评估中低收入国家照顾者与儿童之间的互动:工具和方法的系统性回顾。

IF 2.1 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
L Bozicevic, C Lucas, D N Magai, Y Ooi, L Maliwichi, H Sharp, M Gladstone
{"title":"评估中低收入国家照顾者与儿童之间的互动:工具和方法的系统性回顾。","authors":"L Bozicevic, C Lucas, D N Magai, Y Ooi, L Maliwichi, H Sharp, M Gladstone","doi":"10.1080/02646838.2024.2321615","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims/background: </strong>The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has placed emphasis on improving early child development globally. This is supported through the Nurturing Care Framework which includes responsive caregiving. To evaluate responsive caregiving, tools to assess quality of caregiver-child interactions are used, however there is little information on how they are currently employed and/or adapted particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where children have a greater risk of adverse outcomes. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive guide on methodologies used to evaluate caregiver-child interaction - including their feasibility and cultural adaptation.</p><p><strong>Design/methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of studies over 20years in LMICs which assessed caregiver-child interactions. Characteristics of each tool, their validity (assessed with COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist), and the quality of the study (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) are reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 59 studies using 34 tools across 20 different LMICs. Most tools (86.5%) employed video-recorded observations of caregiver-child interactions at home (e.g. Ainsworth's Sensitivity Scale, OMI) or in the laboratory (e.g. PICCOLO) with a few conducting direct observations in the field (e.g. OMCI, HOME); 13.5% were self-reported. Tools varied in methodology with limited or no mention of validity and reliability. Most tools are developed in Western countries and have not been culturally validated for use in LMIC settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are limited caregiver-child interaction measures used in LMIC settings, with only some locally validated locally. Future studies should aim to ensure better validity, applicability and feasibility of caregiver-child interaction tools for global settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":47721,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating caregiver-child interactions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of tools and methods.\",\"authors\":\"L Bozicevic, C Lucas, D N Magai, Y Ooi, L Maliwichi, H Sharp, M Gladstone\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02646838.2024.2321615\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims/background: </strong>The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has placed emphasis on improving early child development globally. This is supported through the Nurturing Care Framework which includes responsive caregiving. To evaluate responsive caregiving, tools to assess quality of caregiver-child interactions are used, however there is little information on how they are currently employed and/or adapted particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where children have a greater risk of adverse outcomes. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive guide on methodologies used to evaluate caregiver-child interaction - including their feasibility and cultural adaptation.</p><p><strong>Design/methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of studies over 20years in LMICs which assessed caregiver-child interactions. Characteristics of each tool, their validity (assessed with COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist), and the quality of the study (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) are reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 59 studies using 34 tools across 20 different LMICs. Most tools (86.5%) employed video-recorded observations of caregiver-child interactions at home (e.g. Ainsworth's Sensitivity Scale, OMI) or in the laboratory (e.g. PICCOLO) with a few conducting direct observations in the field (e.g. OMCI, HOME); 13.5% were self-reported. Tools varied in methodology with limited or no mention of validity and reliability. Most tools are developed in Western countries and have not been culturally validated for use in LMIC settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are limited caregiver-child interaction measures used in LMIC settings, with only some locally validated locally. Future studies should aim to ensure better validity, applicability and feasibility of caregiver-child interaction tools for global settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47721,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2024.2321615\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2024.2321615","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的/背景:联合国可持续发展目标(SDGs)强调改善全球儿童的早期发展。这一点得到了 "培育关怀框架 "的支持,其中包括 "顺应式保育"。为了评估顺应性照料,人们使用了评估照料者与儿童互动质量的工具,但关于目前如何使用和/或调整这些工具的信息却很少,尤其是在中低收入国家(LMICs),因为那里的儿童出现不良后果的风险更大。本综述旨在为评估照顾者与儿童互动的方法提供全面指导,包括其可行性和文化适应性:设计/方法:我们对 20 年来在低收入与中等收入国家开展的评估照顾者与儿童互动的研究进行了系统性回顾。报告了每种工具的特点、有效性(用 COSMIN 偏差风险检查表评估)和研究质量(混合方法评估工具):结果:我们在 20 个不同的低收入与中等收入国家发现了 59 项使用 34 种工具的研究。大多数工具(86.5%)都采用了在家中(如安斯沃斯敏感度量表、OMI)或实验室(如 PICCOLO)对照顾者与儿童互动情况进行录像观察的方法,少数工具则在现场进行直接观察(如 OMCI、HOME);13.5%的工具是自我报告的。工具的方法各不相同,对有效性和可靠性的提及有限或根本没有提及。大多数工具都是在西方国家开发的,在低收入和中等收入国家环境中使用时尚未经过文化验证:结论:在低收入和中等收入国家环境中使用的照顾者与儿童互动测量方法有限,只有一些在当地得到了验证。未来的研究应旨在确保在全球环境中使用的照顾者与儿童互动工具具有更好的有效性、适用性和可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating caregiver-child interactions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of tools and methods.

Aims/background: The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has placed emphasis on improving early child development globally. This is supported through the Nurturing Care Framework which includes responsive caregiving. To evaluate responsive caregiving, tools to assess quality of caregiver-child interactions are used, however there is little information on how they are currently employed and/or adapted particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where children have a greater risk of adverse outcomes. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive guide on methodologies used to evaluate caregiver-child interaction - including their feasibility and cultural adaptation.

Design/methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies over 20years in LMICs which assessed caregiver-child interactions. Characteristics of each tool, their validity (assessed with COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist), and the quality of the study (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) are reported.

Results: We identified 59 studies using 34 tools across 20 different LMICs. Most tools (86.5%) employed video-recorded observations of caregiver-child interactions at home (e.g. Ainsworth's Sensitivity Scale, OMI) or in the laboratory (e.g. PICCOLO) with a few conducting direct observations in the field (e.g. OMCI, HOME); 13.5% were self-reported. Tools varied in methodology with limited or no mention of validity and reliability. Most tools are developed in Western countries and have not been culturally validated for use in LMIC settings.

Conclusion: There are limited caregiver-child interaction measures used in LMIC settings, with only some locally validated locally. Future studies should aim to ensure better validity, applicability and feasibility of caregiver-child interaction tools for global settings.

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
Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology
Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology reports and reviews outstanding research on psychological, behavioural, medical and social aspects of human reproduction, pregnancy and infancy. Medical topics focus on obstetrics and gynaecology, paediatrics and psychiatry. The growing work in relevant aspects of medical communication and medical sociology are also covered. Relevant psychological work includes developmental psychology, clinical psychology, social psychology, behavioural medicine, psychology of women and health psychology. Research into psychological aspects of midwifery, health visiting and nursing is central to the interests of the Journal. The Journal is of special value to those concerned with interdisciplinary issues. As a result, the Journal is of particular interest to those concerned with fundamental processes in behaviour and to issues of health promotion and service organization.
×
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