MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3163532684 · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00071

Interventions and programs that support the health and development of infants with prenatal substance exposure in foster care: a scoping review

2021· review· en· W3163532684 sur OpenAlexaff
Lenora Marcellus, Karen MacKinnon, Carol Gordon, Lindsay Shaw

Notice bibliographique

RevueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2021
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Victoria
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsycINFOCINAHLFoster carePsychological interventionNeglectContext (archaeology)Inclusion (mineral)MEDLINEMedicineHealth careNursingPsychologyFamily medicineSocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to describe the characteristics of interventions and programs that support the health and development of infants in foster care who have prenatal substance exposure, their foster care providers, and birth families. INTRODUCTION: Infants in foster care may have experienced prenatal substance exposure, neglect, and maltreatment, as well as disruptions in their relationships with primary caregivers. Despite multiple vulnerabilities, they also have great capacity for overcoming early adversities. Enhanced foster care has been identified as a key influence on the positive development of infants in the child welfare system. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review considered publications that described interventions and programs designed to support foster care providers who care for infants less than 12 months of age with prenatal substance exposure. This review included research studies and gray literature. This scoping review focused on sources that described caregiving interventions and elements of programs that took place within the context of family or home-based foster care. METHODS: A three-step search strategy was used to identify publications in the English language from January 2000 to December 2019. A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Academic Search Premier, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases. Titles and abstracts were initially screened to assess if publications met the inclusion criteria, followed by full-text review. Publications that met the inclusion criteria were assessed by two independent reviewers using a data extraction tool developed for this review. Findings were thematically analyzed on the basis of similarity in focus and descriptively presented with tables and figures to support the findings. RESULTS: Eighty-one publications were included, including 48 research papers and 33 gray literature sources. Thematic analysis of the focus of each publication resulted in identification of four core themes: i) mental health promotion for infants in care; ii) child welfare program elements; iii) identification of infants and families at risk of requiring foster care; and iv) outcomes for infants in care and their families. The interventions and programs identified during this scoping review were primarily focused on supporting social-emotional development. With the significant focus on infant mental health, supporting birth parents to stay attached to their infants was a key focus of the majority of publications. The concept of being able to proactively identify risk factors that were associated with infants requiring foster care emerged in relation to how family preservation could be supported. Strategies identified as contributing to the development of successful interventions and programs included having foster care providers participate as collaborators in designing services, designing services that are adaptable to a range of contexts, involving community partners outside child welfare, and having developmentally appropriate programs. CONCLUSIONS: Infants represent a significant proportion of children in foster care. A developmental perspective is needed for child welfare service planning to address their unique needs. Intervention during the early years holds significant potential for promoting positive developmental pathways and family preservation.

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,581
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,072
Tête enseignante GPT0,378
Écart entre enseignants0,306 · 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; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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

Citations5
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJBI Evidence SynthesisMême sujetPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsTravaux en français237 207