MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313679923 · doi:10.1111/cch.13095

Barriers and facilitators influencing parental adherence to prevention strategies for deformational plagiocephaly: Results from a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4313679923 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Trottier, Karen Hurtubise, Chantal Camden, Windy Cloutier, Isabelle Gaboury

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Care Health and Development · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPlagiocephalyScopusMEDLINEGrey literatureThematic analysisMedicinePsychologyEvidence-based practiceNursingFamily medicinePsychological interventionAlternative medicineQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Deformational plagiocephaly can be prevented in many healthy infants if strategies are implemented early after birth. However, despite efforts to disseminate accurate information, parental adherence to evidence-based prevention strategies is a challenge. To date, factors - barriers and facilitators - influencing parental adherence to strategies have yet to be identified in a comprehensive manner. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aims to identify and synthesize current evidence on barriers and facilitators impacting adherence of parents of newborns to deformational plagiocephaly prevention strategies. METHODS: This review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) process guidelines. Seven electronic (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Academic Search Complete, AMED, PsychINFO and Scopus) and two grey literature (Health Systems Evidence and Grey Literature Report) databases were searched. Studies published between 2001 and 2022 were included. The deductive thematic data analysis used was guided by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Behavioral Model (COM-B) of health behaviour change. RESULTS: From a total of 1172 articles, 15 met the eligibility criteria. All components of the COM-B framework were identified. Capability-psychological and opportunity-environmental factors dominated the literature, whereas capability-physical, motivation and, in particular, opportunity-social factors were understudied. The most often reported barriers were a lack of knowledge of deformational plagiocephaly and the associated prevention strategies, ambiguous or inconsistent messaging, intolerance of babies to prone positioning and a lack of time. The most frequently reported facilitators were an awareness of deformational plagiocephaly, postural asymmetry and prevention strategies, skill acquisition with practice, accurate convincing information, scheduled time and environmental organization to position the baby at home. DISCUSSION: Recommendations focused on diffusing accurate and detailed information for parents. Our review also suggests a gap regarding the comprehensive identification of factors influencing parental adherence to deformational plagiocephaly prevention strategies. Further studies exploring comprehensive opportunity-social and motivation factors influencing parental adherence to deformational plagiocephaly prevention strategies are warranted to inform prevention programmes and foster better infant outcomes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Care Health and DevelopmentSame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207