Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial of a Prototype of ‘Daily Growth’, an Emotion Socialisation Parenting Program Delivered via Ecological Momentary Intervention (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite evidence showing that parenting interventions reduce rates of child mental health problems, their reach and engagement remain low. Daily Growth is a digital parenting program designed to improve parent and child emotion regulation using an ecological momentary intervention (EMI) approach. Daily Growth sends twice-daily prompts and delivers 3-minute videos tailored to a recent parenting situation, offering 2 program types (Emotion Coaching and Active Play) to meet different parent preferences. EMI has rarely been tested with parenting programs. Objective: This pilot aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the EMI design and a prototype of Daily Growth, offering the 2 programs via 10 of 60 planned videos. Methods: A pilot randomized controlled trial recruited 189 Australian parents of children aged 2-4 years, randomized to either intervention (n=94) or active control (n=95). Participants completed a 25-minute online survey at baseline and at conclusion of the program period. In the intervening 2 weeks, participants received twice-daily 1-minute pre-EMI surveys via email. Participants who reported any parent or child negative affect or emotion dysregulation received a resource. Participants in the intervention condition were randomized in the moment to receive a 3-minute Emotion Coaching or Active Play video, while participants in the control condition received a link to a parenting website. Participants were sent a 1-minute post-EMI survey. For both conditions, parenting support was tailored to 1 of 5 predefined parenting situations. Results: Overall, 71% (135/189) of participants completed the 2-week post survey, and over two-thirds completed at least half of the daily pre-EMI surveys. Despite technical issues, most participants would recommend Daily Growth to other parents (53/67, 79%), use the skills learned (46/67, 69%), reported it as easy to use (45/67, 67%), and were satisfied with Daily Growth (40/67, 60%). Conclusions: This pilot evaluated whether brief EMI resources could engage parents in real time. Findings suggest that the Daily Growth prototype was feasible and well received, supporting further implementation in a larger trial.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".