J. F.

Gfroerer

J. C.

Hiripi

Zaslavsky

A. M.

(2003). Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 60(2), 184–189. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184

29.

Leach

L.S.

Bennetts

S. K.

Giallo

Cooklin

A. R.

(2019). Recruiting fathers for parenting research using online advertising campaigns: Evidence from an Australian study. Child: Care, Health and Development, 45(6), 871–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12698

30.

Leach

L. S.

Poyser

Cooklin

A. R.

Giallo

(2016). Prevalence and course of anxiety disorders (and symptom levels) in men across the perinatal period: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 190, 675–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.09.063

31.

Lechowicz

M. E.

Jiang

Tully

L. A.

Burn

M. T.

Collins

D. A.

Hawes

D. J.

Dadds

M. R.

(2019). Enhancing father engagement in parenting programs: Translating research into practice recommendations. Australian Psychologist, 54(2), 83–89.

32.

Lee

C. M.

Hunsley

(2006). Addressing coparenting in the delivery of psychological services to children. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 13(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2005.05.001

33.

Leijten

Raaijmakers

M. A.

Orobio de Castro

van den Ban

Matthys

(2017). Effectiveness of the incredible years parenting program for families with socioeconomically disadvantaged and ethnic minority backgrounds. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 46(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1038823

34.

Lundahl

Tollefson

Risser

Lovejoy

M. C.

(2008). A meta-analysis of father involvement in parent training. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731507309828

35.

May

F. S.

McLean

L. A.

Anderson

Hudson

Cameron

Matthews

(2013). Father participation with mothers in the Signposts program: An initial investigation. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 38(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2012.748184

36.

McBride

B. A.

Rane

T. R.

(1997). Father/male involvement in early childhood programs: Issues and challenges. Early Childhood Education Journal, 25(1), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025625713166

37.

McLaughlin

K. A.

Gadermann

A. M.

Hwang

Sampson

N. A.

Al-Hamzawi

Andrade

L.H.

(2012). Parent psychopathology and offspring mental disorders: Results from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. British Journal of Psychiatry, 200(4), 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.111.101253

38.

Palm

Fagan

(2008). Father involvement in early childhood programs: Review of the literature. Early Child Development and Care, 178(7–8), 745–759. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430802352137

39.

Panter-Brick

Burgess

Eggerman

McAllister

Pruett

Leckman

J. F.

(2014). Practitioner review: Engaging fathers–recommendations for a game change in parenting interventions based on a systematic review of the global evidence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(11), 1187–1212. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12280

40.

Pape

S. E.

Collins

M. P.

(2011). A systematic literature review of parenting behaviours exhibited by anxious people. European Psychiatry, 26(S2), 170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-9338(11)71881-8

41.

Paulson

J. F.

Bazemore

S. D.

(2010). Prenatal and postpartum depression in fathers and its association with maternal depression: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 303(19), 1961–1969. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.605

42.

Ramchandani

Iles

(2014). Commentary: Getting fathers into parenting programmes–a reflection on Panter-Brick et al. (2014). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(11), 1213–1214. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12321

43.

Roggman

L. A.

Boyce

L. K.

Cook

G. A.

Cook

(2002). Getting dads involved: Predictors of father involvement in early head start and with their children. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23(1‐2), 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.10004

44.

Rominov

Pilkington

P. D.

Giallo

Whelan

T. A.

(2016). A systematic review of interventions targeting paternal mental health in the perinatal period. Infant Mental Health Journal, 37(3), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21560

45.

Salari

Filus

(2017). Using the health belief model to explain mothers’ and fathers’ intention to participate in universal parenting programs. Prevention Science, 18(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0696-6

46.

Sanders

M. R.

Dittman

C. K.

Keown

L. J.

Farruggia

Rose

(2010). What are the parenting experiences of fathers? The use of household survey data to inform decisions about the delivery of evidence-based parenting interventions to fathers. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41(5), 562–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-010-0188-z

47.

Shafer

Scheibling

Milkie

M. A.

(2020). The division of domestic labor before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: Stagnation versus shifts in fathers’ contributions. Canadian Review of Sociology, 57(4), 523–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12315

48.

Sicouri

Tully

Collins

Burn

Sargeant

Frick

Lenroot

(2018). Toward father‐friendly parenting interventions: A qualitative study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 39(2), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/anzf.1307

49.

Stahlschmidt

M. J.

Threlfall

Seay

K. D.

Lewis

E. M.

Kohl

P. L.

(2013). Recruiting fathers to parenting programs: Advice from dads and fatherhood program providers. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(10), 1734–1741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.07.004

50.

Tiano

J. D.

McNeil

(2005). The inclusion of fathers in behavioral parent training: A critical evaluation. Child and Family Behaviour Therapy, 27(4), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1300/J019v27n04_0l

51.

Tully

L. A.

Piotrowska

P. J.

Collins

D. A.

Frick

P. J.

Anderson

Moul

Dadds

M. R.

(2019). Evaluation of “The Father Effect” media campaign to increase awareness of, and participation in, an online father-inclusive parenting program. Journal of Health Communication, 34(12), 1423–1432. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1495160

52.

Tully

L. A.

Piotrowska

P. J.

Collins

D. A. J.

Mairet

K. S.

Black

Kimonis

E. R.

Dadds

M. R.

(2017). Optimising child outcomes from parenting interventions: fathers’ experiences, preferences and barriers to participation. BMC Public Health, 17(1), 550. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4426-1

53.

Wade

Llewellyn

Matthews

(2015). Parent mental health as a mediator of contextual effects on parents with intellectual disabilities and their children. Clinical Psychologist, 19(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/cp.12055

54.

Webster-Stratton

(1985). The effects of father involvement in parent training for conduct problem children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 26(5), 801–810. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1985.tb00593.x

55.

Weissman

M. M.

Wickramaratne

Nomura

Warner

Pilowsky

Verdeli

(2006). Offspring of depressed parents: 20 years later. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(6), 1001–1008. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.6.1001

56.

Wong

J. J.

Roubinov

D. S.

Gonzales

N. A.

Dumka

L. E.

Millsap

R. E.

(2013). Father enrollment and participation in a parenting intervention: personal and contextual predictors. Family Process, 52(3), 440–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12024