The Use of Noncommercial Parent-Focused mHealth Interventions for Behavioral Problems in Youth: Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The rates of substance use among adolescents are alarmingly high, and current treatment options lack integration of parent-focused interventions, despite evidence that effective parenting practices can mediate treatment outcomes for adolescents involved in substance use. Accessibility and other barriers to parental interventions may be mitigated through mobile health (mHealth); however, few mHealth platforms target substance use behaviors for adolescents through the implementation of behavioral parent training strategies. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to review current mHealth platforms within empirical literature that are designed to increase effective parenting through behavioral parent training techniques. Because of the paucity of mHealth modalities that use parenting strategies to target substance use in adolescents, the objective was expanded to include mHealth platforms addressing behavior problems among youth, given that parent-targeted treatments for these clinical presentations overlap with those for adolescent substance use. Overall, the systematic review was conducted to inform the development of mHealth apps for parents of youth involved in substance use, improve accessibility, and better align with parental needs. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) method to select relevant articles across several databases. Each study was assessed for relevance and inclusion. Each study was reviewed for demographics, delivery medium, intervention status as stand-alone treatment or as an enhancement to treatment, mobile device used, mental health condition targeted, intervention type, underlying intervention theory, behavior change theory applied in design, behavior change techniques, parent training techniques, youth outcomes, parent outcomes, visual design, content, and features. RESULTS: Overall, 11 studies were included. Nearly all studies (9/11, 82%) predominantly sampled female caregivers. Most of the studies (6/11, 55%) integrated social learning theory. Only a few of the studies (2/11, 18%) discussed the embedded behavior change theories, whereas all the studies (11/11, 100%) used at least one behavior change technique to encourage change in parental behaviors. Many of the studies (7/11, 64%) tailored design features to the end user. Of the various behavioral parent training techniques, nearly all studies (10/11, 91%) included the skill of strengthening the parent-child relationship. A preliminary evaluation of treatment outcomes suggests a positive impact of parent-targeted mHealth interventions. When reported, the effect sizes for treatment ranged from Cohen d=0.38 to Cohen d=1.58 for youth and from Cohen d=0.13 to Cohen d=2.59 for parents. CONCLUSIONS: Although features and techniques were referenced, only a few of the studies provided specific information related to behavior change theory (2/11, 18%), visual design (2/11, 18%), and the translation of parent-targeted interventions to mHealth platforms. Such information would be useful for the development of mHealth apps. Preliminary outcomes for youth and parents are encouraging, but future studies should consider conducting a meta-analysis as the body of studies grows to determine aggregate statistical findings.
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 | 0,013 | 0,057 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 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 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 ».