Service Providers’ Experiences Engaging Indigenous Fathers and Two-Spirit Parents With Young Children in Parenting Programs: An Interpretive Description
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthy parenting is critical to the health of children and is often supported by prenatal and parenting programs. While numerous parenting programs exist for Indigenous families with young children, most do not meet the needs of men or Two-Spirit people. Participation of Indigenous fathers is typically low, and little is known about how service providers can engage Two-Spirit parents. This study aims to understand the experiences of service providers who deliver programming for expectant and parenting Indigenous fathers and Two-Spirit people to better engage parents in supportive programming that more effectively meet their needs to be successful parents. A community-led approach, along with Thorne's Interpretive Description methodology and the Two-Eyed Seeing framework, was used to understand the experiences of service providers delivering programs. Interviews and discussion groups were used to collect data concurrently with a collaborative approach to analysis. Findings are presented in a thematic summary comprised of four themes: (1) Relationality; (2) Role as Teacher; (3) Advocacy; and (4) Supporting Healing. The findings suggest that service providers should first build a trusting relationship with parents, provide activities, and use teaching strategies that more effectively engage men and Two-Spirit people in learning, while using a strengths-based and equitable approach. Findings demonstrate an urgent need to recruit men and Two-Spirit people as facilitators within organizations to deliver programming that is reflective of the clients they seek to serve.
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 | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".