什么是忠诚?一个系统的审查提供者忠诚和它的关系参与和结果在育儿计划。

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-17 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102531
Sydni A J Basha, Joanna J Kim, Qiyue Cai, Mary Kuckertz, Abigail H Gewirtz
{"title":"什么是忠诚?一个系统的审查提供者忠诚和它的关系参与和结果在育儿计划。","authors":"Sydni A J Basha, Joanna J Kim, Qiyue Cai, Mary Kuckertz, Abigail H Gewirtz","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As developers and practitioners translate parenting interventions from research to practice, significant heterogeneity in provider fidelity and parent engagement with the program has contributed to observed declines in intervention effectiveness. Despite this, empirical investigations of the relationship between provider fidelity, parent engagement, and intervention outcomes are scarce and those that exist show discrepant outcomes. This is, in part, due to the variability in the way fidelity is defined, operationalized, and measured. Therefore, following PRISMA-P guidelines, this review elucidates the relationship between provider fidelity, parent engagement, and intervention outcomes in parenting interventions, with a particular emphasis on how provider fidelity is defined and measured. A systematic search revealed 264 articles, of which 25 met inclusion criteria. As anticipated, results suggest that there are inconsistencies in the relationship between provider fidelity, parent engagement, and intervention outcomes, and these inconsistencies appear related to how fidelity is defined. Across studies, definitions of fidelity were related to one or more dimensions, including adherence, competence/quality, and knowledge, with those measures that captured all three dimensions demonstrating the most consistency in the relation between fidelity and intervention outcomes. Although methodological limitations exist, increased precision in fidelity measurement will have positive implications for the widespread implementation of parenting programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"115 ","pages":"102531"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is fidelity? A systematic review of provider fidelity and its associations with engagement and outcomes in parenting programs.\",\"authors\":\"Sydni A J Basha, Joanna J Kim, Qiyue Cai, Mary Kuckertz, Abigail H Gewirtz\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102531\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As developers and practitioners translate parenting interventions from research to practice, significant heterogeneity in provider fidelity and parent engagement with the program has contributed to observed declines in intervention effectiveness. Despite this, empirical investigations of the relationship between provider fidelity, parent engagement, and intervention outcomes are scarce and those that exist show discrepant outcomes. This is, in part, due to the variability in the way fidelity is defined, operationalized, and measured. Therefore, following PRISMA-P guidelines, this review elucidates the relationship between provider fidelity, parent engagement, and intervention outcomes in parenting interventions, with a particular emphasis on how provider fidelity is defined and measured. A systematic search revealed 264 articles, of which 25 met inclusion criteria. As anticipated, results suggest that there are inconsistencies in the relationship between provider fidelity, parent engagement, and intervention outcomes, and these inconsistencies appear related to how fidelity is defined. Across studies, definitions of fidelity were related to one or more dimensions, including adherence, competence/quality, and knowledge, with those measures that captured all three dimensions demonstrating the most consistency in the relation between fidelity and intervention outcomes. Although methodological limitations exist, increased precision in fidelity measurement will have positive implications for the widespread implementation of parenting programs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"115 \",\"pages\":\"102531\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102531\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102531","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当开发者和实践者将育儿干预从研究转化为实践时,提供者忠诚度和家长参与项目的显著异质性导致了观察到的干预有效性下降。尽管如此,关于提供者忠诚、父母参与和干预结果之间关系的实证研究很少,而且那些存在的研究结果也存在差异。这在一定程度上是由于保真度的定义、操作和测量方式的可变性。因此,遵循PRISMA-P指南,本综述阐明了提供者忠诚、父母参与和育儿干预结果之间的关系,特别强调了提供者忠诚是如何定义和测量的。系统检索得到264篇文章,其中25篇符合纳入标准。正如预期的那样,结果表明在提供者忠诚、父母参与和干预结果之间的关系存在不一致,而这些不一致似乎与如何定义忠诚有关。在所有研究中,保真度的定义与一个或多个维度相关,包括依从性、能力/质量和知识,那些捕获了所有三个维度的测量显示了保真度与干预结果之间关系的一致性。虽然存在方法上的局限性,但保真度测量精度的提高将对育儿计划的广泛实施产生积极影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What is fidelity? A systematic review of provider fidelity and its associations with engagement and outcomes in parenting programs.

As developers and practitioners translate parenting interventions from research to practice, significant heterogeneity in provider fidelity and parent engagement with the program has contributed to observed declines in intervention effectiveness. Despite this, empirical investigations of the relationship between provider fidelity, parent engagement, and intervention outcomes are scarce and those that exist show discrepant outcomes. This is, in part, due to the variability in the way fidelity is defined, operationalized, and measured. Therefore, following PRISMA-P guidelines, this review elucidates the relationship between provider fidelity, parent engagement, and intervention outcomes in parenting interventions, with a particular emphasis on how provider fidelity is defined and measured. A systematic search revealed 264 articles, of which 25 met inclusion criteria. As anticipated, results suggest that there are inconsistencies in the relationship between provider fidelity, parent engagement, and intervention outcomes, and these inconsistencies appear related to how fidelity is defined. Across studies, definitions of fidelity were related to one or more dimensions, including adherence, competence/quality, and knowledge, with those measures that captured all three dimensions demonstrating the most consistency in the relation between fidelity and intervention outcomes. Although methodological limitations exist, increased precision in fidelity measurement will have positive implications for the widespread implementation of parenting programs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
期刊最新文献
What is fidelity? A systematic review of provider fidelity and its associations with engagement and outcomes in parenting programs. Prevalence of mental health conditions, substance use disorders, suicidal ideation and attempts, and experiences of homelessness among Veterans with criminal-legal involvement: A meta-analysis. System justification, subjective well-being, and mental health symptoms in members of disadvantaged minority groups. Addressing Gambling Harm to affected others: A scoping review (part II: Coping, assessment and treatment) Talking about trauma: A systematic review of young people's reactions to trauma-focused research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1