4.2 Article

From Presence to Participation: Engagement with an SMS Program for Fathers of Children on the Autism Spectrum

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHILD AND FAMILY STUDIES
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 29-37

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10826-020-01845-8

关键词

Father; Autism; Engagement; Intervention; Co-parenting; SMS; Text-messaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explored paternal engagement in a program providing information and support to fathers raising children on the autism spectrum. The use of text-based intervention showed high rates of connection and participation, with fathers actively applying information to their parenting behavior. This cost-effective and scalable program demonstrates acceptability among fathers.
Fathers of children on the autism spectrum are often in need of support due to high levels of parenting stress and the complexity associated with raising these children. While the importance of the fathering role as both parent and partner is well recognized, the recruitment of fathers into support programs is often resource intensive and generally fails to achieve desired levels of enrollment and retention. Text2dads explored paternal engagement with a program providing text-based information and support to smartphones of Australian fathers (N = 184) raising children on the autism spectrum. The evaluation is scaffolded by Piotrowska et al.'s CAPE model of engagement-Connection, Attendance, Participation and Enactment. Analysis demonstrated high rates of connection and participation when compared to other father-focused interventions. Evidence from response rates, comments and surveys demonstrate that fathers actively participated in the project while also reporting that they applied information gained from Text2dads in their parenting behavior. Advances in mobile communication have created opportunities to engage with fathers using alternative modes of intervention. The present study demonstrates support for the acceptability of this cost effective and highly scalable program.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据