Top 10 (plus 1) research priorities for expectant families and those with children to age 24 months in Alberta, Canada: results from the Family Research Agenda Initiative Setting (FRAISE) priority setting partnership project

Parental practices and perspectives on health and digital technology use information seeking for children aged 0-36 months

BACKGROUND

Parents commonly seek information to support the health and well-being of their children. The increasing availability of health information online and social changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic may have changed what information is sought, from whom, where, and why. This qualitative study explored parents' practices and perspectives on seeking health and digital technology use information for their young children.

METHODS

Twenty parents, living in Australia (7 rural, 3 remote, and 10 metropolitan), with children aged 0-36 months completed a semi-structured interview.

RESULTS

Parents commonly turned to friends and family and online sources to access health information for their young children. For all types of health information, including digital technology use, themes were identified surrounding aspects of information sources participants valued and accessibility of health services. Perceived credibility and trustworthiness, relatability with other parents, ease of accessibility and convenience, and actionable, bite-sized information were valued. Reduced accessibility to health services due to COVID-19 and geographical location, and need for agency in managing their child's health influenced parents' choice of source of information. Few participants actively sought information about digital technology use for their young child, with the main focus on screen time.

CONCLUSION

Interactions with family and friends and online sources are important to parents when accessing health information for their child. Parents valued information sources which they considered trustworthy, credible, and relatable, as well as easily accessible and convenient. SO WHAT?: Dissemination of health information reflecting these values may empower parents during this early stage of parenthood.

Exploring the use of social media and online methods to engage persons with lived experience and healthcare professionals in creating research agendas: Lessons from a pediatric cancer research priority-setting partnership

Social media is increasingly used to engage persons with lived experience and healthcare professionals in research, however, there remains sparse guidance on how to effectively use social media to engage these groups in research agenda-setting. Here we report our process and experience utilizing a social media campaign to engage Canadians within the pediatric cancer community in a research priority-setting exercise. Following the James Lind Alliance method, we launched a priority-setting partnership (PSP) to develop a child with cancer-, survivor-, family member-, and healthcare professional-based Canadian pediatric cancer research agenda. Social media-based strategies were implemented to recruit participants for two PSP surveys, including preparatory activities, developing a website, launching graphics and advertisements, and engaging internal and external networks. Descriptive statistics of our data and analytics provided by the platforms are used presently to report our process. The framework we implemented involved preparing for social media use, identifying a target audience, developing campaign content, conducting the campaign, refining the campaign as needed, and evaluating its success. Our process resulted in a substantial social media-based reach, good survey completion rates, and a successfully developed pediatric cancer community-specified research agenda. Social media may represent a useful approach to engage persons with lived experience and healthcare professionals in research agenda development. Based on our experience, we present strategies to increase social media campaign engagement that may be useful to those seeking to conduct health research priority-setting exercises.

Digital Parenting Interventions for Fathers of Infants From Conception to the Age of 12 Months: Systematic Review of Mixed Methods Studies

BACKGROUND

Digital interventions help address barriers to traditional health care services. Fathers play an important parenting role in their families, and their involvement is beneficial for family well-being. Although digital interventions are a promising avenue to facilitate father involvement during the perinatal period, most are oriented toward maternal needs and do not address the unique needs of fathers.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review describes the digital interventions that exist or are currently being developed for fathers of infants from conception to 12 months postpartum.

METHODS

A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase (using Ovid), and CINAHL (using EBSCO) databases was conducted to identify articles from database inception to June 2022, of which 39 met the inclusion criteria. Articles were included if they were peer-reviewed and described a digital intervention that targeted fathers of fetuses or infants aged ≤12 months. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and opinion pieces were excluded. Data from these studies were extracted and themed using a narrative synthesis approach. Quality appraisal of the articles was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

A total of 2816 articles were retrieved, of which 39 (1.38%) met the inclusion criteria for eligibility after removing duplicates and screening. Eligible articles included 29 different interventions across 13 countries. Most articles (22/29, 76%) described interventions that were exclusively digital. There were a variety of digital modalities, but interventions were most commonly designed to be delivered via a website or web-based portal (14/29, 48%). Just over half (21/39, 54%) of the articles described interventions designed to be delivered from pregnancy through the postpartum period. Only 26% (10/39) of the studies targeted fathers exclusively. A wide range of outcomes were included, with 54% (21/39) of the studies including a primary outcome related to intervention feasibility. Qualitative and mixed methods studies reported generally positive experiences with digital interventions and qualitative themes of the importance of providing support to partners, improving parenting confidence, and normalization of stress were identified. Of the 18 studies primarily examining efficacy outcomes, 13 (72%) reported a statistically significant intervention effect. The studies exhibited a moderate quality level overall.

CONCLUSIONS

New and expecting fathers use digital technologies, which could be used to help address father-specific barriers to traditional health care services. However, in contrast to the current state of digital interventions for mothers, father-focused interventions lack evaluation and evidence. Among the existing studies on digital interventions for fathers, there seem to be mixed findings regarding their feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy. There is a need for more development and standardized evaluation of interventions that target father-identified priorities. This review was limited by not assessing equity-oriented outcomes (eg, race and socioeconomic status), which should also be considered in future intervention development.

Priority topics for child and family health research in community-based paediatric health care according to caregivers and health care professionals

Background

Patient-oriented research (POR) aligns research with stakeholders' priorities to improve health services and outcomes. Community-based health care settings offer an opportunity to engage stakeholders to determine the most important research topics to them. Our objectives were to identify unanswered questions that stakeholders had regarding any aspect of child and family health and prioritize their 'top 10' questions.

Methods

We followed the James Lind Alliance (JLA) priority setting methodology in partnership with stakeholders from the Northeast Community Health Centre (NECHC; Edmonton, Canada). We partnered with stakeholders (five caregivers, five health care professionals [HCPs]) to create a steering committee. Stakeholders were surveyed in two rounds (n = 125 per survey) to gather and rank-order unanswered questions regarding child and family health. A final priority setting workshop was held to finalize the 'top 10' list.

Results

Our initial survey generated 1,265 submissions from 100 caregivers and 25 HCPs. Out of scope submissions were removed and similar questions were combined to create a master list of questions (n = 389). Only unanswered questions advanced (n = 108) and were rank-ordered through a second survey by 100 caregivers and 25 HCPs. Stakeholders (n = 12) gathered for the final workshop to discuss and finalize the 'top 10' list. Priority questions included a range of topics, including mental health, screen time, COVID-19, and behaviour.

Conclusion

Our stakeholders prioritized diverse questions within our 'top 10' list; questions regarding mental health were the most common. Future patient-oriented research at this site will be guided by priorities that were most important to caregivers and HCPs.

People powered research: what do communities identify as important for happy and healthy children and young people? A multi-disciplinary community research priority setting exercise in the City of Bradford, United Kingdom (UK)

BACKGROUND

Involving communities in research priority setting can increase the relevance and efficiency of research, leading to better health outcomes. However these exercises often lack clarity in how communities are involved and the extent to which priorities are acted upon is unclear. Seldom-heard groups, for example ethnic minorities may experience barriers to participation. We report methods and outcomes of an inclusive co-produced community research priority setting exercise within the multicultural and deprived city of Bradford, UK. The aim was to identify priorities for keeping children happy and healthy and was undertaken by the Born in Bradford (BiB) research programme to inform future research agendas.

METHODS

A 12 member multi-disciplinary, multi-ethnic community steering group led the process using a modified James Lind Alliance approach between December 2018-March 2020. Research priorities were collected through a widely distributed paper and online survey. Respondents were asked to list three important things to keep children i) happy, ii) healthy and what needs to change to improve either health or happiness. Free text data were coded iteratively by community researchers, and shared priorities were co-produced in a series of workshops and meetings with the community steering group and community members.

RESULTS

Five hundred eighty-eight respondents to the survey identified 5748 priorities, which were coded into 22 themes. These covered a range of individual, social and wider socioeconomic, environmental and cultural priorities. Diet/nutrition and exercise were most commonly identified as important for health, including what needs to change to improve health. For happiness, home life and family relationships, listening to children, and education/activities were the most commonly identified. Community assets were identified as important to change for both health and happiness. From the survey response the steering group developed 27 research questions. There were mapped onto existing and planned research agendas within BiB.

CONCLUSIONS

Communities identified both structural and individual factors as important priorities for health and happiness. We demonstrate how communities can be involved in priority setting using a co-productive approach in the hope this can be used as a model for others. The resulting shared research agenda will shape future research to improve the health of families living in Bradford.

Building Emotional Awareness and Mental Health (BEAM): A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of an App-Based Program for Mothers of Toddlers

Background

Families have faced unprecedented challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to increased maternal mental health problems and barriers to accessing care. Innovative programs are needed to support both maternal mental health and parenting, and to buffer the long-term impacts of stress on young children. Using a patient-oriented approach, our research team aimed to co-develop and pilot test an App-based psychoeducation and social-connection platform: Building Emotional Awareness and Mental Health (BEAM).

Methods

The co-development process involved a parent advisory board from conceptualization and design, through to direct participation in the program delivery. The BEAM program includes weekly videos and activities based on Unified Protocol therapy modules and emotion-focused parenting strategies, a weekly telehealth group review session, and access to a private online forum for support from other mothers and clinical coaches. A parallel randomized control trial was conducted across two provinces in Canada. Mothers of preschool children (aged 18-36 months old), with moderate-to-severe depression (Patient Health Questionaire-9 ≥ 10), were recruited online and randomized to either the 10-week BEAM intervention or treatment as usual (TAU) control group. Online surveys (ensuring researcher blinding) included questions about feasibility and acceptability of the program and pre/post self-report measures of mental health, parenting, positive coping and child behavior outcomes. The primary outcome measures were symptoms of depression and parenting stress. Data were analyzed using mixed models and an intention-to-treat approach.

Results

65 participants were randomized, by an online allocation tool, to the BEAM (n = 33) and TAU (n = 32) groups. Engagement was relatively high at the beginning of the program, with 78.8% starting the BEAM App and 70.6% attending ≥1 telehealth session. Most respondents felt socially supported, satisfied with the App, and found it easy to use. Pre-post results indicated interaction effects with greater reductions in overall mental health problems, and specifically anxiety and sleep symptoms, among BEAM vs. control participants. There were also time effects with reductions in depression symptoms across both groups. No significant treatment effects emerged for the other mental health symptoms, parenting problems, positive coping, or child behavior outcomes. Descriptive data are included to highlight possible areas of promise for future large efficacy trials. Technological difficulties and other challenges that may have led to attrition and impacted outcomes are discussed. There were no adverse events related to study participation.

Conclusions

The BEAM program has promise as a novel, feasible and acceptable intervention for improving mental health among mothers of young children.

Clinical Trial Registration

[www.ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT04772677].

Promoting Mental Health in Parents of Young Children Using eHealth Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Parent stress and mental health problems negatively impact early child development. This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the effect of eHealth interventions on parent stress and mental health outcomes, and identify family- and program-level factors that may moderate treatment effects. A search of PsycINFO, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane and Embase databases was conducted from their inception dates to July 2020. English-language controlled and open trials were included if they reported: (a) administration of an eHealth intervention, and (b) stress or mental health outcomes such as self-report or clinical diagnosis of anxiety and depression, among (c) parents of children who were aged 1–5 years old. Non-human studies, case reports, reviews, editorials, letters, dissertations, and books were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Study Quality Assessment Tools. Random-effects meta-analyses of standardized mean differences (SMD) were conducted and meta-regressions tested potential moderators. 38 studies were included (N = 4360 parents), from 13 countries (47.4% USA). Meta-analyses indicated eHealth interventions were associated with better self-reported mental health among parents (overall SMD = .368, 95% CI 0.228, 0.509), regardless of study design (k = 30 controlled, k = 8 pre-post) and across most outcomes (k = 17 anxiety, k = 19 depression, k = 12 parenting stress), with small to medium effect sizes. No significant family- or program-level moderators emerged. Despite different types and targets, eHealth interventions offer a promising and accessible option to promote mental health among parents of young children. Further research is needed on moderators and the long-term outcomes of eHealth interventions. Prospero Registration: CRD42020190719.