MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Parenting children with diabetes and Belsky's Determinants of Parenting Model: literature review

2006· review· en· W2081605388 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Sherifali, Donna Ciliska

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPediatric nursingCritical appraisalParenting stylesClinical psychologyNursingMedicinePsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: This paper provides a critical appraisal of the parenting literature as related to children with diabetes and proposes an adapted model of Belsky's Determinants of Parenting. BACKGROUND: Diabetes is the leading endocrine disease in school-aged children. As primary healthcare providers, parents assume responsibility for the daily management of their children's diabetes. It is therefore inevitable that parenting becomes a crucial variable in determining diabetes control. However, the literature examining parenting children with a chronic illness such as diabetes is limited. METHOD: A literature search was conducted using the CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and Social Science Index databases and the terms 'parenting', 'determinants of parenting', 'Belsky's Determinants of Parenting' and combined with 'children' and 'type 1 diabetes'. Parenting and nursing literature from 1984 to 2004 was included if it was related to parenting determinants and diabetes control in children. The literature retrieved was critically appraised and synthesized in relation to Belsky's Determinants of Parenting Model. FINDINGS: By incorporating new knowledge, an adapted Determinants of Parenting Model is proposed. The adapted model reflects a bi-directional relationship between parenting and child characteristics. Specifically, suggestions for future research on the adapted model and the bi-directional relationship between parenting and child characteristics are also discussed. CONCLUSION: Recommendations are presented for use of the adapted Determinants of Parenting Model for future nursing research. Future research will need to focus on establishing causal links between the determinants, identifying the extent to which each determinant influences parenting, and parenting determinants questionnaire development.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207