MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2883280271 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007987.pub3

Parent training interventions for parents with intellectual disability

2018· review· en· W2883280271 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Esther Coren, Kerry Ramsbotham, Manfred Gschwandtner

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018
Typereview
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueFamily and Disability Support Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIntellectual disabilityCINAHLPsychological interventionParent trainingIntervention (counseling)Inclusion (mineral)MedicineMEDLINERandomized controlled trialPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that the number of intellectually disabled people with children is increasing. Intellectual disabilities do not inevitably cause parenting difficulties, but it may impact on an individual's capacity to parent a child effectively. Children of parents with intellectual disabilities may be at increased risk of neglectful care, which could lead to health, developmental and behavioural problems, or increased risk of intellectual disability. Compared with other parents, those with intellectual disabilities are more likely to be involved in care proceedings. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of parent training interventions for parents with intellectual disabilities designed to support parenting, parent-child relations, safe parenting or family environments, or to develop parenting skills. SEARCH METHODS: In July 2017, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and six other databases as well as two trials registers. We also searched reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field to identify additional ongoing and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing parent training interventions for parents with intellectual disabilities with treatment as usual or a control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standardised Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS: As of July 2017, we identified four trials with 192 participants that met the review inclusion criteria. Participating parents were mostly mothers (seven fathers were included in two studies), and children's ages ranged from one month to six years and five months.One study was conducted in Australia, one in Canada, one in the Netherlands, and one in the USA. Each studied a different intervention and considered different outcomes. Three interventions were delivered at home, and one in a community venue (e.g. a church). Interventions varied in duration from seven weeks to 12 months. They included a range of practical childcare skills, home safety and developing parents' ability to respond sensitively to their children. Parents in the comparison groups included in the review received treatment as usual and most of these received the index intervention after the study was complete.One study was funded by the Ontario Mental Health Foundation and the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services Research Grants Program; one by the Alabama Development Disabilities Council; one by the Best Practice Parenting Education Initiative of the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services and the New South Wales Aging and Disability Department; and one by ZonMw, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.It was not possible for us to conduct a meta-analysis. The GRADE quality assessment varied from very low to moderate across the studies.Primary outcomesNo study reported on the 'attainment of specific parenting skill targets'.'Safe home practices' and 'understanding of child health': one study (30 parents, very low-quality evidence) reported some improvements in parents' knowledge of life-threatening emergencies, ability to recognise dangers, and identify precautions, in favour of the intervention group. It also found limited, very low-quality evidence that parent training improved parents' ability to understand child health, implement precautions, use medicines safely, recognise child illness and symptoms, and seek medical advice (i.e. visit the doctor). Another study (22 mothers, very low-quality evidence) reported improved attainment of skills related to childcare and safety, in favour of the intervention group.Secondary outcomes'Parent-child interaction': one study (40 mothers, very low-quality evidence) reported improved maternal-child interaction following parent training at 12 months follow-up. Another study (83 mothers, 2 fathers, moderate-quality evidence) reported that inclusion in the intervention group led to a steeper decline in parenting stress related to the child compared to the control group.'Parents' retention of child': one study (22 participants; very low-quality evidence) reported that before joining the programme nine of 11 (82%) families with a previous child had had the child removed from their care by child protection authorities due to maternal maltreatment, compared with only four of 22 (19%) families after participating in the programme (only one of these four mothers had also had a previous child removed).No study reported data on: 'return to independent care of child' or 'lifting of child-related court order'. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some very low-quality evidence that some parents, mainly mothers, with intellectual disabilities are able to provide adequate parenting if they are given appropriate training and support to learn the parenting skills they need. However, there are few studies exploring how interventions might work, for whom and in what circumstances. In particular, there have been few studies that include fathers with intellectual disabilities, or that explore the views of parents themselves.There is a need for larger RCTs of parenting interventions, with longer follow-up, before conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of parent training for this group of parents.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,149
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0090,003
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,535
Tête enseignante GPT0,529
Écart entre enseignants0,006 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations65
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetFamily and Disability Support ResearchTravaux en français237 207