Exploring past research to move forward: a scoping review of aims, outcomes, and recommendations in parental mental illness qualitative research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: As parental mental illness is a global public health concern, rigorous qualitative research is central to understanding families' experiences, needs and outcomes to inform optimal service provision in adult mental health and children's social services. Methods: The current review identified, appraised and synthesized international qualitative research exploring Families and Parent Mental Illness (FaPMI) research to determine the focus, findings and outcomes and to summarize the recommendations made about the direction of future research. Findings are classified according to outcomes for children, parents, and families. Results: While some children experienced positive outcomes from a parent's illness, most faced impacts on their social-emotional wellbeing, school performance, increased caregiving responsibilities, strained parent relationships, and lack of understanding about parental mental illness. Some family members endured abuse and struggled to adapt to an ill parent's unpredictable needs, with reluctance to discuss the situation. Parents found parenting challenging yet viewed having children as a protective factor. Future research should gather diverse perspectives, explore within-family factors and social environments, develop and test interventions, and address methodological issues like sampling. Discussion: This review highlights the centrality of qualitative data in comprehensively understanding and evaluating outcomes of parental mental illness on families and provides clear recommendations regarding future research.
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 | 0.148 | 0.248 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".