Strengthening Families: Parents' Voices on Discipline and Child Rearing

This qualitative study conducted semi-structured, multi-session focus groups and interviews with twenty-seven participants to explore in-depth, participant constructs of child discipline and punishment methods and reasons for the continuing support for corporal punishment of U.S. children. The research assumed that parents want to parent well and utilized the strengths perspective as the instrument to listen to participants' voices. Narratives revealed that participants were thoughtful about discipline and parenting strategies and viewed their parent role as a serious commitment. Non-violent discipline strategies, particularly communication, were often used. However, parents generally framed use of physical punishment as “when children need spanking” versus articulating the view that corporal punishment is a choice. Parents were unfamiliar with risks associated with physical punishment and only three parents, as a result of their foster parent training, had ever heard, “Do not spank.” Participants enumerated services and recommendations that would support and inform their own parenting, as well as, benefit children and the eighty percent of women and men in the United States who become mothers and fathers. Recommendations included: creation of a national campaign to build on parent strengths and the intentionality of effective parenting; child development education and increased public awareness of positive discipline methods; parenting supports, including respite and venues for dialogue and discourse about parenting. Recommendations are intended to inform child welfare practice and policy, particularly child abuse prevention. Creating, funding, and implementing a national campaign as described would challenge the dominant child welfare paradigm from one currently perceived as punitive and focused on parents' deficits to a strengths-based paradigm that provides supports and assistance to parents and children.

Parenting Pioneers and Parenting Teams: Strengthening Extended Family Ties in Family Support

Starting with the premise that extended family members often have great influence on family functioning, this article describes social work practice techniques for helping families utilize resources available in the extended family network. Two key concepts are presented: "parenting pioneers," who, while attempting newly learned parenting skills, may struggle with resistance from extended family members; and "parenting teams," in which the focal family is giving to or receiving from extended family members substantial family support. The article presents these practice techniques in the context of family support services, which are characterized as voluntary, preventive, developmental, and based in the concept of empowerment and the ecological perspective.

Commentary on "Strengthening Families: Parents' Voices on Discipline and Child Rearing"

There is a growing consensus among professionals working with parents and children, and advocates for child rights, that a ban on the use of corporal punishment (CP) in raising children is justified in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989). However, this is an issue which seems to polarize people and opponents of banning CP have attacked the scientific literature and made dire predictions of adverse consequences if parents are not allowed to use CP. The problem is that so much attention has been focused on the “to spank or not to spank” issue, the developmental benefits for children and parents stemming from positive parenting have been largely ignored. There is increasing evidence that public health approaches to increasing parenting support reduces coercive parenting practices. Breshears' study represents an effort to gain a clearer understanding of the reasons many parents continue to support CP and draws on innovative qualitative methods to argue that parents’ views about CP are important and must be taken into account in planning intervention programs.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for respondent-driven sampling studies: "STROBE-RDS" statement.

OBJECTIVES Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a new data collection methodology used to estimate characteristics of hard-to-reach groups, such as the HIV prevalence in drug users. Many national public health systems and international organizations rely on RDS data. However, RDS reporting quality and available reporting guidelines are inadequate. We carried out a systematic review of RDS studies and present Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for RDS Studies (STROBE-RDS), a checklist of essential items to present in RDS publications, justified by an explanation and elaboration document. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched the MEDLINE (1970-2013), EMBASE (1974-2013), and Global Health (1910-2013) databases to assess the number and geographical distribution of published RDS studies. STROBE-RDS was developed based on STROBE guidelines, following Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. RESULTS RDS has been used in over 460 studies from 69 countries, including the USA (151 studies), China (70), and India (32). STROBE-RDS includes modifications to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The two key areas that required modification concerned the selection of participants and statistical analysis of the sample. CONCLUSION STROBE-RDS seeks to enhance the transparency and utility of research using RDS. If widely adopted, STROBE-RDS should improve global infectious diseases public health decision making.

Agricultural biodiversity strengthening livelihoods in periurban Hyderabad, India

In periurban Hyderabad, India, leafy vegetables are increasingly grown along the Musi River and sold in urban markets. This agricultural biodiversity can significantly help urban and periurban farmers become more resilient to the impacts of such changes.

Strengthening the food systems governance evidence base: Supporting commensurability of research through a systematic review of methods

Governance of food systems is a poorly understood determinant of food security. Much scholarship on food systems governance is non-empirical, while existing research is often case study-based and theoretically and methodologically incommensurable. This frustrates aggregation of evidence and generalisation. We undertook a systematic review of methods used in food systems governance research with a view to identifying a core set of indicators for future research. We gathered literature through a structured consultation and sampling from recent reviews. Indicators were identified and classified according to the levels and sectors they investigate. We found a concentration of indicators in food production at local to national levels and a sparseness in distribution and consumption. Unsurprisingly, many indicators of institutional structure were found, while agency-related indicators are moderately represented. We call for piloting and validation of these indicators and for methodological development to fill gaps identified. These efforts are expected to support a more consolidated future evidence base and eventual meta-analysis.

A proposal for improving safety in construction projects by strengthening coordinators’ competencies in health and safety issues

The figure of the coordinator in health and safety issues in the construction sector first appeared in our legislation through the incorporation of the European Directives (in our case Royal Decree 1627/97 on the minimum health and safety regulations in construction works), and is viewed differently in different countries of the European Union regarding the way they are hired and their role in the construction industry. Coordinating health and safety issues is also a management process that requires certain competencies that are not only based on technical or professional training, but which, taking account of the work environment, require the use of strategies and tools that are related to experience and personal skills. Through a piece of research that took account of expert opinions in the matter, we have found which competencies need to be possessed by the health and safety coordinator in order to improve the safety in the works they are coordinating. The conclusions of the analyses performed using the appropriate statistical methods (comparing means and multivariate analysis techniques), will enable training programmes to be designed and ensure that the health and safety coordinators selected have the competencies required to carry out their duties.