Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33844692›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Family as a health promotion setting: A scoping review of conceptual models of the health-promoting family.

Valerie Michaelson, Kelly A Pilato, Colleen M Davison

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
23.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Understanding barriers and facilitators of adherence to lifestyle changes in prediabetes: a qualitative study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026
    Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Valerie MichaelsonDepartment of Health Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0905-4166
Kelly A PilatoDepartment of Health Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada.
Colleen M DavisonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0410-3352
Brock University · CAQueen's University · CA

Funding

CIHR MOP 341188CIHR MOP 97962
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe family is a key setting for health promotion. Contemporary health promoting family models can establish scaffolds for shaping health behaviors and can be useful tools for education and health promotion.

objectivesThe objective of this scoping review is to provide details as to how conceptual and theoretical models of the health promoting potential of the family are being used in health promotion contexts.

designGuided by PRISMA ScR guidelines, we used a three-step search strategy to find relevant papers. This included key-word searching electronic databases (Medline, PSycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL), searching the reference lists of included studies, and intentionally searching for grey literature (in textbooks, dissertations, thesis manuscripts and reports.).

resultsAfter applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, the overall search generated 113 included manuscripts/chapters with 118 unique models. Through our analysis of these models, three main themes were apparent: 1) ecological factors are central components to most models or conceptual frameworks; 2) models were attentive to cultural and other diversities, allowing room for a wide range of differences across family types, and for different and ever-expanding social norms and roles; and 3) the role of the child as a passive recipient of their health journey rather than as an active agent in promoting their own family health was highlighted as an important gap in many of the identified models.

conclusionsThis review contributes a synthesis of contemporary literature in this area and supports the priority of ecological frameworks and diversity of family contexts. It encourages researchers, practitioners and family stakeholders to recognize the value of the child as an active agent in shaping the health promoting potential of their family context.

Indexed as

ChildCultureDatabases, FactualDelivery of Health CareEcosystemFamilyHealth PromotionHumansModels, Theoretical

Identifiers

PMID33844692
PMCPMC8041208
OpenAlexW3154787607

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.