Parenting Interventions During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of the Rationales, Process, Feasibility, Acceptability, and Impacts of Adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence shows that parenting interventions are an effective method of reducing caregiver-perpetrated child maltreatment. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has changed the provision of parenting interventions worldwide, with many interventions adapting to continue providing services during the crisis. This global systematic review examined how parenting interventions targeting child maltreatment and its risk and protective factors were adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We searched for studies published between 2020 and 2022 and identified 31 eligible studies. The data on the rationale, process, feasibility, acceptability, and impacts of adaptations were narratively synthesized in accordance with the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-Based Interventions. Results showed that most adaptations were proactive and focused on delivery methods, predominantly digitalization. While feasibility and acceptability were generally observed, the impacts of adapted programs were inconclusive. Inadequate reporting, especially regarding rationale, fidelity, facilitator capacity building, stakeholder involvement, and decision-making processes, was noted. The review recommends enhanced planning, documentation, and reporting of program adaptations using established guidelines, as well as process and impact evaluations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".