Material Hardship in Families With Low Income: Positive Effects of Coparenting on Fathers’ and Mothers’ Parenting and Children’s Prosocial Behaviors

Families with low income experience high levels of economic insecurity, but less is known about how mothers and fathers in such families successfully navigate coparenting and parenting in the context of material hardship. The current study utilized a risk and resilience framework to investigate the underlying family processes linking material hardship and children’s prosocial behaviors in a sample of socioeconomically disadvantaged mother-father families with preschoolers from the Building Strong Families project (N = 452). Coparenting alliance and mothers’ and fathers’ responsive parenting were examined as mediators. Results of structural equation modeling showed that coparenting alliance was associated with higher levels of both mothers’ and fathers’ responsive parenting. Subsequently, both parents’ responsive parenting were associated with higher levels of children’s prosocial behaviors. Material hardship was not associated with coparenting alliance and either parent’s responsive parenting. Tests of indirect effects confirmed that the effects of coparenting alliance on children’s prosocial behaviors were mediated through both mothers’ and fathers’ responsive parenting. Overall, these results suggest that when mothers and fathers have a strong coparenting alliance, they are likely to withstand the negative effects of material hardship and thus engage in positive parenting behaviors that benefit their children’s prosocial development. Family strengthening interventions, including responsible fatherhood programs, would do well to integrate a strong focus on enhancing a positive coparenting alliance between mothers and fathers.

Advanced Health Information Technologies to Engage Parents, Clinicians, and Community Nutritionists in Coordinating Responsive Parenting Care: Descriptive Case Series of the Women, Infants, and Children Enhancements to Early Healthy Lifestyles for Baby (WEE Baby) Care Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Socioeconomically disadvantaged newborns receive care from primary care providers (PCPs) and Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutritionists. However, care is not coordinated between these settings, which can result in conflicting messages. Stakeholders support an integrated approach that coordinates services between settings with care tailored to patient-centered needs. Objective This analysis describes the usability of advanced health information technologies aiming to engage parents in self-reporting parenting practices, integrate data into electronic health records to inform and facilitate documentation of provided responsive parenting (RP) care, and share data between settings to create opportunities to coordinate care between PCPs and WIC nutritionists. Methods Parents and newborns (dyads) who were eligible for WIC care and received pediatric care in a single health system were recruited and randomized to a RP intervention or control group. For the 6-month intervention, electronic systems were created to facilitate documentation, data sharing, and coordination of provided RP care. Prior to PCP visits, parents were prompted to respond to the Early Healthy Lifestyles (EHL) self-assessment tool to capture current RP practices. Responses were integrated into the electronic health record and shared with WIC. Documentation of RP care and an 80-character, free-text comment were shared between WIC and PCPs. A care coordination opportunity existed when the dyad attended a WIC visit and these data were available from the PCP, and vice versa. Care coordination was demonstrated when WIC or PCPs interacted with data and documented RP care provided at the visit. Results Dyads (N=131) attended 459 PCP (3.5, SD 1.0 per dyad) and 296 WIC (2.3, SD 1.0 per dyad) visits. Parents completed the EHL tool prior to 53.2% (244/459) of PCP visits (1.9, SD 1.2 per dyad), PCPs documented provided RP care at 35.3% (162/459) of visits, and data were shared with WIC following 100% (459/459) of PCP visits. A WIC visit followed a PCP visit 50.3% (231/459) of the time; thus, there were 1.8 (SD 0.8 per dyad) PCP to WIC care coordination opportunities. WIC coordinated care by documenting RP care at 66.7% (154/231) of opportunities (1.2, SD 0.9 per dyad). WIC visits were followed by a PCP visit 58.9% (116/197) of the time; thus, there were 0.9 (SD 0.8 per dyad) WIC to PCP care coordination opportunities. PCPs coordinated care by documenting RP care at 44.0% (51/116) of opportunities (0.4, SD 0.6 per dyad). Conclusions Results support the usability of advanced health information technology strategies to collect patient-reported data and share these data between multiple providers. Although PCPs and WIC shared data, WIC nutritionists were more likely to use data and document RP care to coordinate care than PCPs. Variability in timing, sequence, and frequency of visits underscores the need for flexibility in pragmatic studies. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03482908; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03482908 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.1186/s12887-018-1263-z