Mental health professionals' practice of reintegration therapy for parent-child contact disputes post-separation: A phenomenological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade, family courts have seen an increase in the number of parent-child contact problems and allegations of alienation. Children resisting or refusing contact with a parent post-separation pose considerable challenges to the mental health professionals tasked to work with them. Reintegration therapy (RT) has recently evolved to help ameliorate parent-child contact issues and alienation. However, little is known about what consensus exists on RT, or how it is defined and delivered by mental health practitioners. Limited evidence exists on treatment models, or evaluations of RT, and no standards or practice guidelines are available for the treatment of parent-child contact issues. The purpose of this study was to: 1) Explore how RT is defined and practiced among experienced mental health professionals in Canada and the United States; 2) identify underlying theory informing practitionersâ understanding of the issues and on clinical practice in RT; and 3) use findings for practice recommendations to advance knowledge for clinical practice with this population. To this end a hermeneutic, phenomenological design was chosen to elicit thick descriptions for a phenomenological analysis and theme development. A purposive sample of fourteen (14) practitioners was obtained. Initial analysis revealed substantial variance among practitioners' training, underlying theoretical frameworks, clinical approaches and service delivery models utilized. Three distinct themes/subthemes emerged from in-depth analyses representing a measure of consensus among respondents. First, RT is generally viewed as a therapeutic process to help improve family relationships as a whole. Second, participants identified frequently used assessment criteria necessary for determining suitability for RT. Finally, agreement on overall treatment goals for families participating in RT was identified. These study findings illustrate the need for more and better-developed training in RT, integrated theory development, and the creation of best practice guidelines based on scientific and rigorous evaluation preferably using a longitudinal approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".