Augmenting Parenting Programs With the Pause Mobile App: Mixed Methods Evaluation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Parenting programs are the recommended treatment for common mental health problems of childhood such as conduct disorder. In the United Kingdom, local authorities have responsibility for providing or commissioning these programs through face-to-face and video call weekly groups and e-learning style asynchronous offerings. However, there has been a shortage of research into the potential of digital resources to augment and enhance parenting groups. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study aimed to explore whether providing digital microinterventions in a mobile app (Pause) to augment parenting programs is a feasible strategy. Pause fits into parenting programs and prompts and supports parents to use each week's new parenting skill at home. Specifically, we want to understand (1) whether parents use Pause, (2) what type of features or tools in Pause are most frequently used for support, and (3) what are the perceived strengths and weaknesses of Pause. METHODS: Pause was provided to parents attending 3 of the most common parenting programs delivered across 3 local authorities in the United Kingdom. During weekly sessions, parents were supported to add "tools" in the app, which mapped onto the training in their session, for example, distracting their child, setting age-appropriate consequences, and using praise. Preprogram surveys were obtained at the first session. After programs were completed, postprogram surveys were administered to measure app use, gather which tools parents used, and explore the strengths and weaknesses of the app. Participants and practitioners were invited for interviews, where the strengths and weaknesses of augmenting parenting programs with Pause were discussed in more detail. RESULTS: In total, 53 parents were recruited from groups. A total of 25 of 53 (47%) parents completed postsurveys distributed at their final parenting group session, in keeping with typical rates of attrition in parenting programs. In addition, 7 parents and 3 practitioners agreed to interviews after the program. Most of the parents (23/25, 92%) had used Pause. Other than the journal, used by 17 parents, the most popular tools were the relax tool and praise tool, each used by 10 parents. Survey data revealed specific strengths and weaknesses of the tools in Pause, particularly highlighting that parents wanted Pause to provide more ideas for distraction or relaxation activities. Interviews revealed the challenges parents attending programs face, the range of family members using Pause, and the diverse settings where it was used. Interviews also revealed specific opportunities for improving the user interface and for addressing challenges in the journaling function. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study found good acceptability and engagement with Pause. Interviews revealed promising evidence, suggesting that Pause may improve family life and aid child behavior change. Future research should evaluate whether adding Pause to parenting programs increases their positive effects on children's behavior and mental health.
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 | 0,026 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
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.
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 ».