Low-Income Parents’ Perceptions of and Engagement With a Digital Behavioral Training Program: Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Parent training is a method for strengthening parenting skill, reducing child behavior problems, and promoting positive parent-child relationships. However, few parents have access to these evidence-based programs. The ezParent program, a tablet-based delivery adaptation of the group-based Chicago Parent Program (CPP), is a parent training program designed to address the needs of families raising young children in urban poverty. There is extensive evidence that positive parenting practices can be a powerful buffer against the negative effects of poverty and adversity and is one of the strongest predictors of children’s social and behavioral well-being. Objective This study aimed to explore (1) parents’ perceptions of the benefits and barriers associated with their use of the ezParent program; and (2) the ways in which the ezParent components and perceived usability varied by program use (module completion). Methods This study uses an explanatory mixed-method design. Data were collected from 92 participants recruited from two pediatric primary care clinics (PPC) based in two urban cities with a high proportion of low income and minority families: Chicago, Illinois (cohort 1) and Baltimore, Maryland (cohort 2). Cohort 1 (n=42) was recruited between October 2013 and June 2014 as part of a randomized controlled tirla. Cohort 2 (n=50) was recruited between May 2017 and July 2017 as part of a single group design. The current report focuses on a subsample from cohorts 1 and 2 who were interviewed about their experiences using the program. To explore parents’ perceptions of ezParent (ie, perceived usefulness of content, ease of use, barriers to use, qualities affecting interest, and intention), all participants were invited to participate in an individual interview after the 12th week. Based on degree of module completion, we grouped parents into two user groups: high (completed 4-6 modules) and low (completed 0-3 modules). This cut-off was chosen based on previous data showing that parents who attended at least 50% of the CPP group sessions reported greater improvements in parenting self-efficacy, use of discipline, and warmth towards their children, as well as fewer child behavior problems. Results Fifty-nine parents participated in follow-up interview: 32 (54.24%) from cohort 1 and 27 (45.76%) from cohort 2. Among those interviewed, 23 (38.9.5%) parents completed all six modules and 12 parents (20.3%) completed none of the modules. Specifically, among those interviewed, parents completed an average of 3.73 (SD 2.39) modules compared to an average of 1.79 (SD 2.38) modules completed among those not interviewed. Parents who completed more modules reported more program benefits and those who completed fewer modules reported more barriers. Conclusions Exploring users’ experience with current digital applications, researchers and application developers can better design future tablet-based interventions to be both effective and acceptable by end users. Furthering our understanding of factors associated with engagement will inform more effective tailoring and improvements of mHealth interventions, particularly those targeting vulnerable populations.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».