A qualitative study of parents' perceptions of a behavioural sleep intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A study, entitled Evaluation of an Intervention Aimed at Resolving Behavioural Sleep Problems in 6- to 12-month-old Infants: A Pilot Study, was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of a behavioural sleep intervention. This descriptive qualitative study aimed to describe parents' perceptions of the sleep intervention and any burden associated with participating in the study. METHODS: Fourteen of the 35 families who had participated in the quantitative study were interviewed. Respondents comprised well-educated, middle-class and mixed-ethnicity families. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, with open-ended trigger questions, and were analysed using inductive content analysis. RESULT: Nine themes, which subsumed a number of categories, were constructed. Parents changed their perspectives about sleep and parenting styles; they experienced many challenges and inadvertent benefits; and they welcomed a structured framework for assisting with sleep problems. The parents fitted intervention strategies into their realities; many factors interfered with their success; and their support systems and their expectations of the study varied. CONCLUSION: These parents' previous education about normal infant sleep cycles and behavioural sleep problems was inadequate. The parents who were able to use the structured framework, flexible strategies and access to healthcare professionals for problem solving not only excelled in resolving their infants' sleep problems, but also gained confidence about their parenting skills and success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".