安全圈-养育与亲子互动治疗-幼儿:父母视角的质性探索。

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Jane Kohlhoff, Sara Cibralic, Nancy Wallace, Susan Morgan, Linda Lennie, Lucinda Rabbetts
{"title":"安全圈-养育与亲子互动治疗-幼儿:父母视角的质性探索。","authors":"Jane Kohlhoff, Sara Cibralic, Nancy Wallace, Susan Morgan, Linda Lennie, Lucinda Rabbetts","doi":"10.1111/sjop.70009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Parent-Child Interaction Therapy-Toddler (PCIT-T) and Circle of Security-Parenting (COS-P) are two attachment-based early parenting programs with emerging evidence bases. Most of the research has, however, been quantitative in nature. Understanding caregiver perspectives and acceptability of the programs is therefore needed. This study aimed to address this gap in research by examining perspectives of parents who participated in PCIT-T or COS-P at an Australian community-based child behavior clinic for treatment of toddler behavior problems. Twenty-nine mothers were purposively recruited to participate in a semi-structured post-program interview (COS-P: n = 10; PCIT-T: n = 19). Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results of thematic analysis showed that parents in both groups experienced a range of positive gains (for the toddler, themselves as a parent, and for relationships). Participants in both groups identified the clinician as a key facilitator of positive program outcomes, and time commitment as a barrier. For the COS-P group, the group process and treatment journey were identified as facilitators, and inconsistent attendance from group attendees was a barrier. The PCIT-T group viewed the live coaching and the manualized protocol as facilitators. Results suggest that both COS-P and PCIT-T are viewed positively by parents and identify several parent-identified facilitators/barriers.</p>","PeriodicalId":21435,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Circle of Security-Parenting and Parent-Child Interaction Therapy-Toddler: A Qualitative Exploration of Parents' Perspectives.\",\"authors\":\"Jane Kohlhoff, Sara Cibralic, Nancy Wallace, Susan Morgan, Linda Lennie, Lucinda Rabbetts\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/sjop.70009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Parent-Child Interaction Therapy-Toddler (PCIT-T) and Circle of Security-Parenting (COS-P) are two attachment-based early parenting programs with emerging evidence bases. Most of the research has, however, been quantitative in nature. Understanding caregiver perspectives and acceptability of the programs is therefore needed. This study aimed to address this gap in research by examining perspectives of parents who participated in PCIT-T or COS-P at an Australian community-based child behavior clinic for treatment of toddler behavior problems. Twenty-nine mothers were purposively recruited to participate in a semi-structured post-program interview (COS-P: n = 10; PCIT-T: n = 19). Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results of thematic analysis showed that parents in both groups experienced a range of positive gains (for the toddler, themselves as a parent, and for relationships). Participants in both groups identified the clinician as a key facilitator of positive program outcomes, and time commitment as a barrier. For the COS-P group, the group process and treatment journey were identified as facilitators, and inconsistent attendance from group attendees was a barrier. The PCIT-T group viewed the live coaching and the manualized protocol as facilitators. Results suggest that both COS-P and PCIT-T are viewed positively by parents and identify several parent-identified facilitators/barriers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21435,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian journal of psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian journal of psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.70009\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Scandinavian journal of psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.70009","RegionNum":3,"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

亲子互动治疗-幼儿(pct - t)和安全圈-育儿(COS-P)是两个基于依恋的早期育儿项目,有新的证据基础。然而,大多数研究本质上都是定量的。因此,需要了解护理者的观点和程序的可接受性。本研究旨在通过调查在澳大利亚社区儿童行为诊所参加pct - t或COS-P治疗幼儿行为问题的父母的观点来解决这一研究空白。有目的地招募29名母亲参加半结构化的项目后访谈(COS-P: n = 10;pct - t: n = 19)。数据分析采用归纳专题分析方法。主题分析的结果表明,两组父母都经历了一系列积极的收获(对孩子来说,作为父母的自己,以及与孩子的关系)。两组的参与者都认为临床医生是积极项目结果的关键推动者,而时间承诺是一个障碍。对于COS-P组,小组过程和治疗过程被确定为促进因素,小组参与者不一致的出勤是一个障碍。pct - t组将现场指导和手动协议视为促进因素。结果表明,家长对COS-P和pct - t都持积极态度,并确定了一些家长认为的促进因素/障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Circle of Security-Parenting and Parent-Child Interaction Therapy-Toddler: A Qualitative Exploration of Parents' Perspectives.

Parent-Child Interaction Therapy-Toddler (PCIT-T) and Circle of Security-Parenting (COS-P) are two attachment-based early parenting programs with emerging evidence bases. Most of the research has, however, been quantitative in nature. Understanding caregiver perspectives and acceptability of the programs is therefore needed. This study aimed to address this gap in research by examining perspectives of parents who participated in PCIT-T or COS-P at an Australian community-based child behavior clinic for treatment of toddler behavior problems. Twenty-nine mothers were purposively recruited to participate in a semi-structured post-program interview (COS-P: n = 10; PCIT-T: n = 19). Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results of thematic analysis showed that parents in both groups experienced a range of positive gains (for the toddler, themselves as a parent, and for relationships). Participants in both groups identified the clinician as a key facilitator of positive program outcomes, and time commitment as a barrier. For the COS-P group, the group process and treatment journey were identified as facilitators, and inconsistent attendance from group attendees was a barrier. The PCIT-T group viewed the live coaching and the manualized protocol as facilitators. Results suggest that both COS-P and PCIT-T are viewed positively by parents and identify several parent-identified facilitators/barriers.

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
Scandinavian journal of psychology
Scandinavian journal of psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
102
期刊介绍: Published in association with the Nordic psychological associations, the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology publishes original papers from Scandinavia and elsewhere. Covering the whole range of psychology, with a particular focus on experimental psychology, the journal includes high-quality theoretical and methodological papers, empirical reports, reviews and ongoing commentaries.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology is organised into four standing subsections: - Cognition and Neurosciences - Development and Aging - Personality and Social Sciences - Health and Disability
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信