Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Intervention
Description
Attendance and engagement in available parenting interventions in both research and community settings is often inconsistent. Recent research suggests that varying the delivery modality of the intervention (i.e., in-person, telehealth, or online) has the potential to increase engagement with evidence-based parenting programs. However, while it is known that both facilitator and parent characteristics also influence engagement, no study has evaluated whether those characteristics moderate the influence that modality has on engagement. Utilizing data from the randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial of the After Deployment, Adaptive Parenting Tools intervention, this study aimed to assess whether facilitators’ gender, military background, and competence moderated the effect of modality on parents’ engagement. Results suggested that parents were significantly more likely to have attended when they were randomized to the telehealth condition. Additionally, while there were no moderating relationships, female facilitators and facilitators who were more competent had overall higher attendance. Additionally, in the group format, facilitators with military backgrounds had higher engagement than those who did not. Understanding the effects that delivery modality and facilitators have on parental engagement is critical to continue and amplify implementation efforts in community settings.
ContributorsBasha, Sydni A. J. (Author) / Gewirtz, Abigail H (Thesis advisor) / Berkel, Cady (Committee member) / McNeish, Daniel (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
This thesis seeks to analyze the phenomenon of increasing multipolarity in the global environment vis-à-vis the conduct of humanitarian intervention. Established powers, including the United States and United Kingdom, and rising, predominantly developing states seem at odds over where to intervene, when, and on what basis. Situating this conflict within the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine, which has been the guiding international framework for intervention over the past decade-and-a-half, the research answers whether the processes of multipolarity will ultimately lead to the reconciliation of nation-state interests (cooperation) or unreconciled divergence (competition). Using United Nations Security Council resolutions to temporally track multipolarity and map nations’ language into the rhetorical spaces of humanitarianism and inclinations toward intervention, the research finds support for the proposition that concepts of humanitarian intervention between great and rising powers are more conflictual. Furthermore, nations appear to be clustering into “camps” along broadly humanitarian/interventionist and state sovereigntist lines. To preserve humanitarian intervention in a more multipolar world, its proponents must accommodate diverse nation-state interests, facilitate improved relations among the member states of the U.N. Security Council, and empower regional bodies as partners in alleviating conflict under an R2P mandate.
ContributorsJernstedt, Matthew John (Author) / Wood, Reed (Thesis director) / Ripley, Charles (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor, Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05