Parent and Caregiver Preferences for eHealth Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Online programs serve as an important avenue for delivering mental health and parenting services worldwide. The quantity of online programs proliferated during the COVID-19 pandemic with developers emphasizing the potential to improve accessibility and reduce barriers of in-person programming (e.g., arranging transportation, childcare, and scheduling). However, Canadian parents’ and caregivers' preferences for features they desire in online family mental health supports are unknown. Understanding these preferences would better allow for the creation of programs that are best suited to meet parents’ needs. Thus, the present study examined parent program preferences, barriers to access, and how different sociodemographic factors predicted preferences for aspects such as program features (e.g., duration delivery format).Methods: Self-report surveys were administered in 2023 via the online crowdsourcing platform AskingCanadians to parents and primary caregivers of children ages 0 to 5 years. Descriptive statistics examined parent program preferences and barriers. Regression models examined sociodemographic predictors of these preferences and barriers.Results: Participants identified a range of preferences across program structure and coaching, as well as challenges associated with program access. Parents most preferred programs with a web-based delivery format (72%), a duration of 2-4 weeks (27%), and psychologists as program coaches (51.4%). The most highly endorsed barriers were lack of time (42.2%) and limited internet access (25.1%). Sociodemographic factors including parent gender, household income, education, and ethnicity also consistently predicted preference for various program characteristics. Conclusions: This research provides an important first step toward creating more accessible online mental health and parenting programs by ensuring the voices of the parents who will use these services are heard in program development and adaptation. Future research should investigate how to address accessibility and inclusivity barriers to participating in parent programs for diverse families based on their differential preferences.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".