Supporting Depressed Mothers of Young Children with Intellectual Disability: Feasibility of an Integrated Parenting Intervention in a Low-Income Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a lifelong condition, intellectual disability (ID) remains a public health priority. Parents caring for children with ID experience serious challenges to their wellbeing, including depression, anxiety, stress and health-related quality of life. Integrated parenting interventions, which have been well evidenced for depressed mothers, may also effectively support depressed parents with a child with ID in low-resource settings such as Pakistan, and in turn optimise child outcomes. We conducted a mixed-method rater-blind feasibility randomised controlled trial, which assessed the feasibility and acceptability of the Learning Through Play in My Own Way Plus (LTP-IMOW Plus) intervention. Mothers who screened positive for depression (n = 26) with a young child (age 3-6 years) with ID were recruited from two low-resource community settings. Participants in the intervention arm (n = 13) received 12 group sessions of LTP-IMOW Plus and others (n = 13) received routine care. The intervention was feasible and acceptable with 100% retention and 100% session attendance. The intervention improved depression, anxiety, parenting stress and child socialisation score outcomes relative to the routine care arm. The framework utilised to analyse the qualitative interviews with seven participants at pre-intervention identified a range of struggles experienced by the mothers, and at post-intervention, found improved knowledge of child development and practices, improved mother-child relationships, recommendations for the intervention and perceived practical barriers and facilitators. The findings highlight the prospects for a clinical and cost-effective trial of an integrated parenting intervention to manage long-term parental mental health needs and improve child 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".