An Evaluation of the Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Utility of a Bibliotherapy for Children of Parents With a Mental Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Children of parents with a mental illness are at higher risk for various psychiatric problems and adaptive difficulties compared to those of parents without mental health problems. Certain preventive psychoeducational interventions target these children to promote their well-being and resilience and prevent the emergence of adaptive difficulties. However, few such interventions have been developed and evaluated specifically for elementary school-aged children of parents with a mental illness. Objectives: This study aims to evaluate an interpersonal psychotherapy-based book targeting children living with a parent with a mental illness. Methods: The study examines children, parents and psychosocial workers' perception of the acceptability, appropriateness and utility of the book. In total, 22 participants answered online open-ended questions after reading the book. Results: The book was highly appreciated and positively perceived by the families and psychosocial workers. Results suggest that children, parents and psychosocial workers viewed it as an appropriate and useful tool for supporting children with a parent with a mental illness. The present study reveals that the bibliotherapy appears well adapted to the developmental level of school-age children. Discussion: This study presents a book that shows promise for supporting the resilience of elementary school-aged children having a parent with a mental illness. Results highlight the importance of tailoring the content and modalities of interventions to the developmental level, needs and preferences of elementary school-aged children. The relevance of a collaborative method is also discussed, thus providing knowledge regarding this type of approach for the development of interventions targeting children.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".