A mixed methods study of early childhood providers’ perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of parenting for lifelong Health tip sheets in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Universal parenting campaigns are efficient, cost-effective and can eliminate barriers to accessing conventional, face-to-face parenting interventions. The aims of the CHAMPP4KIDS study were to assess Canadian early childhood providers' perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of implementing a universal parenting resource, the Parenting for Lifelong Health tip sheets. METHODS: Using a convergent mixed method design, an online survey of providers working with families with young children in Ontario, Canada was followed by focus group discussions with a subset of providers to explore their perceptions of using the tip sheets in their professional practice. RESULTS: Providers generally perceived the tip sheets to be acceptable but had reservations with respect to the feasibility of distributing the sheets to their clients as standalone, universal parenting resources. Providers agreed the tip sheets covered topics pertinent to caregivers' concerns, offered useful strategies and, therefore, had the potential to be valuable, engaging resources for families. However, many providers said the sheets would only be effective as complementary resources to facilitated in-person sessions, especially for high-needs families. CONCLUSION: Providers suggested that future iterations of these resources take into consideration more accessible design and formatting, literacy levels, word choice and further cultural adaptation. Insight into the nuances and potential divergence between provider perceptions of universal materials' acceptability and feasibility can help adapt materials to pre-emptively respond to potential implementation barriers, facilitate intervention fidelity and, ultimately, increase the likelihood of intervention acceptability and feasibility of both providers and caregivers.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".