i obstacles and motivations to participation in parenting
play

I. OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS TO PARTICIPATION IN PARENTING PROGRAMS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

I. OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS TO PARTICIPATION IN PARENTING PROGRAMS Kathy Chan 1 , Whitney D. Taylor 1 , Susan B. Stern 2 , & Catherine M. Lee 1 II. LINKS BETWEEN PARENTAL SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTS SERVICE NEEDS AND PREFERENCES Whitney D.


  1. I. OBSTACLES AND MOTIVATIONS TO PARTICIPATION IN PARENTING PROGRAMS Kathy Chan 1 , Whitney D. Taylor 1 , Susan B. Stern 2 , & Catherine M. Lee 1 II. LINKS BETWEEN PARENTAL SELF-EFFICACY AND PARENTS’ SERVICE NEEDS AND PREFERENCES Whitney D. Taylor 1 , Kathy Chan 1 , Susan B. Stern 2 , & Catherine M. Lee 1 February 15, 2013 University of Ottawa 1 Los Angeles, USA University of Toronto 2

  2. Extending Our Reach  Not all families who need parenting services receive them  How do we increase service access amongst vulnerable families?

  3. Research Question 1 What gets in the way of What helps? accessing services?

  4. Considering Parents’ Confidence  Confidence in parenting is the perceived capability to solve parenting problems and appropriately influence children’s development  Higher confidence is associated with  Competent parenting practices  Parents’ wellbeing  Children’s wellbeing  Important for self-regulation framework

  5. Research Question 2  How does an understanding of parents’ confidence inform service delivery?

  6. Background and Methods  Development  International Parenting Survey – Canada (IPS-C)  Online survey of caregivers of children aged 2 to 12  Developed by researchers in Australia and Germany  Worked with partner agencies to recruit participants in exchange for data reports ( N = 1965)  Measures  Child, caregiver, and family characteristics  Child behavioural/emotional problems and parents’ confidence – CAPES (Morawska & Sanders, 2010)  Use of, satisfaction with, and preferences for parenting services

  7. I. Results: Obstacles and Motivations What gets in the way of accessing services? What helps?

  8. Parents Who Need Services ( n = 698) Perceived a need to participate Non- Participants, Did not participate in 199 a parenting program in the last 12 months Participants, 499 Indicated being “very” or “extremely likely” Participated in at to participate in a least 1 parenting parenting program in program in the last the future 12 months

  9. Family Characteristics  Compared to Participants, Non-Participants:  Reported more child emotional/behavioural problems *  Were more likely to consult with a professional about their child’s behaviour *  Had more depressive symptoms and less happiness in their parent-child relationship *  No between-group differences found for:  Child age, child gender, parent ethnicity, marital status, parent education, income adequacy small effect *

  10. Reasons for not Participating (%) 1 * Amongst Non-Participants 68.8 Wasn't aware of any 70 programs Lack of time 60 Inconvenient timing of 50 services 36.9 40 No access to child care 28.1 30 21.2 Competing work 19.2 18.1 commitments 20 14.1 Inconvenient location of services 10 Financial cost 0 * Respondents could endorse more than one reason

  11. Awareness of Parent Training Programs (%) * Respondents could endorse more than one program 60 53.9 Triple P * Incredible Years * 40 COPE * 37.3 36.5 34.3 SNAP 25.1 Nobody's Perfect * 20 18.3 16.6 Other ** 10.5 11.4 9.4 8.7 6.3 0 Non-Participants (1) Participants (2) small effect *, medium effect **

  12. Satisfaction with Parenting Support (%) Extremely 5 Satisfied ** ** 3.59 4 3.47 2.76 Non-Participants (1) Somewhat 2.60 3 Satisfied Participants (2) 2 Not At All 1 Satisfied Information Services medium effect **

  13. Influences on Future Program Participation For Non-Participants (%) 1 Some A Lot of No Addresses personally Influence Influence Influence relevant issues 1 2 3 4 5 Convenient location Demonstrated 4.30 effectiveness In my language 4.28 4.23 Conducted by trained practitioners 4.23 Free/low cost 4.23 Professional resources 4.09 4.06 Tailored to individual 4.04 needs Participants set and 3.82 achieve own goals 3.54 Different delivery formats

  14. Perceived Usefulness of Service Formats Extremely Useful * *** * * *** *** Not At All Useful small effect *, large effect ***

  15. II. Results: Parents’ Confidence How does an understanding of parents’ confidence inform service delivery?

  16. Child Characteristics ( n = 1965) Age (in years) Mean (SD) 5.5 (3.0) Gender (% Male) 52.3 Professional consulted in the last 12 months regarding 29.1 child’s behaviour (% Yes)

  17. Caregiver Characteristics ( n = 1965) Age Mean (SD) 36.6 (6.8) Gender (% Female) 91.9 Ethnicity (% White) 89.0 Marital status (% Married / Cohabiting) 85.5 Parents’ Confidence (CAPES) Mean ( SD ) 8.3 (1.6) 1 = Certain I can’t do it 10 = Certain I can do it Depressive Symptoms (Kessler K10) Mean ( SD) 16.0 (5.8) Happiness in Parent-Child Relationship Mean ( SD ) 6.7 (.99) 1 = extremely unhappy 8 = perfectly happy

  18. Socio-Economic Characteristics ( n = 1965) Education Completed high school or less 17.4 Completed post-secondary 82.6 Income adequacy in last 12 months Unable to meet essential expenses 18.6 Able to meet essential expenses 81.4

  19. Child Problems and Parent Wellbeing Parent hopelessness ** Child emotional & Depressive symptoms ** behavioural problems Unhappiness in parent-child relationship ** small effect *, medium effect **, large effect ***

  20. Child Problems and Parent Confidence Males Females Child emotional Child emotional & behavioural & behavioural problems *** problems ** Parents’ Parents’ Confidence Confidence As severity of child emotional and behavioural problems increases, confidence decreases. This relationship is stronger in female caregivers ( r = .522) than in male caregivers ( r = .387), z = 2.02, p < .05 small effect *, medium effect **, large effect ***

  21. Service Needs and Preferences  More parenting challenges  unique service needs Likelihood of future participation * Preferences for group programs *, individually Child emotional & tailored programs *, home visits * behavioural problems Importance of addressing personally relevant issues *, meeting personal goals *, at low cost *, in convenient location * small effect *

  22. Parents’ Confidence and Service Needs  Parents of children with more severe behavioural problems have lower parental confidence and prefer more individualized and intensive services  Higher confidence = Higher satisfaction with parenting information and services *  Higher confidence = Improved parental wellbeing * even when controlling for child problems small effect *

  23. Barriers to Services  Although parents with lower confidence tend to experience more parenting challenges and may be in greater need of services, they were also significantly more likely to report that they would feel uncomfortable accessing a parenting program  It may be important to normalize the use of parent training programs to encourage uptake

  24. Practice Implications & Future Directions

  25. What gets in the way of accessing services? How do we overcome it?  Lack of awareness  Other logistical barriers  timing  location  resources

  26. What increases participation?  Reassure parents about the services they are getting  Decrease barriers  Offer a variety of service formats

  27. How does an understanding of parents’ confidence inform service delivery?  Consider how parents feel about themselves as caregivers when trying to engage them in services  Increase comfort level with help seeking  Decrease blame and stigma  Focus on strengths  Tailor programs to individual needs and relevant issues

  28. Practice Implications  Boosting confidence is important to the self-regulation framework of parenting programs Comfort Confidence in Accessing Parenting Services Parenting Parenting Child Program Practices Behaviours

  29. Future Directions  Using the power of the web to enhance outcomes  Understanding ways to boost parents’ comfort and confidence

  30. Acknowledgements  Caregivers who completed the survey  Developers of the IPS:  University of Queensland and University of Bielefeld  IPS-C investigators  IPS-C partner agencies  Funding agency  University of Ottawa

  31. Questions? Comments?

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend