Bullying and cyberbullying victimization are associated with adverse consequences for youth, including social isolation, depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and substance use (Hemphill et al., 2011; Kowalski & Limber, 2013). 90% of youth ages 13 to 17 indicate that online harassment is a problem (Anderson, 2018), while parents express uncertainty about effectively teaching healthy online behavior and monitoring digital interactions (Helfrich et al., 2020). Early adolescence is a time of increased stress and youth online autonomy, yet parents still exert tremendous influence on youth social interactions and media/online access (Gabrielli et al., 2018), making this a critical period for prevention.

However, few interventions substantively involve parents in bullying or cyberbullying prevention (Doty et al., 2022), and addressing the home digital environment to prevent cyberbullying remains a significant need (Helfrich et al., 2020). Further, most bullying and cyberbullying prevention programs have been implemented in schools, with moderately effective results (Gaffney et al., 2019; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Effective aspects of school-based bullying prevention programs include intensive programming, firm disciplinary methods, playground supervision, and parent meetings (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Parent-based programming has been identified as a gap in the literature, however (National Academies of Sciences, 2016). Parents of pre-adolescents are positioned to guide them as they learn to balance social and online risks with opportunities for adaptive online engagement as well as reduce the risks of bullying and cyberbullying. Parent-based prevention has a strong, established record of reducing internalizing and externalizing behaviors over time based on social cognitive learning theory that youth learn critical social skills through positive interactions with their parents and consistent and firm limit setting (Sandler et al. 2011; Stormshak et al., 2019). Evidence suggests including parents in bullying prevention is an effective strategy (Elsaesser et al., 2017; Ttofi & Farrington 2011).

Although parent-based interventions have a strong record of reducing a number of adolescent risk outcomes, few media parenting interventions have addressed cyberbullying risk in online contexts. One example, the TECH Parenting framework, focuses on increasing parents’ digital mediation through enhancement of four evidence-informed parenting strategies (Gabrielli et al., 2018). The acronym TECH stands for Talking with children about online activities, Educating them on media-related risks, Co-using media together, and establishing effective House rules for media usage. Effective parental digital mediation has been associated with improved intermediate and long-term outcomes for youth, such as reduced cyberbullying and relational aggression and increased prosocial engagement (Ghosh et al., 2018; Padilla-Walker et al., 2020). Results of studies targeting cyberbullying outcomes have further identified possible protective effects of media parenting behaviors, including parental monitoring of online behavior and restrictive media parenting (e.g., Vale et al., 2018).

Another strategy that could strengthen parents’ ability to address bullying and cyberbullying is teaching parents to coach their children in social emotional learning skills (SEL). Strengthening SEL skills has been a successful component in reduction of bullying and cyberbullying in school-based prevention (e.g., Ortega-Baron et al., 2019), but this strategy has yet to be integrated into parent-based prevention (Doty et al., 2022). Further, role play is an important strategy in prevention because participants learn new behavioral techniques by watching a facilitator. Then they solidify the skills by trying it themselves (Jackson & Back, 2011). Monitoring and immediate feedback ensure that learners consolidate and integrate their learning. These strategies are yet to be tested in the context of a parent-based bullying prevention program.

Innovations are needed to expand the reach of evidence-based, parent-focused prevention programs (Abraczinskas et al., 2020). These include increasing participant engagement via within-home delivery and online strategies (Leslie et al., 2016). Further, physical distancing due to the COVID-19 global pandemic necessitated an increase in online delivery as well as flexibility working with families amid the crisis (e.g., Riegler et al., 2020; Shah et al., 2011). Preventive parenting programs (e.g., Family Check-Up, Everyday Parenting Curriculum) have been adapted for online delivery with high completion rates (72%), and improved outcomes (i.e., parent self-efficacy, child emotional problems) three months post-program similar to in-person implementation (Stormshak et al., 2019). Despite these strengths, concerns about the potential digital divide dampen enthusiasm for online intervention delivery, even as smartphones and access to the internet become nearly ubiquitous (Pew, 2019). Accessibility to intervention content and parental satisfaction with online intervention delivery remain important aspects of study. Further, few studies have assessed home practice, particularly when assigned in online settings (Berkel et al., 2018; Chacko et al., 2016). Since recent literature has linked home practice completion as a key engagement component for improved parenting outcomes, an increased focus on this domain is necessary (Berkel et al., 2018).

The Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) is a three-phase method for designing and optimizing multicomponent interventions for efficiency before evaluating them (Collins, 2018). This study represents the first phase of MOST, preparation: we piloted a factorial design to prepare for the optimization of the enhancements to the core program, Everyday Parenting (Collins, 2018). The second phase, optimization, will inform decisions about the best enhancements to include through a factorial experiment. The third phase of MOST is evaluation through a randomized controlled trial. Because the current study describes the first phase, we examined participant responsiveness to the core elements of the parent-based prevention program, with different combinations of enhancements targeting bullying and cyberbullying prevention.

The primary aim of the current study was to examine participant responsiveness (enrollment, attendance, satisfaction, and home practice completion) to a pilot of Enhanced Everyday Parenting delivered online. Everyday Parenting is a manualized program with substantial research support for mental health outcomes. It has been evaluated as part of the Family Check Up intervention that inhibits growth in internalizing (e.g., anxiety, depression, social withdrawal) and externalizing (e.g., aggression, conduct problems, substance use) problems (Connell & Dishion, 2008; Dishion et al., 2012; Stormshak et al., 2011). Enhancements (intensive role play, SEL, and media parenting) were added to the baseline program to reduce bullying and cyberbullying. We examined participant responsiveness by enhancement and socio-economic status. We further analyzed acceptability of the program as a secondary aim.

Methods

We employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, leveraging qualitative data to better explain quantitative results (Fetters et al., 2013). This design is commonly used to assess the user experience for newly designed tools and interventions (e.g., Bragstad et al., 2019; Majuddin et al., 2022). The pilot intervention was offered to 32 participants in two counties in the Southeastern region of the United States between March 2020 – July 2020. During these months, families were under shelter-at-home orders and in-person research was suspended. In late March, the study group obtained approval from the University of Florida Institutional Review Board to deliver the program virtually.

Sample

Participants were parents of children ages 9–12 in 4th, 5th, or 6th grade (see Table 1). This age range was chosen because bullying peaks in middle school and cyberbullying continues to rise throughout adolescence, making this pre-/early adolescent phase a critical time for prevention (National Academies of Sciences, 2016). The mean age of parents was 39.6 years, and 88% were female; although four fathers participated in the sessions as the primary participant, two additional fathers attended sessions where mothers were the primary participant. Only one parent answered the surveys, usually the mother. Just over half (56%) of the parents were White, 28% Black, 6% Latino/a, 6% multiracial, and 3% Asian. Nearly two-thirds (65.6%) were married. 77% completed at least one year of college, and 43% of families made less than $3000 per month. Eligibility for free- or reduced-price lunch was met by 56% of participating families. About half of participants (48%) said that they participated in the study because it was about bullying/cyberbullying; nearly a quarter (24%) wanted to help their child or improve their parenting; 11% had a desire to participate in a study (e.g., to gain knowledge and perspective). About 10% gave the following reasons: gift cards, contributing to research, learning about technology.

Table 1 Enrollment and Session Completion
Full size table

Procedures

Recruitment strategies included Facebook advertisements, listserv announcements, personal invitations from counselors, flyers, phone calls, emails, and newsletters. Parents filled out a screening questionnaire, and a staff member contacted eligible families to explain the study (e.g., each family would receive the core intervention, but enhancements would be randomized). Staff included three trained graduate students, who managed recruitment, supported facilitators, and facilitated data management under the supervision of the principal investigator (J.D.). Before the first session, families consented online. Staff scheduled eight video conferencing sessions consisting of a combination of the brief Everyday Parenting program and enhancements. Only one parent had consistent problems with connectivity, and staff provided her a tablet with data service. Sessions averaged 60 min. Parents received a $40 e-gift card after each session and resources for referrals in case they became distressed. They received an extra $25 if they completed all sessions, and $25 for participating in an interview after the pilot (total: $370). Parents completed surveys after each session and at the conclusion of the pilot. Post-intervention interviews were conducted by the first author and a member of the study staff, lasting an average of 43 min; they were video recorded and transcribed by trained study staff.

Intervention

To prepare for delivery of the factorial design in a future optimization trial, each enhancement was piloted with Everyday Parenting to inform fine-tuning of the protocol. Using a block randomization method to ensure equal samples in each condition, families were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions via a random number generator (n = 4 per group; see Table 2). Each condition was set up in REDCap, a data management software, to be a separate arm of the study to easily track which families were in which condition. We also color-coded conditions to visually distinguish them and met weekly to ensure communication between facilitators and the study staff.

Table 2 Factorial Design of Core Program Plus Components
Full size table

To ensure fidelity to implementation, each session was recorded if participants consented. Everyday Parenting program sessions included content on: (1) supporting positive behavior through effective parental directions, (2) promoting child cooperation through positive behavior reinforcement, (3) monitoring daily activities, (4) setting limits and identifying consequences, (5) improving family relationships through negotiation, and (6) promoting positive parenting through shared routines. For those who did not receive enhancements, two practice sessions were provided (see Table 3). Each week, facilitators assigned home practice tailored to the parents’ needs, invited parents to track successes, and discussed outcomes from prior assigned activities.

Table 3 Sessions by Condition Assignment
Full size table

Each condition included up to three enhancements to the Everyday Parenting program, and each enhancement was delivered to half of the participants (see Table 2). Parents who received the media parenting enhancement were introduced to the four principles of TECH parenting (i.e., talk, educate, co-view, and house rules). They were assigned a home practice activity to create a family media plan and then collaboratively reviewed the plan the following week with the facilitator. The social emotional coaching enhancement focused on key competencies identified by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (Meyers et al., 2015): self-awareness, self-management, social awareness (empathy and social norms), relationship skills, and responsible decision-making. Parents received a one-page “game plan” with instructions on how to coach the social-emotional learning skills and a home practice assignment at the end of the session. In the intensive role play enhancement, each skill was explained, modeled, and then participants were asked to engage in a role-play with two conditions. In one role-play, the facilitator employed a problematic parenting example, which parents identified; the other role-play had parents exemplify a new parenting skill. Facilitators then discussed the likely reaction of the child following each approach.

Measurement

Participant Responsiveness

Satisfaction with sessions and homework completion operationalized participant responsiveness. Satisfaction was measured using an adapted version of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8), for example, “How satisfied are you with the amount of help you have received?” (1 = Quite dissatisfied to 4 = Very satisfied). We asked parents about the perceived quality of the weekly session and home practice (e.g., “Last week we suggested a home practice activity. Were you able to complete it?”, 1 = I was not able to complete it; 4 = I completed it fully). At the end of the program, parents received the adapted client satisfaction questionnaire.

Socioeconomic Status. Parents were asked “What is your monthly family income?”, the gender and age of their children, and marital status. Free- or reduced-priced lunch eligibility was calculated by comparing the family income to 2020 government eligibility rates for the size of the household, creating a dichotomous variable (0 = not eligible, 1 = eligible).

Analytic Plan

Following a sequential explanatory mixed method approach, the interviews were analyzed qualitatively after the quantitative results were collected, and data analyses were integrated via connecting (e.g., using a linked sample) and merging (e.g., using parallel questions in both quantitative and qualitative datasets to facilitate comparisons; Fetters et al., 2013).

Quantitative Analysis

We examined differences in weekly satisfaction and home practice completion by enhancement TECH components, SEL components, and inclusion of role-play. We also examined differences by free- or reduced-price lunch (FRL) eligibility. We computed bootstrapped t-tests with 1000 samples to obtain confidence intervals. Missing data was minimal (missingness ranged from 0 to 9.4% on satisfaction questions in weeks 5–7), and listwise deletion was utilized.

Qualitative Analysis

Most participants participated in final interviews (27/32); one of the recordings was corrupted, resulting in 26 coded interviews. We first de-identified transcripts and cross-checked them with the recordings for accuracy. We used NVivo 12 Plus to conduct thematic analysis using a quasi-deductive approach. This involved basing initial themes broadly on the interview script to explain the quantitative results and understand the benefits and barriers of participating in the pilot study in greater depth (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Using an iterative team coding approach, three researchers, the principal investigator (J.D.), and two graduate students with previous qualitative coding experience (K.G., and J.Y.) met to refine the coding manual after coding two of the transcripts (Feredey & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). The researchers double coded 20% of the interviews and coded the rest independently. The team met regularly to discuss coding, define themes, and iteratively resolved differences through consensus (Feredey & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Interrater reliability was satisfactory, with kappas ranging from 0.65 to 1.00 for each theme.

Results

Participant Engagement. Enrollment and module completion are recorded in Table 1. Parent report of perceived session quality and home practice are found in Table 4. Overall perceived quality of each session was high, ranging from 3.94 to 4.00 on a 4-point scale. The average satisfaction after the program ended was 3.93 (SD = 0.13). No significant differences were found by assignment to the roleplay, TECH, or SEL component condition, indicating consistent satisfaction with the newly developed sessions. In weeks 1 and 2, participants eligible for FRL reported lower perceived quality than those not eligible (Mdifference = 0.125; 95% CI [0.053, 0.286]; Mdifference = 0.188; 95% CI [0.056, 0.385]), and in week 3, participants eligible for FRL were less likely to complete home practice than those not eligible (Mdifference = 0.362; 95% CI [0.000, 0.700]). No other weekly differences were found by FRL.

Table 4 Differences in Perceived Program Quality and Home Practice Completion by Eligibility for Free- and Reduced-Price Lunch
Full size table

Qualitative Results

Qualitative themes corroborated with satisfaction outcomes while providing additional detail. Three themes were identified: (1) satisfaction with the program content, program delivery, and convenience of online format; (2) home practice; and (3) suggestions for improvements (see Table 5). Parents expressed satisfaction with both the content and delivery of the program. They reported that parenting skills helped with family cohesiveness, and they appreciated examples tailored to quarantine situations during stressful stay-at-home orders. Parents also reported that the program encouraged empathy for their children during this unique and difficult time contextualized by the global pandemic.

Table 5 Quotations Representing Qualitative Themes
Full size table

Regarding enhancements, parents who were assigned the TECH parenting session saw value in media parenting. One parent said, “I just think so many of our parents are so clueless about what their kids are doing [online]. And so this is kind of a good first step for parents.” Several parents, however, felt the media parenting practice was not helpful because their children already had limited access to devices. Parents especially appreciated the in-depth discussion of emotions in the SEL lesson but did not offer much additional detail about the social emotional lesson. Although a few parents mentioned that they did not like the role play activities, others commented that they felt the role play enhancement was helpful.

Parents appreciated the collaborative delivery from a live clinician, which they compared to a therapeutic experience. When facilitators followed up with parents each week on home practice assignments, parents appreciated that facilitators encouraged them in a positive and non-judgmental way, making it easier to open up to them. Additionally, a few Black parents appreciated having a Black facilitator or interviewer who understood their culture. Several parents expressed satisfaction with the online delivery of the program and emphasized benefits of videoconferencing, commenting on convenience. One parent said, “We were in quarantine, so everything was a Zoom meeting. They were great….I don’t know that I would have gotten anything more from being in person.” However, another parent said, “Sometimes…the internet was being screwy. I mean, there was sometimes where you tried to show the information, and you couldn’t [share the] screen.” Overall, however, most participants expressed positive experiences in the online delivery of the intervention.

Parents reported that they enjoyed the home practice assignments and the opportunity to put into practice the skills that had been covered in sessions. One parent said, “Some parents don’t want [to do home practice], but I feel that I actually get a benefit from having a pragmatic exercise that I can kind of think through as I’m working on it.” They saw practice as a way of solidifying the skills over time. Another parent suggested that mid-week reminders may be helpful for parents in completing their home practice assignments.

When we asked about improvements, parents offered suggestions about the enhanced content and methods of delivery. Some parents asked for more information about bullying and cyberbullying, particularly when they had been randomly assigned to not receive the enhancements. This pattern suggests a need to reframe the recruitment messaging or add more explicit cyberbullying prevention information to the enhancements. Other parents suggested a chat room or group format to be able to connect with other parents. This reflects a need for parents of adolescents to have connections with one another for social support, which may have presented as an even greater need due to social isolation during the pandemic.

Discussion

The current pilot study was delivered online under the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic when most participants were sheltering at home. Nearly all families completed all eight sessions, and satisfaction levels and homework completion were high. Some differences in satisfaction and home practice were found by free- and reduced-price lunch status in the early weeks of the intervention. Although the differences were minimal, technology and engagement may be a greater challenge among lower-income parents. Further, the two families that dropped from the program at week 2 and week 5 were eligible for free- or reduced-priced lunch. Qualitative feedback reinforced quantitative findings, highlighting overall acceptability of the program and delivery while also identifying areas for improvement.

Compared to most parent-based prevention programs, attendance and participant responsiveness was higher than usual (Chacko et al., 2016). Results reinforce past studies which have found high rates of participation for online parenting interventions compared to interventions delivered in person (Breitenstein et al., 2014). Importantly, few differences were found by free- and reduced-price lunch eligibility, indicating that online delivery is feasible for low-income parents, though more research is needed. Prior research suggests that parenting programs delivered online may be more effective than in-person delivery with at-risk populations such as those who report child behavior problems or other risk factors (Stormshak et al., 2019). The high rates of engagement in our study may be in part because parent stress levels were high, and they felt the need for support during the early months of the pandemic when many parents took on extra education responsibilities and uncertainty about the future reigned (Patrick et al., 2020). Flexible delivery scheduling was a priority given these stressors, and results indicate that parents were highly responsive to support during this time. Another reason parent engagement may have been high was that schedules were cleared due to the shelter-at-home orders. However, parents who were essential workers may have been working longer hours than normal, underscoring the importance that few differences in perceived program quality and homework participation by income were found. Several parents indicated that video conferencing was a convenient way to engage with the program, removing barriers for participation. This result adds further evidence of the promise of remotely delivered interventions.

Parents’ home practice of program skills is the primary mechanism linking program implementation and improved outcomes in preventive parenting programs (Berkel et al., 2018). Thus, assessing home practice was a strength of this study. Parents reported a high level of home practice completion, satisfaction with the home practice activities, and positive changes in their family functioning during this particularly challenging time. Due to the positive association between home practice and parenting outcomes (Berkel et al., 2018), these findings are promising for future phases of this work. Within home practice, quality is the most important factor, rather than completion and fidelity to the skill. The current study assessed completion, but not other components, which is a limitation of this work.

The current study was guided by the MOST framework and focused on the initial phase of “laying the groundwork” conceptually for an upcoming optimization (Collins, 2018). The implementation of the MOST design required substantial organizational planning, including setting up eight conditions in our data management system, color coding conditions to facilitate organization, and careful tracking of randomization and scheduling. Results support the feasibility of conducting a factorial design in an online setting. Importantly, no differences were found in session satisfaction by enhancement, suggesting the enhancements were acceptable to parents. Parents’ suggestions to further emphasize cyberbullying will be incorporated by framing the intervention around parenting to improve youth digital citizenship. The proposed changes to the model are supported by research findings that both parent media monitoring and house rules as well as a strong parent-child relationship are important to deter cyberbullying (Gabrielli et al., 2018).

Strengths of the current research include the innovative use of video conferencing, the high levels of attendance and home practice completion, and the positive feedback regarding improvements in family functioning that they attributed to the program. The program also gave us insight into the need to support parents in the wake of COVID-19. However, limitations must also be addressed. The limited numbers in this pilot study precluded the inclusion of covariates in the analysis and the examination of nested delivery by facilitator. The study did not include youth outcomes of interest, and to ascertain which components are effective, a full optimization trial will be needed. Another limitation is that participant responsiveness may have also been influenced by the circumstances of the COVID-10 stay-at-home orders. Family income may have been disrupted and parents’ current income may not have represented their typical income. The lack of a reference period regarding participants income reporting makes this difficult to determine. Because even a few differences were found within this small sample, future studies should further investigate whether perceptions of the intervention differ by socioeconomic status. We had one participant who lacked access to technology, which implies that in larger studies research teams may need to plan for technology accommodations for a portion of the sample.

The current study added to the literature by piloting a program online, with unique components meant to bolster effects and prepare for a MOST trial. Overall, parents indicated that the enhancements were high quality. The program was implemented through video conferencing at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, and parent responses indicated high satisfaction. The study also provided evidence that online delivery of a program designed for face-to-face interaction is not only feasible via video conferencing but may increase participant responsiveness. The increase in technology engagement necessitated by the pandemic will likely require an increased commitment to the online safety of children while also providing more opportunities to deliver preventive programs in online settings.