Parenting Interventions for Mothers With Problematic Substance Use: A Systematic Review of Research and Community Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women with problematic substance use are frequently referred to interventions to promote positive parenting. Parenting interventions that attend to the unique risks faced by this population may enhance engagement and outcomes. While reviews of extant parenting interventions in the research literature have been undertaken, no studies have examined parenting interventions being implemented in community practice and the extent to which these are informed by current research. We systematically compared parenting interventions offered in 12 maternal substance use treatment programs in one Canadian province with those described in the research literature ( K = 21). Few parenting interventions were replicated, either within or across the two samples. However, parenting interventions within both samples were largely similar in their objectives. Across both research and community samples, approximately half of the interventions were developed or adapted for a problematic substance use population. Parenting knowledge, psychosocial risk, and maternal emotional regulation were most commonly addressed. Risks pertaining to the impact of drug craving and substance-related changes in neurobiology associted with parenting were less commonly addressed. Findings highlight current strengths and limitations of parenting interventions within research and community settings, with recommendations offered for future research and knowledge translation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".