Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Parenting programs have been identified as a valuable service provision to promote quality parent-child relationships and attachment styles. The Triple P positive parenting program and the Circle of Security parenting (COS-P) program are evidence-based interventions designed to prevent behavioral and emotional problems in children. However, there is a lack of literature on the experiences of providers delivering these programs in the Canadian context. This study aimed to investigate and characterize these experiences through a mixed-methods approach. Methods: A total of 83 providers participated in the cross-sectional portion of the study, completing readiness measures prior to program implementation. The qualitative descriptive component of the study involved a sub-group of 22 providers in semi-structured focus groups, 12 months after program implementation. Descriptive measures were analyzed using R studio V. 4.2.0, while NVIVO Version 13 was used to manage the thematic analysis of the focus groups. The mixed-methods component involved an explanatory sequential approach, which involved integrating the data via a joint display table. Results: Organizational readiness involving training, supervision, and support were crucial for program delivery. Barriers identified included a lack of support, overwhelming workload, difficulty engaging parents, and program-specific barriers, while facilitators included positive experiences with training, teamwork, confidence, virtual delivery, and managerial support. Discussion: The results suggest that organizational readiness is crucial to the successful delivery of these programs. Providers require training, supervision, and ongoing support to deliver these interventions effectively. Additionally, barriers and facilitators in the delivery of these programs were identified, which can inform future program implementation and improve outcomes. Conclusion: This study provides valuable insights for organizations and providers to effectively deliver parenting programs like Triple P and COS-P by addressing barriers and facilitators of delivery, which can consequently improve parent-child relationships and attachment styles.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".