Systematic review of the impact of coparenting interventions on paternal coparenting behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of interventions to support coparenting, how partners relate to and support one another as parents, on paternal outcomes. BACKGROUND: Despite societal shifts in gender roles leading to fathers' increasing involvement in parenting and growing recognition of the need for couples-based parenting interventions, fathers have been underrepresented in parenting research. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Healthstar, and PsycInfo. REVIEW METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses to identify peer-reviewed articles published up to 2016 that evaluated the effectiveness of coparenting interventions for expectant fathers or fathers of children <18 years. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias criteria for Effective Practice and Organisation of Care reviews; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were used to summarize quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was coparenting behaviour among men. RESULTS: We identified 16 randomized controlled trials that evaluated 14 coparenting interventions. Nine interventions targeted partners in the perinatal period; five targeted parents of children. All but one involved face-to-face contact, but this varied in duration and intensity. Of the 12 trials that examined coparenting outcomes, eight reported an effect on at least one measure of paternal coparenting behaviour. The quality of the evidence was at a low level. CONCLUSION: Success was moderate, supporting the need for future research to explore the use of additional approaches to increase efficacy, including technology-based interventions, to improve uptake among men.
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 | 0.014 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".