Parenting for the promotion of adolescent mental health: a scoping review of programmes targeting ethnoculturally diverse families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A scoping review of the literature on parenting programmes that target the promotion of adolescent mental health was conducted to examine the quality of the studies and unique content of programmes for parents from ethnoculturally diverse communities. PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched in April, 2011 (for all publications prior to that date) and again in August, 2015 (for publications from April, 2011 to August, 2015) using specific keywords and inclusion criteria. A hand search was also conducted. Overall, 107 studies met inclusion criteria for final data extraction and included evaluations of interventions targeted at substance use, early/risky sexual activity and behavioural problems. Eighteen of the 107 studies described programmes targeting parents of adolescents from diverse ethnocultural communities; the quality of these 18 studies was assessed using a marginally modified version of the Downs and Black Checklist (Downs & Black 1998). Their average quality assessment score was 16 out of 28. In addition, two key themes reflected in successful interventions emerged: strengthening parent-adolescent relationship through communication, and importance of community engagement in designing and implementing the intervention. Findings indicate gaps in service delivery to parents of adolescents from ethnoculturally diverse communities; there are a limited number of studies on programmes targeting ethnoculturally diverse parents of adolescents, and the quality of studies that do exist is overall low. Given increasing diversity, more emphasis should be placed on developing and modifying programmes to meet the needs of ethnoculturally diverse communities. More rigorous, standardised efforts should be made to evaluate programmes that do exist.
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 | 0.022 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".