MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163532684 · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00071

Interventions and programs that support the health and development of infants with prenatal substance exposure in foster care: a scoping review

2021· review· en· W3163532684 on OpenAlexaff
Lenora Marcellus, Karen MacKinnon, Carol Gordon, Lindsay Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOCINAHLFoster carePsychological interventionNeglectContext (archaeology)Inclusion (mineral)MEDLINEMedicineHealth careNursingPsychologyFamily medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to describe the characteristics of interventions and programs that support the health and development of infants in foster care who have prenatal substance exposure, their foster care providers, and birth families. INTRODUCTION: Infants in foster care may have experienced prenatal substance exposure, neglect, and maltreatment, as well as disruptions in their relationships with primary caregivers. Despite multiple vulnerabilities, they also have great capacity for overcoming early adversities. Enhanced foster care has been identified as a key influence on the positive development of infants in the child welfare system. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review considered publications that described interventions and programs designed to support foster care providers who care for infants less than 12 months of age with prenatal substance exposure. This review included research studies and gray literature. This scoping review focused on sources that described caregiving interventions and elements of programs that took place within the context of family or home-based foster care. METHODS: A three-step search strategy was used to identify publications in the English language from January 2000 to December 2019. A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Academic Search Premier, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases. Titles and abstracts were initially screened to assess if publications met the inclusion criteria, followed by full-text review. Publications that met the inclusion criteria were assessed by two independent reviewers using a data extraction tool developed for this review. Findings were thematically analyzed on the basis of similarity in focus and descriptively presented with tables and figures to support the findings. RESULTS: Eighty-one publications were included, including 48 research papers and 33 gray literature sources. Thematic analysis of the focus of each publication resulted in identification of four core themes: i) mental health promotion for infants in care; ii) child welfare program elements; iii) identification of infants and families at risk of requiring foster care; and iv) outcomes for infants in care and their families. The interventions and programs identified during this scoping review were primarily focused on supporting social-emotional development. With the significant focus on infant mental health, supporting birth parents to stay attached to their infants was a key focus of the majority of publications. The concept of being able to proactively identify risk factors that were associated with infants requiring foster care emerged in relation to how family preservation could be supported. Strategies identified as contributing to the development of successful interventions and programs included having foster care providers participate as collaborators in designing services, designing services that are adaptable to a range of contexts, involving community partners outside child welfare, and having developmentally appropriate programs. CONCLUSIONS: Infants represent a significant proportion of children in foster care. A developmental perspective is needed for child welfare service planning to address their unique needs. Intervention during the early years holds significant potential for promoting positive developmental pathways and family preservation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsFrench-language works237,207