Purpose:

This study compared the impact, challenges, and benefits of the Circle of Security-Parenting (COS-P) intervention across two delivery modes: group center-based (GCCOS-P) and individual home-based (IHCOS-P).

Methods:

This mixed-methods study compared the impact of the COS-P on parental reflective functioning and parental stress across two delivery modes: GCCOS-P (n = 7) and IHCOS-P (n = 7). It compared the challenges and benefits of each, from the qualitative perspectives of participants (n = 2 IHCOS-P; n = 3 GCCOS-P) and facilitators (n = 4).

Results:

Quantitative statistical analysis comparing pre- and postintervention measures suggest that each delivery mode was equally effective in reducing parental stress and generally noneffective with respect to parental reflective functioning. Challenges and benefits of each mode, inherent in the peer/shared learning environment of the GCOS-P and the individualized, flexible delivery of the IHCOS-P, were identified.

Discussion:

This study adds to knowledge about the widely utilized COS-P, highlighting challenges and benefits of two modes of delivery.

中文翻译：

---

安全圈两种模式的混合方法研究

目的：

这项研究比较了通过两种交付方式进行的“安全亲子圈”（COS-P）干预的影响，挑战和收益：基于小组中心的（GCCOS-P）和基于个人家庭的（IHCOS-P）。

方法：

这项混合方法研究比较了两种递送模式下的COS-P对父母反射功能和父母压力的影响：GCCOS-P（n = 7）和IHCOS-P（n = 7）。它从参与者（n = 2 IHCOS-P；n = 3 GCCOS-P）和促进者（n = 4）的定性角度比较了每个挑战和挑战。

结果：

对比干预前和干预后措施的定量统计分析表明，每种分娩方式在降低父母压力方面均有效，而在父母反射功能方面通常无效。确定了GCOS-P的对等/共享学习环境以及IHCOS-P的个性化，灵活交付所固有的每种模式的挑战和收益。

讨论：

这项研究增加了关于广泛使用的COS-P的知识，强调了两种交付方式的挑战和好处。