Purpose: Providing an overview of studies on family participation in physiotherapy-related tasks of critically ill patients, addressing two research questions (RQ): 1) What are the perceptions of patients, relatives, and staff about family participation in physiotherapy-related tasks? and 2) What are the effects of interventions of family participation in physiotherapy-related tasks? Material and methods: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods articles were identified using PubMed, Embase and CINAHL. Studies reporting on family participation in physiotherapy-related tasks of adult critically ill patients were included. A convergent segregated approach for mixed-methods reviews was used. Results: Eighteen articles were included; 13 for RQ1, and 5 for RQ2. The included studies were quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method, including between 8 and 452 participants. The descriptive studies exhibit a general appreciation for involvement of relatives in physiotherapy-related tasks, although most of the studies reported on family involvement in general care and incorporated diverse physiotherapy-related tasks. One study explored the effectiveness of family participation on a rehabilitation outcome and showed that the percentage of patients mobilizing three times a day increased. Conclusion: Positive attitudes were observed among patients, their relatives and staff towards family participation in physiotherapy-related tasks of critically ill patients. However, limited research has been done into the effect of interventions containing family participation in physiotherapy-related tasks.
Parents who grew up without digital monitoring have a plethora of parental monitoring opportunities at their disposal. While they can engage in surveillance practices to safeguard their children, they also have to balance freedom against control. This research is based on in-depth interviews with eleven early adolescents and eleven parents to investigate everyday negotiations of parental monitoring. Parental monitoring is presented as a form of lateral surveillance because it entails parents engaging in surveillance practices to monitor their children. The results indicate that some parents are motivated to use digital monitoring tools to safeguard and guide their children, while others refrain from surveillance practices to prioritise freedom and trust. The most common forms of surveillance are location tracking and the monitoring of digital behaviour and screen time. Moreover, we provide unique insights into the use of student tracking systems as an impactful form of control. Early adolescents negotiate these parental monitoring practices, with responses ranging from acceptance to active forms of resistance. Some children also monitor their parents, showcasing a reciprocal form of lateral surveillance. In all families, monitoring practices are negotiated in open conversations that also foster digital resilience. This study shows that the concepts of parental monitoring and lateral surveillance fall short in grasping the reciprocal character of monitoring and the power dynamics in parent-child relations. We therefore propose that monitoring practices in families can best be understood as family surveillance, providing a novel concept to understand how surveillance is embedded in contemporary media practices among interconnected family members.
MULTIFILE
Several interventions have been developed to support families living with parental mental illness (PMI). Recent evidence suggests that programmes with whole-family components may have greater positive effects for families, thereby also reducing costs to health and social care systems. This review aimed to identify whole-family interventions, their common characteristics, effectiveness and acceptability. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A literature search was conducted in ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and PsycINFO in January 2021 and updated in August 2022. We double screened 3914 abstracts and 212 papers according to pre-set inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for quality assessment. Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted and synthesised. Randomised-control trial data on child and parent mental health outcomes were analysed separately in random-effects meta-analyses. The protocol, extracted data, and meta-data are accessible via the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9uxgp/). Data from 66 reports—based on 41 independent studies and referring to 30 different interventions—were included. Findings indicated small intervention effects for all outcomes including children’s and parents’ mental health (dc = −0.017, −027; dp = −0.14, −0.16) and family outcomes. Qualitative evidence suggested that most families experienced whole-family interventions as positive, highlighting specific components as helpful, including whole-family components, speaking about mental illness, and the benefits of group settings. Our findings highlight the lack of high-quality studies. The present review fills an important gap in the literature by summarising the evidence for whole-family interventions. There is a lack of robust evidence coupled with a great need in families affected by PMI which could be addressed by whole-family interventions. We recommend the involvement of families in the further development of these interventions and their evaluation.
MULTIFILE
