Establishing therapeutic and supportive relationships throughout delivery of a school-based group parenting program via telehealth: Exploring causal pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Access to specialised early intervention mental health services for children, including group counselling for parents/carers, is still a challenge in non-metropolitan areas of Australia. Aim: To gain understanding of the acceptability of a school-based targeted parenting group program delivered via telehealth by exploring the experiences of parents/carers, clinicians and school staff, and asking what works, how, why and in what circumstances. Methods: Caregivers, clinicians and school staff involved in the delivery of a mental health program via telehealth into primary schools in two rural Local Health Districts (LHDs) in southern New South Wales (NSW) were invited to participate in interviews and/or focus group discussions. Thematic analysis of the data was conducted with reference to realist theory. Findings: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 caregivers, five semi-structured interviews and two focus group discussions with school staff from six participating schools, and three focus groups with seven clinicians who delivered the intervention. We found that the intervention and micro contexts interacted to influence acceptability by initiating or enhancing cohesion among caregivers, establishing channels of communication between caregivers and teachers, and connection between caregivers and clinicians despite geographic distance. Several adaptations were made to strengthen the therapeutic alliance between caregivers and clinicians. Conclusion: Relationships crucial to the success of delivering psychological group counselling were established. Regional community contexts can facilitate acceptability of parenting group counselling delivered into schools via telehealth. Implementation of the program was flexible enough to allow clinicians to adjust their approach and materials to better suit the telehealth modality.
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 | 0.019 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".