4.3 Article

Strengthening new fathers' skills in interaction with their 5-month-old infants: Who benefits from a brief intervention?

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages 431-439

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.2008.00727.x

Keywords

early intervention; father-child relations; infant; paternal behavior

Funding

  1. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To determine the utility of a parenting education program for fathers of infants, and to determine which fathers benefited. Design: Fathers' perceptions of the program's utility were captured in a brief, structured interview. Using secondary data analysis, pretest/posttest father-infant interaction scores of fathers who improved were compared with those of fathers who did not. Demographic predictors of improvement were identified using multiple regression. Sample: Community sample of 81 adult, English-speaking, primarily European Canadian, first-time fathers of 5-month-old infants, who participated in the intervention group of a randomized controlled trial. Intervention: When infants were 5 and 6 months old, videotaped self-modeling and positive feedback about father-infant interaction were provided by specially trained nurses. Measurements: Father-infant interaction was assessed at baseline (5 months) and outcome (8 months) using the Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale. Results: Fathers found the program useful, indicating that their needs for educational programs are different from mothers. Controlling for baseline interactions, demographic variables did not significantly predict fathers' outcome interactions. Conclusions: The program may prove useful in public health settings where implementing programs for fathers of infants is a priority. Future research needs to explore other predictors to identify fathers who will benefit from the program.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available