Children's experiences of parental mental illness: a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper provides a review of published qualitative research on children's experiences of parental mental illness. METHODS: We undertook a comprehensive search of Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Sociological Abstracts and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts databases, as well as citation searches in Web of Science and manual searches of other relevant journals and reference lists of primary papers. RESULTS: Although 20 studies met the search criteria, only 10 focused exclusively on children's descriptions of their experience--the remainder elicited adults' perspectives on children's experiences of parental mental illnesses. Findings are organized under three themes: the impact of illness on children's daily life, how children cope with their experiences and how children understand mental illness. CONCLUSIONS: Despite references to pervasive knowledge gaps in the literature, significant information has been accumulated about children's experiences of parental mental illness. Considerable variability in research findings and tensions remain unresolved. For example, evidence is mixed as to children's knowledge and understanding of mental illnesses and how best to deploy resources to help them acquire optimal information. Furthermore, children's desire to be recognized as important to their parents' well-being conflicted with adults' perceptions that children should be protected from too much responsibility. Nevertheless, the cumulative evidence remains a key reason for advocating for psychoeducation and peer-support group interventions for children, which are endorsed by child and adult study participants alike.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".