The Pittsburgh Study: A Tiered Model to Support Parents during Early Childhood

To test the feasibility of implementing The Pittsburgh Study's (TPS) Early Childhood Collaborative, a population-level, community-partnered initiative to promote relational health by offering accessible preventive parenting program options for families with young children. TPS partnered with he...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of pediatrics 2025-02, Vol.277, p.114396, Article 114396
Hauptverfasser: Krug, Chelsea Weaver, Mendelsohn, Alan L., Wuerth, Jordan, Roby, Erin, Shaw, Daniel S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To test the feasibility of implementing The Pittsburgh Study's (TPS) Early Childhood Collaborative, a population-level, community-partnered initiative to promote relational health by offering accessible preventive parenting program options for families with young children. TPS partnered with healthcare and community agencies serving families in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to enroll and screen 878 parents of 1040 children 4-years-old and under. Participants were assigned to 1 of 4 tiered groups based on identified needs: (1) universal, (2) targeted/universal, (3) secondary/tertiary, or (4) tertiary programs. Parents were offered choices in empirically supported parenting programs within group ranging from texting programs to intensive home visiting. Program selection was optional. Chi-square tests were conducted to examine the likelihood of selecting a program by group. About 25% of participants were assigned to each tiered group; 78% of parents chose to enroll in a parenting program. In general, parents with higher levels of adversity were more likely to select a parenting program compared with those reporting less adversity, including secondary/tertiary vs targeted/universal groups (81.4% vs 72.8%), and tertiary vs universal and targeted/universal groups (83% vs 74.1% and 72.8%, respectively; P 
ISSN:0022-3476
1097-6833
1097-6833
DOI:10.1016/j.jpeds.2024.114396