Background: Digital interventions help address barriers to traditional health care services. Fathers play an important parenting role in their families, and their involvement is beneficial for family well-being. Although digital interventions are a promising avenue to facilitate father involvement during the perinatal period, most are oriented toward maternal needs and do not address the unique needs of fathers. Objective: This systematic review describes the digital interventions that exist or are currently being developed for fathers of infants from conception to 12 months postpartum. Methods: A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase (using Ovid), and CINAHL (using EBSCO) databases was conducted to identify articles from database inception to June 2022, of which 39 met the inclusion criteria. Articles were included if they were peer-reviewed and described a digital intervention that targeted fathers of fetuses or infants aged ≤12 months. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and opinion pieces were excluded. Data from these studies were extracted and themed using a narrative synthesis approach. Quality appraisal of the articles was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results: A total of 2816 articles were retrieved, of which 39 (1.38%) met the inclusion criteria for eligibility after removing duplicates and screening. Eligible articles included 29 different interventions across 13 countries. Most articles (22/29, 76%) described interventions that were exclusively digital. There were a variety of digital modalities, but interventions were most commonly designed to be delivered via a website or web-based portal (14/29, 48%). Just over half (21/39, 54%) of the articles described interventions designed to be delivered from pregnancy through the postpartum period. Only 26% (10/39) of the studies targeted fathers exclusively. A wide range of outcomes were included, with 54% (21/39) of the studies including a primary outcome related to intervention feasibility. Qualitative and mixed methods studies reported generally positive experiences with digital interventions and qualitative themes of the importance of providing support to partners, improving parenting confidence, and normalization of stress were identified. Of the 18 studies primarily examining efficacy outcomes, 13 (72%) reported a statistically significant intervention effect. The studies exhibited a moderate quality level overall. Conclusions: New and expecting fathers use digital technologies, which could be used to help address father-specific barriers to traditional health care services. However, in contrast to the current state of digital interventions for mothers, father-focused interventions lack evaluation and evidence. Among the existing studies on digital interventions for fathers, there seem to be mixed findings regarding their feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy. There is a need for more development and standardized evaluation of interventions that target father-identified priorities. This review was limited by not assessing equity-oriented outcomes (eg, race and socioeconomic status), which should also be considered in future intervention development.

Background: Fathers are under-represented in research and programs addressing early childhood health and development. Recruiting fathers into these interventions can be hampered for multiple reasons, including recruitment and retention strategies that are not tailored for fathers. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the effectiveness of recruitment and retention strategies used to include fathers of children (from conception to age 36 months) in intervention studies. The secondary aim is to investigate study-level factors that may influence recruitment and retention.Methods: We will conduct searches for scholarly peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and pre-post studies that recruited fathers using the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and CINAHL. English-language articles will be eligible if they recruited self-identified fathers of children from conception to age 36 months for health-promoting interventions that target healthy parents and children. Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full texts for inclusion, as well as grading methodological quality. Recruitment and retention proportions will be calculated for each study. Where possible, we will calculate pooled proportional effects with 95% confidence intervals using random-effects models and conduct a meta-regression to examine the impact of potential modifiers of recruitment and retention.Discussion: Findings from this review will help inform future intervention research with fathers to optimally recruit and retain participants. Identifying key factors should enable health researchers and program managers design and adapt interventions to increase the likelihood of increasing father engagement in early childhood health interventions. Researchers will be able to use this review to inform future research that addresses current evidence gaps for the recruitment and retention of fathers. This review will make recommendations for addressing key target areas to improve recruitment and retention of fathers in early childhood health research, ultimately leading to a body of evidence that captures the full potential of fathers for maximizing the health and wellbeing of their children.Systematic review registration: PROSPEROCRD42018081332.

Objective The study objective was to identify the top 10 research priorities for expectant parents and caregivers of children up to age 24 months. Design A priority setting partnership using a modified James Lind Alliance approach was implemented. First, a core steering committee was formed, consisting of 17 parents, clinicians and community agency representatives. Second, through in-person collaboration with steering committee members, we developed and distributed a survey to identify research priorities across 12 topics. In total, 596 participants consented and 480 completed the survey. Survey responses were grouped and themed into codes during a consensus-building workshop with steering committee members (n=18). Research and practice experts were consulted to provide feedback on which themes had already been researched. An in-person (n=21) workshop was used to establish the top 34 priorities, which were circulated to the broader steering committee (n=25) via an online survey. Finally, the core steering committee members (n=18) met to determine and rank a top 10 (plus 1) list of research priorities. Setting This study was conducted in Alberta, Canada. Participants Expectant parents and caregivers of children up to age 24 months. Results Survey results provided 3232 responses, with 202 unique priorities. After expert feedback and steering committee consensus, a list of 34 priorities was moved forward for final consideration. The final top 10 (plus 1) research priorities included three priorities on mental health/relationships, two priorities on each of access to information, immunity and child development, and one priority on each of sleep, pregnancy/labour and feeding. Selecting 11 instead of 10 priorities was based on steering committee consensus. Conclusions The findings will direct future maternal–child research, ensuring it is rooted in parent-identified priorities that represent contemporary needs. To provide meaningful outcomes, research in these priority areas must consider diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and experiences.

Iron deficiency (ID) and restlessness are associated with sleep/wake-disorders (e.g., restless legs syndrome (RLS)) and neurodevelopmental disorders (attention deficit/hyperactivity and autism spectrum disorders (ADHD; ASD)). However, a standardized approach to assessing ID and restlessness is missing. We reviewed iron status and family sleep/ID history data collected at a sleep/wake behavior clinic under a quality improvement/quality assurance project. Restlessness was explored through patient and parental narratives and a ‘suggested clinical immobilization test’. Of 199 patients, 94% had ID, with 43% having a family history of ID. ADHD (46%) and ASD (45%) were common conditions, along with chronic insomnia (61%), sleep-disordered breathing (50%), and parasomnias (22%). In unadjusted analysis, a family history of ID increased the odds (95% CI) of familial RLS (OR: 5.98, p = 0.0002, [2.35–15.2]), insomnia/DIMS (OR: 3.44, p = 0.0084, [1.37–8.64]), and RLS (OR: 7.00, p = 0.01, [1.49–32.93]) in patients with ADHD, and of insomnia/DIMS (OR: 4.77, p = 0.0014, [1.82–12.5]), RLS/PLMS (OR: 5.83, p = 0.009, [1.54–22.1]), RLS (OR: 4.05, p = 0.01, [1.33–12.3]), and familial RLS (OR: 2.82, p = 0.02, [1.17–6.81]) in patients with ASD. ID and restlessness were characteristics of ADHD and ASD, and a family history of ID increased the risk of sleep/wake-disorders. These findings highlight the need to integrate comprehensive blood work and family history to capture ID in children and adolescents with restless behaviors.

Although well positioned to work with families of young children, nurses do not yet have a theory that guides practice and research by relating infant sleep to child and family development. The authors of this paper describe a proposed theory that combines Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development with the Barnard model of parent-child interaction to inform nursing practice and research related to infant sleep and optimizing child and family development. The theory focuses on sustainability of change in family processes and infant sleep, with a goal of optimizing family wellness as the proximal environment for child development.

Psychological distress can manifest as depression, anxiety, and anger in the perinatal period. These conditions are often comorbid yet studied in isolation. A full understanding of perinatal psychopathology requires the spectrum of common psychological distress to be studied concurrently to better understand interconnected symptoms. A transdiagnostic approach provides valuable insights into how symptoms interact and cumulatively affect mental health, which can inform more effective screening and treatment strategies. This, in turn, can improve outcomes for birthing parents experiencing psychological distress. We undertook group‐based multi‐trajectory modeling (GBMTM) to uncover the patterns of affective disorders (anger, anxiety, and depression) over three‐time points (pregnancy, 3‐, and 12‐months postpartum (mPP)) in a large longitudinal cohort of persons who gave birth during the COVID‐19 pandemic ( n = 2145). We identified five trajectory groups: high‐stable (11.3%), postpartum‐increase (16.0%), postpartum‐decrease (21.5%), low‐stable (37.9%), and minimal stable (13.2%) symptoms of anger, anxiety, and depression. Multinomial regression revealed that lower levels of sleep disturbance, less financial hardship, and lower intolerance of uncertainty predicted postpartum decreases in psychological distress compared with the high stable group. Higher levels of sleep disturbance, greater financial hardship, lower level of social support, and greater intolerance of uncertainty predicted postpartum increases in psychological distress compared with the low‐stable and minimal‐stable groups. Screening for psychological distress symptoms (i.e., anger, anxiety, and depression), paired with access to evidence‐based management for those who screen positive, is warranted during the first postpartum year to reduce the harmful effects of unmanaged distress on families.