PERCEIVED STEPFAMILY CHALLENGES: A CROSS-SECTIONAL DESCRIPTIVE STUDY AMONG STEPFAMILIES AND SOCIAL AND HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professionals working in family services often come into contact with stepfamilies. Issues that often need professional support and stepfamily intervention include divorce, custody disputes, children’s stress and adjustment problems, and challenges new stepfamilies encounter. The aim of this cross-sectional descriptive study was to explore the challenges of stepfamilies as perceived by the families themselves and by the professionals working in services for children, adolescents, and families. Data were collected in the spring of 2018 using semi-structured questionnaires among social and health care professionals and stepfamilies. The data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. The challenges reported related mainly to the complexities of managing a stepfamily, including parenting, role conflicts, issues arising from the former life, children’s adaptation difficulties, and stepcouple relationships. Five themes were identified from the responses of professionals and parents in stepfamilies: many overlapping stories, children living amid changes, parenting under cross-pressure, love relationship is hard to maintain, and rocky road to a balanced family. These results provide perspectives from a wide range of stakeholders regarding the challenges stepfamilies face. Our study may offer valuable information for professionals working with stepfamilies and for researchers and decision-makers planning interventions for stepfamilies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".