Explore the vast range of titles available.

The present study reports on the first evaluation of a parenting intervention utilizing a smartphone app, BabyMind. The intervention aimed to facilitate mothers' mind-mindedness-attunement to their infants' internal states. Mothers in the intervention group (n = 90) used the BabyMind app from their infants' births and were followed up at age 6 months (n = 66). Mothers in the control group (n = 151) were recruited when their infants were age 6 months and had never used the BabyMind app. Mind-mindedness when interacting with their infants was significantly higher in intervention group mothers than in control group mothers. The intervention was equally effective in facilitating mind-mindedness in young and older mothers. These findings are discussed in terms of the potential for interventions utilizing smartphone apps to improve parenting and children's developmental outcome in vulnerable and hard-to-reach groups.

Relations between mind-mindedness (assessed using the describe-your-child interview) and stress were investigated in parents of children with developmental disorders (ADHD, n = 51, ASD, n = 23, Down’s Syndrome, n = 38, and 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome, 22q11.2DS, n = 32) and typically-developing children (n = 89). Mind-mindedness did not differ across diagnostic groups, and mind-mindedness predicted parenting stress across groups. Parenting stress was lowest in the typically-developing and Down’s Syndrome groups. Across all groups, mind-minded and positive descriptions predicted lower parenting stress, and negative descriptions predicted higher stress. In the developmental disorder groups, describing the children with reference to their disorder was negatively correlated with mind-mindedness. Results are discussed with regard to interventions for families where children have developmental disorders.

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, obstetric care has adopted new precautions to ensure services can be maintained for pregnant women. The aim of this study was to describe access to and quality of obstetric care for pregnant and postpartum women during the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify factors that predict quality of care at this time. Methods: Between May 3 and June 28, 2020, we recruited women who were pregnant or within the first 6 months after delivery to participate in an online survey. This included questions on access to obstetric healthcare (type and place of health care provider, changes to obstetric appointments/services, appointment preferences) and the Quality of Prenatal Care Questionnaire (QPCQ). Results: Of the 917 eligible women, 612 (67%) were pregnant and 305 (33%) were in the first 6 months after delivery. Sixty-two percent ( n = 571) reported that COVID-19 had affected their healthcare; appointments were rearranged, canceled or occurred via virtual means for 29% ( n = 166), 29% ( n = 167), and 31% ( n = 175) of women, respectively. The majority preferred to physically attend appointments (74%; n = 676) and perceived the accompaniment of birth partners as important (77%; n = 471). Sixty-two percent ( n = 380) were permitted a birth partner at delivery, 18% ( n = 111) were unsure of the rules while 4% ( n = 26) were not permitted accompaniment. During pregnancy, QPCQ was negatively associated with disruption to obstetric services including exclusion or uncertainty regarding birth partner permissions [ F (7, 433) = 11.5, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.16] while QPCQ was negatively associated with inadequate breastfeeding support postpartum [ F (1, 147) = 12.05, p = 0.001, R 2 = 0.08]. Conclusion: Pregnant and postpartum have experienced disruption in their access to obstetric healthcare. Perceived quality of obstetric care was negatively influenced by cancellation of appointment(s), suspension of services and exclusion of birth partners at delivery. During this time, continuity of care can be fulfilled via virtual and/or phone appointments and women should receive clear guidance on changes to services including birth partner permissions to attend delivery.

Background Prevention and early intervention are key to addressing poor child mental health. Systematic reviews have highlighted a lack of brief, valid and reliable outcome measures that can be implemented in both research and practice to assess social, emotional and behavioural outcomes in the early years. The Preschool Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (2–4 years) is a promising candidate to fill this gap, but the measurement properties of this tool are not yet known in very young children. Methods A secondary data analysis of two clinical trial datasets was conducted to examine the internal consistency reliability and structural validity of the parent-report English preschool version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a sample of 505 infants with mean average age of 18 months (SD .81). The measure was designed for children aged 2–4 years and was not modified prior to use with 1-year-olds in this study. Structural validity was examined in two Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) testing two-factor and five-factor models (representing factor structures proposed by the developers of SDQ), and McDonald’s coefficient Omega was estimated for each subscale with values > .70 considered acceptable. Results The model fit values for the two-factor model demonstrated a poor fit to the data ( X 2  = 626.067(151) =  p  < .001, CFI = 0.612, RMSEA = 0.079 [90% CI .073 to .085], SRMR = .077) and the omega value was below acceptable at ω = .57 for the internalising subscale and ω = .76 for the externalising subscale. The five-factor model also demonstrated a poor fit to the data ( X 2  = 836.813(242) =  p  < .001, CFI = 0.676, RMSEA = 0.070 [90% CI .065 to .075], SRMR = .081). Omega values were below acceptable for three out of five subscales. Discussion We concluded that the measure has poor internal consistency and lacks structural validity in this very young age group. Further research to adapt the SDQ in order to improve content and face validity is recommended prior to any further psychometric analyses with this very young age group. The paucity of robust and practical outcome measures of early social, emotional and behavioural poses significant challenges to the early identification of need and evaluation of interventions.

Autistic adults experience high rates of metal health difficulties and face significant barriers to accessing appropriate mental health care. Empirical research and recent professional guidelines emphasise the importance of modifying standard mental health interventions to best meet the needs of autistic adults. This systematic review explored mental health professionals’ experiences of adapting mental health interventions for autistic adults. A systematic search was conducted on CINAHL, PsychINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science in July 2022. The findings from 13 identified studies were synthesised using thematic synthesis. Three major analytical themes were generated, the unique experience of adapting interventions for autistic clients, factors which facilitate successful adaptations, and challenges to adapting interventions. Each theme contained a number of subsequent sub-themes. Professionals view the process of adapting interventions to be a highly individualised process. A range of personal traits, professional experiences, and systemic, service-based issues were identified in facilitating or challenging this individualised process. Further research regarding adaptations with different intervention models and increased supportive resources are required to enable professionals to successfully adapt interventions for autistic adult clients.

Research on autistic women’s experience of parenthood is lacking. In this paper, two studies are presented. Study 1 comprised a small-scale qualitative study with autistic mothers ( n  = 9) in which their experiences of motherhood were explored using thematic analysis. The findings showed that participants identified a range of strengths, including connection with their children, high knowledge about childhood, a reflective style of parenting, good coping strategies, identifying with their autism diagnosis, and not caring what others thought. They also identified difficulties, including sensory challenges, coping with uncertainty and change, having to socialise, managing exhaustion, and not being taken seriously by professionals involved with their children. Guided by the findings of Study 1, and in collaboration with an advisory panel of autistic mothers, an online survey using mixed methods was completed by education and social professionals ( n  = 277) to investigate their understanding of, and attitudes towards, autism in women and mothers. Results showed high awareness and positive attitudes towards autism, but low levels of self-efficacy in working with autistic adults. Qualitative content analysis of open-ended questions shed light on challenges and rewards of working with autistic parents. The findings are discussed with reference to the double empathy problem (Milton Disability & Society, 27 (6), 883–887, 2012 ) and implications for training of professionals.

Relations between restricted and repetitive behavior at age 26 months and children's concurrent (N = 203) and later (n = 161) social cognition and language development were investigated. Restricted and repetitive behavior was assessed using two scales: sensory and motor repetitive behaviors and rigidity/routines/restricted interests. Language was assessed at ages 26 and 51 months; social cognition was assessed at ages 26 (symbolic play) and 51 and 61 months (theory of mind). Sensory and motor repetitive behavior was negatively related to children's (a) language performance at 26 and 51 months, (b) instructed symbolic play at 26 months, and (c) theory of mind performance at 51 and 61 months. Path analyses showed that children's sensory and motor repetitive behavior at age 26 months was related to lower receptive verbal ability and theory of mind at 51 months, which led to lower theory of mind at 61 months. Rigidity/routines/restricted interests at 26 months were unrelated to concurrent and later social cognition and language. These results are discussed in terms of the pathways via which sensory and motor repetitive behavior might impact negatively on development.