Mothers in Mind: Exploring the Efficacy of a Dyadic Group Parenting Intervention for Women Who Have Experienced Intimate Partner Violence and Their Young Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Identifying and responding to the mental health needs of young children (0–4 years) exposed to intimate partner violence is one of the most pressing issues confronting child mental health and welfare sectors today. Children exposed to IPV (CEIPV) are at an increased risk of experiencing maltreatment, developing emotional and behavioral problems, and experiencing other adversities (Kimball, Journal of Family Violence, 31, 625–637, 2016). Among the range of protective factors that can mitigate against this impact is a strong relationship with, and attachment to, a primary caregiver (Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 797–810, 2008). Despite this, there are few evidenced-based programs which address the unique parenting supports required by women who experience domestic violence, while simultaneously attending to the unique developmental and psycho-social needs of exposed young children (Austin, Shanahan, Barrios, & Macy, Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 20(4), 498–519, 2019). This article describes the development and preliminary evaluation of Mothers in Mind, a trauma-informed, dyadic, mother–child intervention program designed to meet this need. Analyses of data from 36 mother–child dyads who completed pre- and post-group evaluation find that, after program completion, mothers report greater parenting self-efficacy, healthier parenting, and enhanced psychological well-being. The importance of relational capacity building in mother–child dyads impacted by violence and suggestions for future avenues for research and intervention are explored.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".