Training parents is known to be an effective way to change the behavior of their children, one known approach being “parent management training” or PMT (Westrupp et al., 2016). The time children usually spend with their parents and the relationship they have with each other is not comparable to anyone else. Hence, targeting parents in training sessions is considered as a main part of treatment provided for children’s behavioral problems, in specific “externalizing” behavior (Darcy and McCarthy, 2007; Lim and Kim, 2014). This is essentially indirect which means the trainer changes the behavior of the parent which in turn affects that of the child (Mauno et al., 2012). The most common disorder in children that is widely treated with this approach is oppositional defiant disorder and evidence also supports the effectiveness of training on parents whose children suffer from ADHD (Jacobs and Winslow, 2004; Darcy and McCarthy, 2007). There are many studies, however, that show the second hand effects of this procedure on the mental health of the parents and their general well-being. In one study, for instance, researchers found it helpful in treating depression among mothers of referred children (Mauno et al., 2012). PMT is considered to be effective even when conducted remotely and it is approximately as useful as in person (Vieira et al., 2016).

In developed countries, most parents handle two different roles at the same time; the role of looking after their children while also pursuing duties of their jobs. There are fluid boundaries between work and family spheres which is discussed in different schools. Work–family enrichment is positively associated with their involvement in parental role while negative experiences in parenting would indeed influence one’s work negatively. Relationship frustration in the parent–child interactions affect perceived quality of attachment in the parent–child relationship and parenting sense of competence (Vieira et al., 2016). Several studies have investigated the positive and negative impact of work and family on each other. One study suggests that work has negative effects on family since they often compete for limited energy, temporal, and psychological resources (Lim and Kim, 2014). Another study was done for teachers and it was effective in reducing both types of work–family conflict, occupational stress, as well as increasing parental and work-related efficacy and parenting satisfaction (Bögels et al., 2014).

Family systems theory postulates that there is a reciprocal association between functioning in the parental and spousal subsystems. There are many studies supporting this association. In one study, parenting stress has been found to negatively predict marital satisfaction for both fathers and mothers, while marital satisfaction was found to affect individual mental health, family functioning, and child development. In one research, it has been affirmed that parenting stress is a significant negative predictor of marital satisfaction, while parenting self-efficacy and co-parenting alliance are significant positive predictors of marital satisfaction and this applies to both fathers and mothers (Kwan et al., 2015). It has also been affirmed that co-parenting alliance, satisfaction with father involvement, and parenting self-efficacy were significantly and positively correlated with mothers’ marital satisfaction (Kwok et al., 2015). In this paper, we try to show the effects of PMT on two aspects of parents’ lives: the satisfaction of parents as a couple and their contentment in workplace. This indirect intervention has not been investigated systematically in Persian population, so we hypothesized that by enhancing child behavioral issues based on PMT, marital satisfaction will be increased and job stress will be reduced.

Rather than changes in child behavior following PMT, we focused on parents to investigate implications for maximizing treatment effect in the entire family in this study. PMT can be defined as an approach to treating child behavior problems using “procedures in which parents are trained to alter their child’s behavior in the home (McMahon and Wells, 1989).” Marital and job satisfaction were the main outcome variables used to study the intervention effects.

The choice of the two variables was based on a study that indicated the interdependent nature of family and work; stating the fact that experiences in one area affect the quality of life in the other (Sarantakos, 1996). Of relevance, evidence suggests that PMT has been successful in improving marital satisfaction among non-distressed couples (Dadds et al., 1987). In our study, baseline DAS score was borderline; highlighting the appropriate choice of model of training. Previous studies in Iran had shown similar findings with regard to the non-significant correlations between marital satisfaction and job stress (Rahimi et al., 2004; Sori et al., 2006). However, a recent research among flight attendants found positive correlation between job satisfaction and dyadic adjustment (Zamanifar et al., 2016).

We found no significant changes in total or subscale HSE scores in this study. We suggest that the bonus considered by the management may have affected baseline HSE scores. However, we should mention that two subscales scores decreased from baseline to final sessions; this change may be attributed to intervention. Despite the large number of controlled studies attesting the efficacy of PMT fundamental questions remain about the magnitude, scope, and durability of impact (Kazdin, 2006). Marital satisfaction as a main outcome measure to this study was compared to more investigate these unknown areas of effect. Baseline DAS scores were borderline hence participants (working parents) were considered as non-distressed couples; however, their marital situation was not appraised to be satisfactory, not only based on DAS scores but also the observation throughout the intervention. In line with our findings, it is noted that parenting is a huge stress in the modern society especially when the mom works (Kwon, 2011; Kim, 2015).

Comparisons of baseline and post-intervention DAS scores showed significant improvement in the present study that is in line with previous findings (Bögels et al., 2014). All marital satisfaction variables including “consensus,” “satisfaction,” “cohesion,” and DAS total scores had improved; except for “affectional expression” where the increment was not statistically significant. Contrary to our findings, a previous study found significant improvement in affectional expression after a similar intervention for both distressed and non-distressed couples (Eisenberg et al., 2011). We propose cultural differences in expressing affection as a probable explanation. When compared to an emotionally focused couple therapy intervention, different content of the intervention is supposedly the main factor leading to a different outcome in affectional expression scores (Najafi et al., 2015). Although participants had been reassured about anonymity and confidentiality of their responses, we assume privacy may have been a concern to affect affectional expression scores.

Our findings should be considered in light of few limitations. First, shifting the focus of PMT to parents and discussing implications for maximizing the outcomes of PMT for the entire family was almost new and our study conducted without significant previous literature in this specific area. Second, measuring occupational stress by self-report questionnaire in participants work environment may cause bias in responding (as found in this study). Third, randomize sampling was not feasible and the sample was very low not only because of small number of university staff but also cause of exclusion criteria. It was a primary step to target marital satisfaction by applying PMT. Further research may conduct by a larger sample and randomize sampling, so results can be generalized to a large group of parents in need for intervention.

“This research is sponsored by Shahid Beheshti University, department of health and clinical psychology.”

The main idea and intervention of this research carried on by MM, but RA did the statistical analyze and other works like article writing.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.