Assessing the impacts of an interdisciplinary programme supporting father involvement on professionals’ practices with fathers: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to assess the impacts of the Father-Friendly Initiative within Families (FFIF) programme, an interdisciplinary programme supporting father involvement, on health professionals' practices with fathers. BACKGROUND: It is increasingly recognised that father involvement benefits children's cognitive and social development and contributes to both parents' well-being. Recent research has shown health professionals' support to be a protective factor in father involvement. Research results were translated into practice through the implementation of a programme, the FFIF, aimed at empowering health professionals to support father involvement. DESIGN: The study employed a qualitative impact assessment approach based on semi-structured interviews with 36 health professionals to assess the impacts of the FFIF on professionals' practices with fathers. METHODS: A total of 36 health professionals were interviewed (13 nurses, 10 social workers, six community workers, three educators, two psychoeducators, one health manager, and one special education teacher). Interviews were transcribed, and a qualitative thematic analysis was carried out. This study is presented in line with COREQ's checklist. RESULTS: Impacts of the FFIF on health professionals were seen in changes on three fronts: (a1) their beliefs; (b) their conception of their role; and (c) their interventions. These changes related to three themes: (a) difficulties experienced by fathers; (b) importance of father involvement; and (c) differences between fathers and mothers. The professionals, having realised the importance of their own role in improving the services offered to fathers, made concrete changes in their interventions, such as reaching out to fathers more effectively, encouraging their participation and treating them fairly and equitably. CONCLUSIONS: After attending this interdisciplinary programme supporting father involvement, participating professionals adopted father-friendly beliefs, redefined their conception of their role and modified their interventions. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: To provide family-centred care, nurses and other health professionals need to adopt father-inclusive practices.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".