Reflective supervision and consultation and its impact within early childhood-serving programs: A systematic review

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Lindsay Huffhines, Rachel Herman, Rebecca B. Silver, Christine M. Low, Rebecca Newland, Stephanie H. Parade
{"title":"Reflective supervision and consultation and its impact within early childhood-serving programs: A systematic review","authors":"Lindsay Huffhines,&nbsp;Rachel Herman,&nbsp;Rebecca B. Silver,&nbsp;Christine M. Low,&nbsp;Rebecca Newland,&nbsp;Stephanie H. Parade","doi":"10.1002/imhj.22079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Reflective supervision and consultation (RS/C) is regarded as best practice within the infant/early childhood mental health field. Benefits of RS/C on the early childhood workforce and children and families have been demonstrated through case studies, conceptual pieces, and individual research studies. However, findings across studies have not been summarized using gold-standard methodology, thus the state of existing empirical support for RS/C is unclear. This systematic review examined the collective evidence for RS/C across diverse early childhood-serving programs. Electronic databases were searched to identify studies investigating associations between RS/C and professionals’ reflective capacity and well-being, child/family outcomes, and implementation factors. Twenty-eight papers were identified. Studies showed positive associations between RS/C and early childhood-serving professionals’ reflective capacity and well-being, with qualitative studies reporting more consistent results than studies using quantitative methods. Many methodological limitations were identified, including incomplete reporting of study designs and participant characteristics, variability in outcome measures, and lack of randomization and comparison groups. Furthermore, few studies examined child and family outcomes. Therefore, while RS/C shows great promise, it was difficult to ascertain its overall effectiveness from an empirical standpoint. Establishing RS/C as an empirically supported approach will be possible with more rigorous research.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/imhj.22079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Reflective supervision and consultation (RS/C) is regarded as best practice within the infant/early childhood mental health field. Benefits of RS/C on the early childhood workforce and children and families have been demonstrated through case studies, conceptual pieces, and individual research studies. However, findings across studies have not been summarized using gold-standard methodology, thus the state of existing empirical support for RS/C is unclear. This systematic review examined the collective evidence for RS/C across diverse early childhood-serving programs. Electronic databases were searched to identify studies investigating associations between RS/C and professionals’ reflective capacity and well-being, child/family outcomes, and implementation factors. Twenty-eight papers were identified. Studies showed positive associations between RS/C and early childhood-serving professionals’ reflective capacity and well-being, with qualitative studies reporting more consistent results than studies using quantitative methods. Many methodological limitations were identified, including incomplete reporting of study designs and participant characteristics, variability in outcome measures, and lack of randomization and comparison groups. Furthermore, few studies examined child and family outcomes. Therefore, while RS/C shows great promise, it was difficult to ascertain its overall effectiveness from an empirical standpoint. Establishing RS/C as an empirically supported approach will be possible with more rigorous research.

反思性监督和咨询及其在幼儿服务项目中的影响:一项系统综述。
反思性监督和咨询(RS/C)被认为是婴儿/幼儿心理健康领域的最佳实践。RS/C对幼儿劳动力、儿童和家庭的益处已通过案例研究、概念文章和个人研究得到证明。然而,尚未使用金标准方法对研究结果进行总结,因此RS/C的现有实证支持状态尚不清楚。这项系统性审查审查了不同幼儿服务项目中RS/C的集体证据。搜索电子数据库以确定研究RS/C与专业人员的反思能力和幸福感、儿童/家庭结果和实施因素之间的关系。鉴定了28篇论文。研究表明,RS/C与幼儿服务专业人员的反思能力和幸福感呈正相关,定性研究报告的结果比使用定量方法的研究更一致。发现了许多方法上的局限性,包括研究设计和参与者特征的报告不完整,结果测量的可变性,以及缺乏随机化和比较组。此外,很少有研究考察儿童和家庭的结果。因此,尽管RS/C显示出巨大的前景,但很难从经验的角度确定其总体有效性。通过更严格的研究,建立RS/C作为一种经验支持的方法将是可能的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信