0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Virtual Delivery of Parent Coaching Interventions in Early Childhood Mental Health: A Scoping Review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Parent–coaching interventions positively impact child development. Virtual delivery of such interventions is supported by literature reviews and a practice guideline, however, none of these focused on children under age six. A scoping review of virtually-delivered parent-coaching interventions for disruptive behaviour, anxiety, and parent–child relationship concerns in children under age six was conducted between Dec. 15, 2020 and April 22, 2021. Iterative searches of the databases PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were complemented by reference list searches and clinician expert review ( N = 1146). After relevance screening and duplicate removal, collaboratively-developed inclusion criteria were applied to records, followed by data extraction from eligible articles ( n = 30). Most literature documented behavioural-based interventions targeting disruptive behaviour which were delivered individually, by therapists, to White, non-Hispanic parents. Evidence supports feasibility and efficacy of virtually-delivered parent-coaching interventions to improve child disruptive behaviour (strong), anxiety (moderate), and parent–child relationship (weak). There is a significant gap in the literature regarding the virtual delivery of attachment-based parent-coaching interventions. In sum, virtual parent coaching can be an efficacious approach for children under age six, particularly for behavioural challenges.

          Related collections

          Most cited references82

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

            Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

              Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Child Psychiatry & Human Development
                Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                0009-398X
                1573-3327
                September 23 2023
                Article
                10.1007/s10578-023-01597-8
                fcafe866-7b9c-4e71-8a87-34b7e0dec853
                © 2023

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article