Parenting Programs for Adolescent Parents: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review of Global Interventions and Evidence Gaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescent pregnancy remains a significant global public health issue, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, and is associated with health, social, and economic challenges for both mothers and children. Although parenting programs improve outcomes globally, there is a critical gap in tailored interventions for adolescent parents. This mixed methods systematic review aimed to address these gaps by conducting a global search of parenting programs designed or adapted for adolescent parents and making recommendations for future intervention development and research. The review examined participant characteristics, program characteristics and components, intervention results, and study quality. Thirty-six studies published between 2010 and 2024 were included, representing 34 unique samples. Most studies were from high-income countries, limiting generalizability, and only nine were rated as high-quality. Existing programs were almost entirely face-to-face, highlighting a gap in hybrid or app-based delivery. Additionally, there was a substantial lack of qualitative research exploring adolescent parenting needs and experiences. Overall, the findings indicate an urgent need for further development and evaluation of parenting programs for adolescents, particularly those implementable in low-resource settings, and for improved research quality to build an evidence base for effective, scalable interventions for this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.026 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".