8.L. Workshop: The children and parents in focus: Challenges in evaluating a public health approach to parenting
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Parenting programs have strong evidence in promoting positive changes in both parents and children and are considered as evidence-based treatments for children with externalising problems such as conduct problems and ADHD. It is expected that a public health approach to parenting - i.e., the availability of parenting programs to all parents regardless of their risk status - will reduce the number of children with externalising problems at the population level. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of this approach is inconclusive. This is largely due to difficulties in conducting the needed large population trials of universal parenting programs. The objective of the workshop is to facilitate a discussion on planning and conducting research projects to successfully evaluate the effectiveness of psychological interventions such as parenting programs when they are offered universally to everyone. We will describe three main challenges in evaluating a public health approach to parenting: difficulties in collecting data from the whole population (and not only those exposed to the intervention), lack of validated instruments to measure population-level impact, and low program exposure. To illustrate our points, we use a population-based cluster randomised controlled trial as an example. The aim of the project - Children and Parents in Focus - was to test the effectiveness of a universally offered parenting program in addressing emotional and behavioural problems in preschool children. The project was carried out for four years in a municipality with 200 000 inhabitants in Sweden. Data were collected from mothers, fathers and teachers of over 7 000 children aged 3 to 5 years. The workshop will include a brief introduction and three presentations. In the first presentation, we focus on recruitment of parents into the study. We discuss the rational for recruiting parents of all children aged 3-5 into the study through child health centres and the steps that we took to increase the number of parents who participated in the study. In the second presentation, we describe the primary outcome measure in the study i.e., the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaires (SDQ) collected from fathers, mothers and preschool teachers. We discuss how we validated the SDQ for all the three informants and developed a guideline for using the SDQ during routine health check-ups. In the third presentation, we explain our challenges in recruiting parents to the intervention, particularly the restrictions imposed on us by the trial design and describe how we addressed low program participation. After each presentation, the participants will be invited to share their experiences, thoughts and ideas. Their comments will be first collected through a digital interactive platform and then discussed in the room. Key messages Successful evaluation of a public health interventions at the population-level requires ample attention to the recruitment of participants into research and intervention. Program uptake can be increased using simple low cost direct-to-consumer marketing strategies; however, it does take time to build demand for the program.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,087 | 0,063 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,012 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,004 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».