Early Mental Health Foundations: A Scoping Review of Reflective Functioning in Caregiver–Child Dyads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International public health strategies indicate a need for equitable resources for wellness in younger children and their caregivers. Reflective functioning, a proxy for emotional regulation abilities, is a key area in this domain. As an emerging area, reflective functioning has not been mapped comprehensively and requires systematic investigation. This review examines "what qualitative and quantitative evidence is there for the value of reflective functioning assessment and intervention studies in caregiver-child dyads?" This scoping review focused on data published to September 2021, focusing on caregivers of children ≤36 months of age (including Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines were followed. From 5162 initial articles, 608 papers were screened for full text yielding a final 181 papers. Only 69 studies included multiple ethnicities. Seven of the 69 studies included at least 1 Indigenous person. No studies were conducted in low- to middle-income countries, and no studies reported data on gender identity. This review comprises a novel and comprehensive mapping of the reflective functioning literature in terms of both assessment and intervention studies. The present mapping of the reflective functioning literature indicates the importance of health disparities in caregiver-child dyads (these include gaps and needs for future research). In relation to gaps, studies of adverse childhood experience, consideration of equity, diversity, and inclusion, and global mental health are underrepresented. Future research is needed to provide information on the relevance of gender identity and low- to middle-income countries in relation to the impact on reflective functioning in this context.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".