How do parents who live with chronic disease experience accessing formal parenting supports? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically identify and synthesise qualitative research relating to the perspectives of parents living with chronic conditions about accessing formal parenting supports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and CINAHL were searched from date of inception to September 2024. Qualitative studies of any design type, published in English and reporting on experiences of parents living with chronic disease when accessing, trying to access or self-reporting the need to access formal parenting supports were eligible. Qualitative meta-synthesis was utilised. RESULTS: The initial search identified 30,169 records. Following title and abstract screening 25,356 records were excluded and 822 full texts reviewed. Of these, 18 texts focused on parents living with chronic disease were included in the final review. Three overarching themes were identified. These were (i) absence of support (ii) types of formal supports that are needed, and (iii) designing supports for parents. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic disease has a significant impact on parents, however formal supports for parents living with chronic diseases remain limited. These parents have diverse formal support needs. Future research should focus on the development of integrated and responsive support systems to enhance the parenting capacity of parents living with chronic disease.
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 | 0.052 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".