Digital Parenting Interventions for Fathers of Infants From Conception to the Age of 12 Months: Systematic Review of Mixed Methods Studies (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Digital interventions help address barriers to traditional health care services. Fathers play an important parenting role in their families, and their involvement is beneficial for family well-being. Although digital interventions are a promising avenue to facilitate father involvement during the perinatal period, most are oriented toward maternal needs and do not address the unique needs of fathers. OBJECTIVE This systematic review describes the digital interventions that exist or are currently being developed for fathers of infants from conception to 12 months postpartum. METHODS A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase (using Ovid), and CINAHL (using EBSCO) databases was conducted to identify articles from database inception to June 2022, of which 39 met the inclusion criteria. Articles were included if they were peer-reviewed and described a digital intervention that targeted fathers of fetuses or infants aged ≤12 months. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and opinion pieces were excluded. Data from these studies were extracted and themed using a narrative synthesis approach. Quality appraisal of the articles was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS A total of 2816 articles were retrieved, of which 39 (1.38%) met the inclusion criteria for eligibility after removing duplicates and screening. Eligible articles included 29 different interventions across 13 countries. Most articles (22/29, 76%) described interventions that were exclusively digital. There were a variety of digital modalities, but interventions were most commonly designed to be delivered via a website or web-based portal (14/29, 48%). Just over half (21/39, 54%) of the articles described interventions designed to be delivered from pregnancy through the postpartum period. Only 26% (10/39) of the studies targeted fathers exclusively. A wide range of outcomes were included, with 54% (21/39) of the studies including a primary outcome related to intervention feasibility. Qualitative and mixed methods studies reported generally positive experiences with digital interventions and qualitative themes of the importance of providing support to partners, improving parenting confidence, and normalization of stress were identified. Of the 18 studies primarily examining efficacy outcomes, 13 (72%) reported a statistically significant intervention effect. The studies exhibited a moderate quality level overall. CONCLUSIONS New and expecting fathers use digital technologies, which could be used to help address father-specific barriers to traditional health care services. However, in contrast to the current state of digital interventions for mothers, father-focused interventions lack evaluation and evidence. Among the existing studies on digital interventions for fathers, there seem to be mixed findings regarding their feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy. There is a need for more development and standardized evaluation of interventions that target father-identified priorities. This review was limited by not assessing equity-oriented outcomes (eg, race and socioeconomic status), which should also be considered in future intervention development.
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 | 0.021 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".