A systematic review of interventions that have the potential to foster engaged fathering to enhance children's health and development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This review aimed to identify and evaluate interventions that have the potential to foster engaged fathering to enhance children's health and development. Relevant articles published in the last 20 years were searched in Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science databases. The quality of studies was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklists. Thirty out of 3968 articles met the inclusion criteria and were subsequently reviewed. Studies were conducted in six countries (USA, Australia, Canada, Germany, Vietnam and Taiwan). Twenty‐one studies were targeted interventions while nine were universal interventions. The interventions involved parenting education, physical activity, nutrition, father–child socialization, father delivered infant massage and father–infant skin‐to‐skin contact. Authors of the studies reported that the interventions led to significant improvements in positive parenting behaviours and fathers' engagement with their children and better physical health and developmental outcomes among children. Notwithstanding the reported benefits of the interventions, all 30 studies had one or more methodological problems that call in question the generalizability of the findings. Future, well‐designed, RCT studies with larger sample sizes and clear measures of fidelity are warranted to replicate and strengthen findings reported in this review.
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 | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".