MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410253633 · doi:10.1186/s12887-025-05656-y

Understanding the effectiveness and design of parent-oriented mobile health interventions: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

2025· review· en· W4410253633 on OpenAlexaff
Alicia Kilfoy, Isabella Zaffino, Enoch McAtee, Prabdeep Panesar, Kristin Cleverley, Quỳnh Phạm, Charlene H. Chu, Lindsay Jibb

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pediatrics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteSickKids FoundationUniversity Health NetworkMcMaster UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthPublic Health OntarioHospital for Sick ChildrenSt. Lawrence CollegeInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionCINAHLPsycINFOmHealthMedicineMEDLINERandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewCochrane LibraryDistressIntervention (counseling)Clinical psychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Parents of children with a health condition experience high levels of distress which can have long-term impact on the child and parent. Dyadic interventions have the potential to decrease this distress, however several barriers to access including time constraints have been reported. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions can address several of these barriers. GOAL: The goal of this systematic review was to review and synthesize the literature examining the effects of parent-oriented mHealth interventions and their content and design. METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Central databases from January 2013 to 2023 using a search strategy based on telemedicine and parents/caregivers. Included studies were randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of parent-oriented mHealth interventions on child and parent health. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess for bias in studies. Trial details and design and content features of interventions were extracted. Outcomes were organized using the Van Houtven's Framework for Informal Caregiver Interventions. Results are presented narratively. RESULTS: Fifty papers pertaining to 49 unique studies met our inclusion criteria. More than half of the studies scored high-risk for bias. Interventions targeted a wide range of pediatric conditions. Intervention type included texting (n = 17) and investigator-developed mobile applications (n = 16). Interventions significantly improved parent psychological health and child health outcomes. Key intervention features and design included the use/application of codesign and a theory-driven intervention. CONCLUSION: Parent-oriented mHealth interventions identified in this review significantly improved both parent and child health outcomes. Therefore, these interventions have the potential to support parents outside of a clinical setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.205
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.205
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.011
Bibliometrics0.0150.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PediatricsSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207