Child rearing and parenting programs among First Nations’ populations in high-income countries: a bibliometric review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives We set out to examine the volume, scope and quality of research related to First Nations peoples' perceptions of, and experiences with, child rearing and/or parenting programs. Methods We systematically reviewed the literature published between 2000 and 2020. Sixty-eight studies identified through electronic databases and references lists met inclusion criteria. Results The study found an 8% increase in publications in the field each year (P -value = 0.002), mostly conducted in Australia with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (n = 29, 41%). Scope included positive and negative experiences relating to: parenting from adult (n = 19 studies) and teenager (n = 4) perspectives; and pregnancy, antenatal and postnatal care from the perspective of adults (n = 23) and teenagers (n = 2). Descriptive studies included qualitative (n = 40; 58%), quantitative (n = 8, 12%) or mixed methods (n = 7, 10%). Thirteen experimental studies reported the development, acceptability and/or effectiveness of programs (19%), of which three met the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care design criteria. Conclusions Despite an overall increase in volume, research efforts do not demonstrate a clear scientific progression. Further methodologically rigorous studies examining child rearing and/or parenting programs developed in collaboration with First Nations populations are needed.
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 | 0.013 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.064 | 0.067 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".