Search

Background: Parents with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) often need parenting support, but there are few evidence-based support programs adapted to these parents’ cognitive needs. Parenting Young Children (PYC) is a home-based parenting support program developed for parents with IDDs in Australia and has since been implemented in Sweden. PYC emphasizes individualized goals, breaking down complex skills into smaller steps, and collaborating with the parents. To investigate the usefulness and acceptability of PYC, it is of vital importance to explore how the intervention is perceived by the parents. Aim: The aim of the present study was to explore how PYC is perceived by Swedish parents with IDD as in need of adapted parenting support when there is a risk for neglect. Methods: Parents' experiences of PYC were explored shortly after completing PYC, using individual, semi-structured interviews that are audio-recorded and transcribed. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Data collection is ongoing, and so far, 12 of the 15 parents have been interviewed. Participating parents have mild ID or other cognitive difficulties (e.g., ASD) and have children between 0 and 9 years of age. Findings (preliminary): The parents experienced increased security in parenting, improvements in parenting skills, and strengthened self-confidence. PYC influenced parent-child relationships so that the child's needs were put in focus. The parents also emphasized that their parental competence developed in a trusting, participatory process in which it was important to feel included and treated positively. A prerequisite was that the PYC-social worker cooperates with the parent and is sensitive to the parent’s specific needs and wishes. According to the parents, the PYC-social worker should focus on the relationship between the parent and the PYC-social worker and the parents' knowledge and skills to increase the parent's competence. It was also of vital importance to

Attachment theory and research are drawn upon in many applied settings, including family courts, but misunderstandings are widespread and sometimes result in misapplications. The aim of this consensus statement is, therefore, to enhance understanding, counter misinformation, and steer family-court utilisation of attachment theory in a supportive, evidence-based direction, especially with regard to child protection and child custody decision-making. The article is divided into two parts. In the first, we address problems related to the use of attachment theory and research in family courts, and discuss reasons for these problems. To this end, we examine family court applications of attachment theory in the current context of the best-interest-of-the-child standard, discuss misunderstandings regarding attachment theory, and identify factors that have hindered accurate implementation. In the second part, we provide recommendations for the application of attachment theory and research. To this end, we set out three attachment principles: the child’s need for familiar, non-abusive caregivers; the value of continuity of good-enough care; and the benefits of networks of attachment relationships. We also discuss the suitability of assessments of attachment quality and caregiving behaviour to inform family court decision-making. We conclude that assessments of caregiver behaviour should take center stage. Although there is dissensus among us regarding the use of assessments of attachment quality to inform child custody and child-protection decisions, such assessments are currently most suitable for targeting and directing supportive interventions. Finally, we provide directions to guide future interdisciplinary research collaboration.

Research has suggested highly elevated levels of interpersonal trauma (IPT) among parents with intellectual disabilities (ID), and that such experiences may contribute to the caregiving and child developmental problems often seen in this population. Conflicting results have however been reported, and there is no systematic review on this matter. This study therefore systematically reviewed the empirical evidence concerning (a) prevalence of IPT among parents with ID, and links with (b) caregiving-relevant and (c) child developmental outcomes, in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PTSDpubs. Peer-reviewed empirical articles reporting exposure to any form of systematically assessed IPT (unspecified IPT, physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, neglect, prolonged childhood separations from caregivers, witnessing abuse in the family) among parents with ID were included, yielding a final selection of 20 studies. Findings consistently indicated markedly elevated levels of IPT among parents with ID, with a majority (>50%) having experienced some form of IPT. Estimates for both unspecified and specific forms were typically higher than corresponding estimates in other groups at elevated risk, and than meta-analytical general population estimates in comparable countries. Findings regarding caregiving-relevant outcomes were mixed but indicated links with adverse outcomes, particularly regarding parental mental health. Reports pertaining to child developmental outcomes were scant and inconsistent. We highlight important limitations in the extant literature and provide directions for future research and clinical practice., This research was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council (Grant 2017-03315) and the Swedish research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare (Grant 2017-01182) awarded to Pehr Granqvist and Tommie Forslund.

Scholarly discussion suggests prevalent, overconfident use of attachment classifications in child protection (CP) investigations but no systematic research has examined actual prevalence, the methods used to derive such classifications, or their interpretations. We aimed to cover this gap using survey data from a nationally representative sample of Swedish CP workers (N = 191). Three key findings emerged. First, the vast majority formed an opinion about young children's attachment quality in all or most investigations. Second, most did not employ systematic assessments, and none employed well-validated attachment methods. Third, there was overconfidence in the perceived implications of attachment classifications. For example, many believed that insecure attachment is a valid indicator of insufficient care. Our findings illustrate a wide researcher-practitioner gap. This gap is presumably due to inherent difficulties translating group-based research to the level of the individual, poor dissemination of attachment theory and research, and infrastructural pressures adversely influencing the quality of CP investigations.

The current study investigated longitudinal associations between parent-rated temperament, observed exuberance and accelerometer activity level at 18-months and symptoms of ASD and ADHD at 36-months in a sample of 54 children at elevated likelihood for ASD. For the specific parent-rated temperament scales, most observed significant associations appeared to be specific for either ASD or ADHD symptoms. Indeed, by controlling for overlapping symptoms a different pattern of associations emerged. These results illustrate how temperamental measures may signal risk for later ASD versus ADHD symptomatology in infants at elevated likelihood for ASD. In addition, they indicate the potential of adopting a broader view on neurodevelopmental disorders by investigating not only ASD traits, but also co-occurring disorders such as ADHD in samples of elevated likelihood for ASD.

In molti contesti professionali, compreso quello del Tribunale per i minorenni, si fa riferimento alla teoria dell'attaccamento e alla relativa ricerca, con fraintendimenti ampiamente diffusi che spesso si traducono in applicazioni scorrette. La finalità di questa dichiarazione di consenso è, pertanto, quella di migliorarne la comprensione, contrastare la disinformazione a riguardo e guidarne l'uso nel contesto del tribunale per i minorenni secondo una modalità basata sulle evidenze, considerando in particolare i processi decisionali circa la protezione e l'affidamento dei minori. L'articolo è diviso in due parti. Nella prima ci occupiamo dei problemi relativi all'utilizzo di teoria e ricerca sull'attaccamento nel contesto del Tribunale per i minorenni e ne discutiamo le ragioni. A questo proposito, esaminiamo le applicazioni della teoria che si ispirano al principio elettivo del superiore interesse del minore, discutiamo i fraintendimenti a riguardo e identifichiamo i fattori che ne hanno ostacolato un'accurata implementazione. Nella seconda parte, forniamo indicazioni per una sua adeguata e corretta applicazione. A tal fine, siamo partiti da tre principi di riferimento: il bisogno del bambino di caregiver familiari e non abusanti, il valore della continuità di cure sufficientemente buone e i benefici delle reti di relazioni di attaccamento. Discutiamo, inoltre, di quanto le valutazioni sulla qualità dell'attaccamento e sul comportamento di cura siano adeguate a ispirare i processi decisionali forensi rivolti ai minori. Concludiamo che la valutazione dei comportamenti di cura dovrebbe ricoprire un ruolo centrale. Nonostante non ci sia fra noi completo consenso riguardo all'utilizzo delle valutazioni sulla qualità dell'attaccamento nelle decisioni attinenti all'affidamento e alla protezione del minore, tali valutazioni si rivelano, al momento, le più adatte a individuare obiettivi e modalità degli interventi di sostegno. Infine, offriamo indicazioni per organizzare, Il lavoro è stato sostenuto da un finanziamento del Consiglio svedese per la ricerca (Grant 2017-03315) e dal Consiglio svedese di ricerca per la salute, la vita lavorativa e il benessere (Grant 2017-01182) attribuiti a Pehr Granqvist e Tommie Forslund, e da un Medical Humanities Investigator Award del Wellcome Trust (Grant WT103343MA) assegnato a Robbie Duschinsky.

La théorie et les recherches sur l’attachement sont utilisées dans de nombreux cadres d’application, y compris dans les tribunaux compétents en matière familiale [1], mais les incompréhensions sont fréquentes et sources d’erreurs lorsqu’il s’agit de les mettre en pratique. L’objectif de cet article de consensus est donc d’accroître la compréhension, de lutter contre la désinformation et d’améliorer l’utilisation de la théorie de l’attachement dans les tribunaux compétents en matière familiale sur la base des données probantes, en particulier concernant la protection de l’enfance et les décisions relatives au mode de résidence des enfants de parents séparés. L’article est divisé en deux parties. Dans la première, nous abordons les problèmes liés à l’utilisation de la théorie et de la recherche sur l’attachement dans les tribunaux compétents en matière familiale, et nous évoquons les raisons qui en sont à l’origine. Pour cela, nous examinons les applications de la théorie de l’attachement dans les tribunaux compétents en matière familiale dans le contexte actuel de la norme relative à l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant ; nous discutons des incompréhensions concernant la théorie de l’attachement et nous identifions les facteurs qui ont pu entraver sa bonne utilisation. Dans la deuxième partie, nous formulons des recommandations pour une meilleure application de la théorie et de la recherche sur l’attachement. Dans ce but, nous énonçons trois principes fondamentaux à propos de l’attachement : le besoin de l’enfant d’avoir des caregivers [2]familiers et non abusifs ; la valeur de la continuité des soins suffisamment bons ; et les avantages inhérents à la construction d’un réseau de relations d’attachement. Nous discutons également de la pertinence des outils d’évaluation de la qualité de l’attachement et des comportements de caregiving [3] pour éclairer les décisions des tribunaux compétents en matière familiale. Nous concluons que l’évaluation des comportements de soin des, Attachment theory and research are drawn upon in many applied settings, including family courts, but misunderstandings are widespread and sometimes result in misapplications. The aim of this consensus statement is, therefore, to enhance understanding, counter misinformation, and steer family-court utilization of attachment theory in a supportive, evidence-based direction, especially with regard to child protection and child custody decision-making. The article is divided into two parts. In the first, we address problems related to the use of attachment theory and research in family courts, and discuss reasons for these problems. To this end, we examine family court applications of attachment theory in the current context of the best-interest-of-the-child standard, discuss misunderstandings regarding attachment theory, and identify factors that have hindered accurate implementation. In the second part, we provide recommendations for the application of attachment theory and research. To this end, we set out three attachment principles: the child’s need for familiar, non-abusive caregivers; the value of continuity of good-enough care; and the benefits of networks of attachment relationships. We also discuss the suitability of assessments of attachment quality and caregiving behavior to inform family court decision-making. We conclude that assessments of caregiver behavior should take center stage. Although there is dissensus among us regarding the use of assessments of attachment quality to inform child custody and child-protection decisions, such assessments are currently most suitable for targeting and directing supportive interventions. Finally, we provide directions to guide future interdisciplinary research collaboration.