Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40477605›Full record

ArticlePravention und Gesundheitsforderung2023

[Learning from the coronavirus pandemic about the future of family support services].

Sonja Bröning, Annette Clüver

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Pravention und Gesundheitsforderung, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sonja BröningFakultät Humanwissenschaften, Medical School Hamburg, Am Kaiserkai 1, 20457 Hamburg, Deutschland.ORCID 0000-0001-9803-9779
Annette ClüverFakultät Humanwissenschaften, Medical School Hamburg, Am Kaiserkai 1, 20457 Hamburg, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The onset of the coronavirus pandemic created diverse stressors for families with small children such as isolation, limited public and private childcare options, and balancing work and childcare. Fear of the future, feelings of uncertainty and loneliness led to a rise in mental health problems. Public family support services also faced significant challenges: while families felt more need for support, established means of reaching families and providing services were severely curtailed. Objectives: The current study aimed at capturing pandemic-related changes in family needs and at documenting experiences in the use of newly developed analog and digital services provided by public family support institutions in the city of Hamburg, Germany. Materials and methods: We conducted focus groups with staff members of different types of public family support services and parents who were using these services. Central topics of discussion were pandemic-related experiences and ideas for the future of public family support services. Results: Results confirm an increase in family pressures. Parents and staff members missed low-threshold accessibility of services and personal contact and dialogue. Creative approaches to complement services digitally were developed. Several of these approaches were considered beneficial, especially for reaching new target groups and strengthening interprofessional cooperation in the field. Conclusions: In-person support services need to be upheld. However, digital services can effectively complement analog formats. A successful combination requires effective resource distribution and staff member qualification measures.

Indexed as

COVID-19Digital social workFamily-based preventionFamily supportFocus group

Identifiers

PMID40477605
PMCPMC8995907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.