This article describes the process of designing and convening a "think tank" meeting on parent-child connectedness (PCC). It describes the objectives we had for the meeting, the influences on our design and approach to the meeting, the meeting activities, and conclusions.

For an account of the outcomes and findings from the meeting, refer to Major Findings.

Parent-child connectedness, or PCC, describes a high-quality bond between a parent and a child that is both mutual and sustained over time. The presence of parent-child connectedness in families has been shown to be a protective factor for children against a variety of negative outcomes including teen pregnancy, substance abuse, tobacco use and delinquency.

However, to date, information and research on PCC has been scattered across multiple disciplines and prevention fields. Staff from the Training and Research Departments from ETR Associates saw a need to collect and interpret the available information about PCC from across these various disciplines and fields, and in early 2003, we received funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation to compose a clear and concise written understanding of PCC and its importance in preventing teen pregnancy and other negative outcomes for youth and families.

ETR initiated the "Parent-Child Connectedness: Bridging Research to Practice" (PCC BRIDGE) project and undertook three major activities in the first year. These activities were a review of more than 600 articles on PCC, a write-up of that literature review, a survey of health practitioners to assess their understanding of PCC, and a "think tank" with national PCC experts.

The primary purpose of convening the Think Tank on PCC was to review and critique our written summary of the available literature on PCC.

A second purpose was for think tank participants to help project staff assess the current levels of understanding and awareness of PCC among practitioners and consider ways to effectively disseminate information about PCC to that audience.

The third purpose was for participants to make recommendations around methods, strategies and other considerations important to designing interventions intended to increase PCC in families.

These purposes translated into five specific objectives. By the end of the think tank, we aimed to:

1. Reach general agreement about the body of knowledge presented on parent-child connectedness in ETR's literature review;
2. Review and modify the list of risk and protective factors/determinants related to PCC presented in the literature review;
3. Evaluate the relative impact of each of the risk and protective factors/determinants on increasing PCC;
4. Prioritize the list of risk and protective factors/determinants on the basis of their individual viability for intervention activities; and
5. Develop recommendations for general and specific intervention activities that could potentially affect prioritized risk and protective factors/determinants.

Our think tank design was influenced primarily by three sources:

1. prior project staff experience in leading meetings;
2. interviews with "veterans" of similar meetings; and
3. select literature on group process.

Figure 2:
An Outline of the Delphi Process

Our final think tank roster included seven researchers and eight practitioners, plus ETR facilitators and support staff. The final roster of participants, in alphabetical order is listed in Figure 3:

Figure 3: Final Think Tank Roster

These same principles suggested that we should rearrange our small group rosters frequently to build a "learning community" that would contribute to a productive and enjoyable meeting.

The formats used for the four main think tank activities reflected both adult learning principles and the recommendations for successful meetings that had come out of informational interviews with meeting "veterans." Our think tank design emphasized highly structured activities with good supporting materials and strong facilitation.

Strong facilitation was intended to balance three potentially competing forces in our think tank:

• the need to obtain "buy-in" from participants;
• our desire to find general agreement on important issues; and
• ETR's position as the final arbiter of what would be included or emphasized in the published literature review.

Finally, our meeting activities were designed to be interactive and product-focused through an emphasis on concrete outcomes such as written recommendations, prioritization lists and intervention designs.

Pre-Meeting Activity
Prior to the think tank, participants were send draft copies of the literature review and the results from the ReCAPP survey. They were asked to evaluate the two documents in writing using a list of questions provided. The questions to which participants responded were:

1. Is there a body of literature that we did not explore in the literature review that we should explore? Are there key research articles or authors that are missing from the literature review? Please advise.
2. Given your expertise and experience, are we missing any key risk and protective factors related to parent-child connectedness in our literature review? Please describe.
3. Given your expertise and experience, which risk and protective factors are most critical in establishing parent-child connectedness? In other words, which risk and protective factors are likely to be the most powerful at impacting parent-child connectedness. List no more than ten.
4. Of the risk and protective factors that matter most, which ones do you think are most feasible for intervention? Think about feasibility in regard to financial resources, staff expertise, administrative capability, and political acceptance.
5. Are there existing interventions/programs that should be included in the literature review, but currently are not? Please describe. How would we find out more about any interventions you suggest?
6. Given your experience and expertise, and your answers to questions #3 and #4, what would effective intervention strategies/approaches to strengthen parent-child connectedness look like? In your response to this question, mention any health behavior/psychological theories that should guide the development of these interventions.
7. How does culture, socioeconomic status (SES) and education level affect the development of these interventions, if at all?
8. After reading the literature review, what are the three main ideas that you are taking away from it?
9. What research study questions or knowledge gaps come up for you (in addition to the ones listed at the end of the document) after reviewing this literature review, if any?
10. What other feedback would you like to give us about the literature review?

Participants' written responses were read by project staff and keyed to the section or sections of the literature review to which they related. All comments pertaining to each section of the literature review were compiled and printed for participants' use in re-evaluating the literature review during the first major activity of the think tank.

Figure 4: Agenda for Two-Day Think Tank

Day One: July 21, 2003

Day Two: July 22, 2003

Generally, participants had strong, positive reactions to the importance of the PCC BRIDGE project and the design and outcomes of the think tank. They collectively expressed the opinion that the draft of the literature review was a solid start toward our goal of presenting a concise account of the existing body of knowledge about PCC.

The results from the think tank have subsequently shaped ETR Associates' thinking about how to disseminate key information about parent-child connectedness and how to increase the general awareness and understanding of this important concept. The think tank identified critical gaps in our understanding of PCC. These are gaps that need to be filled before we can proceed to develop interventions that will be effective at increasing parent-child connectedness within families.

top

Next: Key Resources >>