This is an outdated version published on December 19, 2025. Read the most recent version.

Collaborative development of a scoping review protocol to map instruments assessing the parent–infant relationship: An International Initiative from COST Action TREASURE

Sónia Brandão ,
Anat Talmon
,
Ewa Gieysztor
,
Patrícia Souto
,
Andreia Soares Goncalves ,
Rosa Silva ,
Patrícia Gonçalves
,
Paula Prata ,
Özlem Şensoy ,
Esra Ardahan Akgül
,
Semra Pinar ,
Kristiina Uriko ,
Seda Ardahan Sevgili ,
Elif Bulut
,
Rajesh Shigdel
,
Demet Gülaldı ,
Otília Freitas
,
Aycin Ezgi Onel ,
Pelin Dikmen-Yildiz ,
Carmen Power
,
Alena Lochmannová ,
Dora d'Orsi ,
Özlem Koç
,
Tuğçe Sönmez
,
Tânia Brandão
,
Diana Azevedo ,
Lence Miloseva ,
Edanur Tar Bolacali ,
Bahar Aksoy ,
Mirlinda Markaj
,
Gilberta Sousa
,
Burcu Kömürcü Akik
,
Nicola Carone ,
Pinar Gencpinar
,
Ayça Demir Yıldırım ,
Hazal Özdemir Koyu
,
Wilson Abreu
,
Tuğba Yılmaz Esencan ,
Margarida Reis Santos ,
Mario Santos ,
Remziye Can ,
Anna-Lena Zietlow
,
Rafael Caparros-Gonzalez

Article

Authors & roles Authors

Peer review record Peer review

Metrics

Cite

Section

Brief Report

Published

December 19, 2025

DOI

https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.21700.1

Versions

January 16, 2026 (Version of Record 1.0)
December 19, 2025 (Published Manuscript Under Review 1.0)

COST Actions

European Cooperation in Science and Technology

Grant ID(s): CA22114

Views

250

Downloads

Citations

See full metrics

parent–infant relationship, early relational health, scoping review, methodological framework, collaborative research, international collaboration, COST Action

Abstract

Early relational health during the first 24 months of life is a key determinant of child development and wellbeing. The parent–infant relationship plays a central role in emotional regulation, bonding, and developmental trajectories. However, existing assessment tools differ widely in their scope and characteristics, and no comprehensive review has yet mapped the instruments available to assess this relationship in early infancy. In response to this gap, a transdisciplinary working group within the COST Action CA22114 – TREASURE collaboratively developed a scoping review protocol to systematically map instruments assessing the parent–infant relationship from birth to 24 months of age. This Brief Report outlines the collaborative methodological process used to construct the protocol. Development followed an iterative, consensus-driven approach involving multidisciplinary experts from multiple COST member countries. Through structured online meetings, the group clarified core constructs and established the age range using the Population–Concept–Context (PCC) framework. The JBI methodology for scoping reviews was adopted and aligned with PRISMA-ScR standards to ensure transparency and reproducibility. Progressive drafting, internal peer review, and iterative refinement led to the final protocol, which was registered on the Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/HRVX9).

The resulting protocol provides a replicable methodological framework for mapping instruments that assess the parent–infant relationship. This Brief Report presents a framework for collaborative protocol development in international research networks, promoting shared knowledge generation in early relational health research and offering potential applicability to other COST initiatives.

Plain Language Summary

This article explains how an international team of researchers worked together to create a structured plan (protocol) for a scoping review, a type of research review that maps existing evidence. The aim of this review is to identify and describe the tools used to assess the relationship between parents and their babies during the first two years of life, a crucial period for emotional bonding, development, and long-term health. Experts from different countries within the COST network collaborated step by step to define key concepts, agree on suitable methods, and design a clear and transparent protocol. This protocol will guide a future scoping review that will identify and map all instruments used to evaluate the parent–infant relationship. The findings will help healthcare professionals, researchers, and policymakers better understand the range and characteristics of available instruments, supporting informed decisions about their use in promoting early relational health.

Corresponding author

Sónia Brandão

0000-0001-8765-8240

soniabrandao@esenf.pt

Grant information

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Framework Programme for Research & Innovation as part of the COST Action (CA22114: TREASURE: Maternal Perinatal Stress and Adverse Outcomes in the Offspring: Maximising infant´s development), as supported by the COST Association (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

© 2025 Sónia Brandão (Corresponding Author, Co-Author); Anat Talmon (Co-Author); Ewa Gieysztor (Co-Author); Patrícia Souto (Co-Author); Andreia Soares Goncalves (Co-Author); Rosa Silva (Co-Author); Patrícia Gonçalves (Co-Author); Paula Prata (Co-Author); Özlem Şensoy (Co-Author); Esra Ardahan Akgül (Co-Author); Semra Pinar (Co-Author); Kristiina Uriko (Co-Author); Seda Ardahan Sevgili (Co-Author); Elif Bulut (Co-Author); Rajesh Shigdel (Co-Author); Demet Gülaldı (Co-Author); Otília Freitas (Co-Author); Aycin Ezgi Onel (Co-Author); Pelin Dikmen-Yildiz (Co-Author); Carmen Power (Co-Author); Alena Lochmannová (Co-Author); Dora d'Orsi (Co-Author); Özlem Koç (Co-Author); Tuğçe Sönmez (Co-Author); Tânia Brandão (Co-Author); Diana Azevedo (Co-Author); Lence Miloseva (Co-Author); Edanur Tar Bolacali (Co-Author); Bahar Aksoy (Co-Author); Mirlinda Markaj (Co-Author); Gilberta Sousa (Co-Author); Burcu Kömürcü Akik (Co-Author); Nicola Carone (Co-Author); Pinar Gencpinar (Co-Author); Ayça Demir Yıldırım (Co-Author); Hazal Özdemir Koyu (Co-Author); Wilson Abreu (Co-Author); Tuğba Yılmaz Esencan (Co-Author); Margarida Reis Santos (Co-Author); Mario Santos (Co-Author); Remziye Can (Co-Author); Anna-Lena Zietlow (Co-Author); Rafael Caparros-Gonzalez (Co-Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

First version published

December 19, 2025 (https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.21700.1)

Latest version published

January 16, 2026 (https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.21700.2)

Introduction

Early childhood development is widely recognised as a global public health priority, aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The first 1,000 days of life, from conception to a child’s second birthday, represent a critical period of rapid brain growth and heightened neuroplasticity (Berg, 2016; Scher, 2024; Wardoyo et al., 2024). Within this broad framework of early childhood development, increasing attention has been directed towards early relational health, the quality of early caregiving relationships that form the foundation for emotional, social, and cognitive development. During this time, interactions between infants and their primary caregivers shape neurocognitive, socioemotional, and self-regulatory development, with long-term implications for physical and mental health (Black & Merseth, 2018; Scher, 2024). Nurturing and responsive caregiving environments promote adaptive developmental trajectories, whereas adverse or disrupted early relationships may contribute to stress dysregulation and increased vulnerability to later mental health difficulties (Bhamani et al., 2023).

Parental mental health during the perinatal period, particularly elevated stress, anxiety or depressive symptoms, can significantly influence how parents adapt to their new relational roles after birth (Aktar et al., 2019; Stein et al., 2014). Stress-related physiological changes, such as hormonal, inflammatory, and neuroendocrine alterations, may not only affect pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth or low birth weight, but also shape the conditions under which early parent–infant bonding begins (Wardoyo et al., 2024). Preterm birth and related neonatal complications often disrupt early physical proximity and skin-to-skin contact, key experiences for establishing early relational health. Thus, the impact of parental mental health extends beyond individual wellbeing, influencing the quality of early interactions and the foundations of the parent–infant relationship.

The COST Action CA22114 – Maternal Perinatal Stress and Adverse Outcomes in the Offspring: Maximising Infants’ Development (TREASURE) was established to address these challenges by integrating a multidisciplinary European network to explore strategies that mitigate the effects of perinatal stress and promote early relational health. Within this framework, the parent–infant relationship is recognised as a key mediator linking perinatal stress with developmental outcomes (Fredriksen et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2016). Sensitive and attuned interactions support secure attachment and healthy development, while disruptions in these relationships are linked to poorer outcomes (Korom & Dozier, 2021; Wardoyo et al., 2024). Accordingly, international health and research agendas increasingly recommend the systematic assessment of the parent–infant relationship within perinatal and early childhood care as a means of promoting early intervention and family wellbeing (Bhamani et al., 2023).

Several instruments have been developed to assess aspects of the parent–infant relationship, including bonding (e.g., Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire; Brockington et al., 2006), attachment (e.g., Maternal Postnatal Attachment Scale; Condon & Corkindale, 1998), and interactional quality (e.g., Parent–Child Early Relational Assessment; Clark, 1999; Parent–Infant Interaction Observation Scale; Svanberg et al., 2013). (e.g., Parent–Child Early Relational Assessment; Parent–Infant Interaction Observation Scale). However, existing measures differ widely in their conceptual focus, psychometric properties, and intended applications. Despite growing global interest, no scoping review to date has systematically mapped instruments that assess the parent–infant relationship specifically within the first 24 months of life.

This Brief Report outlines the collaborative and transnational methodological process that guided the development of the scoping review protocol, offering a structured framework for evidence mapping within multidisciplinary international research networks. Its primary aim is to document the key steps and collaborative mechanisms that informed the protocol’s design.

Methods

This Brief Report describes the collaborative process through which the scoping review protocol was developed within the COST Action CA22114. The methodological process followed distinct, iterative phases, detailed below.

a) Collaborative framework design

The protocol was developed within Working Group 4.3 (WG4.3) of COST Action CA22114 – TREASURE, a multidisciplinary international research network addressing perinatal stress and early developmental outcomes. WG4.3 included researchers and clinicians from different countries participating in the Action, with expertise in maternal and child health nursing, midwifery, psychology, psychiatry, paediatrics, developmental sciences, and perinatal mental health. The development adopted a collaborative and transdisciplinary approach that integrated diverse professional perspectives, resulting in an internationally applicable and methodologically robust protocol.

b) Consensus development process

The scoping review topic was identified through structured discussions held during early WG4.3 meetings, where members highlighted the need to map existing instruments assessing the parent–infant relationship. A structured consensus-building process was adopted, involving iterative online deliberations via a videoconferencing platform. During guided discussions, the group clarified conceptual boundaries (e.g., relationship, bonding, attachment, interaction, responsiveness) and agreed to focus on instruments applicable to infants aged 0–24 months. The scope was defined using the Population–Concept–Context (PCC) framework recommended by the JBI (Peters et al., 2024): Population = infants aged 0–24 months and their parents; Concept = instruments assessing the parent–infant relationship; Context = any setting, without geographical or clinical restrictions. Consensus was achieved through iterative negotiation and member validation at each stage.

c) Methodological alignment and search strategy development

The JBI methodology for scoping reviews was adopted due to its suitability for mapping emerging evidence without restricting study design (Peters et al., 2024). The protocol was aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) to ensure transparency and reproducibility (Tricco et al., 2018).

The search strategy was collaboratively developed by the research team with methodological input from a health sciences librarian experienced in evidence synthesis. Guided by the PCC framework, keyword clusters were generated using both free-text terms and controlled vocabulary (e.g., MeSH in PubMed, Emtree in Embase). Iterative pilot searches in PubMed were conducted to refine term relevance, sensitivity, and specificity. Boolean logic (OR within clusters and AND between clusters) was applied to construct the final strategy. All keyword iterations and database-specific strings were documented to support transparency and replicability. The final search strategy was endorsed through group consensus before being incorporated into the registered protocol.

d) Protocol development phases

Protocol drafting followed an iterative co-construction process using a shared online document platform, enabling simultaneous contributions and asynchronous revisions. The initial sections were developed using the JBI template and refined through structured internal feedback cycles. Special attention was given to clarifying operational definitions, eligibility criteria, and the overall methodological flow. Once full agreement was achieved, the protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/HRVX9), ensuring transparency, traceability, and alignment with the open science principles that underpin COST-funded collaborations.

e) Tools and platforms

A range of digital tools supported the collaborative development process. An online videoconferencing platform was used for synchronous consensus meetings, while a shared online document platform enabled iterative drafting and real-time commentary. Spreadsheet software facilitated initial screening tests and the organisation of database structures. Covidence was selected for the dual-reviewer screening workflow due to its structured interface for title, abstract, and full-text assessment. The OSF served as the public repository for protocol registration and documentation of methodological decisions, reinforcing transparency and adherence to open research principles.

f) Pilot testing of screening procedures

A pilot validation exercise was conducted to ensure the clarity, feasibility, and consistency of the proposed screening tools and procedures. This pre-test simulated the title and abstract screening process using a small, random subset of search results to verify the applicability of the PCC framework and to promote inter-reviewer alignment. Each reviewer independently applied the title and abstract screening tool (phase 1) to identify potential ambiguities and ensure shared understanding of inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Findings from this pre-test were discussed in a consensus meeting, leading to the refinement of the screening criteria and clarification of decision rules. Based on collective feedback, the title and abstract screening tool (phase 1) was revised, and a full-text screening tool (phase 2) was developed to guide subsequent stages of data extraction and synthesis.

This structured and iterative validation process enhanced the internal consistency and usability of the protocol, ensuring its methodological robustness and conceptual coherence. Collectively, these steps illustrate a rigorous and transparent process of protocol development that underpins the collaborative framework described next.

Results

Results – Output of the collaborative process

The collaborative work of WG4.3 culminated in a structured framework that captures the stages, roles, and decision-making processes involved in the development of the scoping review protocol. This framework integrates the agreed conceptual parameters (PCC), methodological alignment with JBI and PRISMA-ScR, and the collaborative mechanisms that guided protocol construction. It reflects a transparent, consensus-based workflow that can be adapted for other multidisciplinary and international research initiatives.

The final collaborative workflow is summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Stages of the collaborative workflow used to develop the scoping review protocol.

This figure illustrates the sequential stages of the collaborative process undertaken by WG4.3 of COST Action CA22114 – TREASURE, from topic identification and consensus building to protocol registration on the Open Science Framework (OSF). Each stage reflects iterative decision-making and methodological alignment across international, multidisciplinary partners.

Conclusions/Discussion

This scoping review protocol was conceived in response to the growing recognition of the parent–infant relationship as a foundational determinant of health during the first 1,000 days of life. Mapping the available assessment instruments is essential to guide research, clinical practice, and early intervention strategies, since existing measures vary in their scope, conceptual foundations, and methodological characteristics. By formalising a rigorously developed protocol, this initiative addresses a critical gap and establishes a structured pathway for synthesising and describing evidence on instruments assessing the parent–infant relationship in infants aged 0–24 months.

A key strength of this work lies in its explicitly collaborative, transdisciplinary, and international nature, embedded within the COST Action CA22114 – TREASURE network. The contribution of experts enabled conceptual convergence across diverse perspectives on bonding, attachment, interaction, and responsiveness. The structured consensus process fostered shared ownership of methodological decisions, enhancing the protocol’s global relevance and adaptability.

Methodological rigour was ensured through alignment with established standards (JBI framework; PRISMA-ScR), open registration on the OSF, and a pilot validation phase that improved inter-reviewer consistency and clarified screening criteria.

Beyond establishing a methodological foundation, this protocol sets the stage for identifying conceptual, psychometric, and cultural gaps in existing instruments. Mapping tools according to their constructs, domains, reliability, validity, usability, and contextual adaptation will inform both research and practice, while also guiding future tool development—particularly in relation to paternal involvement, cultural sensitivity, and dynamic interaction-based assessments.

Ultimately, this Brief Report presents not only the outcome of a protocol development process but also a replicable framework for collaborative methodological construction within international research networks. The protocol, titled “Instruments for the assessment of parent–infant relationships: A scoping review protocol” and registered on OSF, provides the foundation for a forthcoming scoping review that will generate insights into the availability, conceptual diversity, and psychometric adequacy of relational assessment tools in early infancy.

In conclusion, this work demonstrates how structured, consensus-based collaboration within COST networks can produce methodologically sound and widely applicable research frameworks. By clarifying the field of parent–infant relational assessment, it contributes to advancing research, clinical decision-making, and policy development in early relational health, offering a scalable model for future interdisciplinary evidence synthesis initiatives across Europe and beyond.

Ethics and consent

Ethical approval and consent were not required for this study, as it reports the collaborative development process for a scoping review protocol and does not involve human participants or personal data.

Data availability

No underlying or extended data are associated with this manuscript, as it documents the collaborative process of protocol development rather than reporting research findings.

Reporting guidelines

The scoping review protocol described in this Brief Report is openly available on the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HRVX9 (Brandão et al., 2025).

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). 

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all members of the COST Action CA22114 – TREASURE for their valuable contributions to the collaborative discussions and consensus-building process that supported this work.

Editorial assistance was provided by ChatGPT (OpenAI, GPT-5), which was used solely to support language editing and formatting under the full supervision and approval of the authors, in accordance with the F1000 AI Policy.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

Aktar E, Qu J, Lawrence PJ, et al.: Fetal and infant outcomes in the offspring of parents with perinatal mental disorders: earliest influences. Front Psychiatry. 2019; 10: 391. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Berg A: The importance of the first 1,000 days of life. J Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2016; 28(2): iii–vi. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Bhamani S, Syed A, Sheikh L, et al.: Investing in mental health during the first 1,000 days of life: now and future. J Pak Med Assoc. 2023; 73(2): 374–376. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Black M, Merseth KA: First 1000 days and beyond: strategies to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. In: S. Verma & A. Petersen (Eds.), Developmental science and sustainable development goals for children and youth. (Social Indicators Research Series), Springer, 2018; 74. : 97–112. Publisher Full Text
Brandão S, Talmon A, Gieysztor E, et al.: Instruments for the assessment of parent-infant relationships: a scoping review protocol. 2025. http://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HRVX9
Brockington IF, Fraser C, Wilson D: The postpartum bonding questionnaire: a validation. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2006; 9(5): 233–242. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Clark R: The Parent–Child early relational assessment: a factorial validity study. Educ Psychol Meas. 1999; 59(5): 821–846. Publisher Full Text
Condon J, Corkindale C: The assessment of parent-to-infant attachment: development of a self-report questionnaire instrument. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 1998; 16(1): 57–76. Publisher Full Text
Fredriksen E, von Soest T, Smith L, et al.: Parenting stress plays a mediating role in the prediction of early child development from both parents’ perinatal depressive symptoms. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2019; 47(1): 149–164. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Kim M, Kang SK, Yee B, et al.: Paternal involvement and early infant neurodevelopment: the mediation role of maternal parenting stress. BMC Pediatr. 2016; 16(1): 212. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Korom M, Dozier M: The importance of responsive parenting for vulnerable infants. In: J. B. Benson (Ed.), Adv Child Dev Behav. Elsevier, 2021; 61. : 43–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al.: Scoping reviews. In: E. Aromataris & C. Lockwood (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis. (Chap. 10). JBI, 2024. Publisher Full Text
Scher MS: The first 1000 days influence life-course brain health: interdisciplinary fetal/neonatal neurology training. Pediatr Res. 2024; 96(4): 838–840. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Stein A, Pearson RM, Goodman SH, et al.: Effects of perinatal mental disorders on the fetus and child. Lancet. 2014; 384(9956): 1800–1819. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Svanberg PO, Barlow J, Tigbe W: The Parent–Infant interaction observation scale: reliability and validity of a screening tool. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2013; 31(1): 5–14. Publisher Full Text
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467–473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Wardoyo H, Moeloek ND, Basrowi RW, et al.: Mental health awareness and promotion during the first 1000 days of life: an expert consensus. Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12(1): 44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Comments

Publication information

Section

Brief Report

Published

December 19, 2025

DOI

https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.21700.1

Versions

January 16, 2026 (Version of Record 1.0)
December 19, 2025 (Published Manuscript Under Review 1.0)

Included in

COST Actions

Funding data

European Cooperation in Science and Technology

Grant ID(s): CA22114

Metrics

Views

250

Downloads

Citations

See full metrics

Keywords

parent–infant relationship, early relational health, scoping review, methodological framework, collaborative research, international collaboration, COST Action

Comments

Sónia Brandão

Nursing School of the University of Porto, Porto, 4200-072, Portugal

RISE-Health, Nursing School of the University of Porto, Porto, 4200-072, Portugal

Roles

Corresponding Author, Co-Author, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0001-8765-8240

soniabrandao@esenf.pt

Anat Talmon

Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, Jerusalem, Jerusalem District, Israel

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

atalmon@mail.huji.ac.il

Ewa Gieysztor

Faculty of Physiotherapy, Wroclaw Medical University, Wrocław, Poland

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

ewa.gieysztor@umw.edu.pl

Patrícia Souto

Nursing School of the University of Porto, Porto, 4200-072, Portugal

RISE-Health, Nursing School of the University of Porto, Porto, 4200-072, Portugal

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

patriciasouto@esenf.pt

Andreia Soares Goncalves

RISE-Health, Nursing School of the University of Porto, Porto, 4200-072, Portugal

Polytechnic Institute of Viana do Castelo School of Health, Viana do Castelo, Viana do Castelo District, Portugal

Health Sciences Research Unit, Nursing UICISA: E, Coimbra, Portugal

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0003-2311-8215

avanessagoncalves@ess.ipvc.pt

Rosa Silva

Nursing School of the University of Porto, Porto, 4200-072, Portugal

RISE-Health, Nursing School of the University of Porto, Porto, 4200-072, Portugal

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0002-3947-7098

rosasilva@esenf.pt

Patrícia Gonçalves

Nursing School of the University of Porto, Porto, 4200-072, Portugal

RISE-Health, Nursing School of the University of Porto, Porto, 4200-072, Portugal

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

patriciagoncalves@esenf.pt

Paula Prata

Nursing School of the University of Porto, Porto, 4200-072, Portugal

RISE-Health, Nursing School of the University of Porto, Porto, 4200-072, Portugal

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0001-7552-9716

prata@esenf.pt

Özlem Şensoy

Department of Pediatric Nursing, Istanbul University, School of Nursing, Istanbul, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0001-7709-7021

ozlem.sensoy@istanbul.edu.tr

Esra Ardahan Akgül

Izmir Katip Çelebi University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Pediatric Nursing, Izmir, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

esraardahan90@gmail.com

Semra Pinar

Department of Midwifery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü Imam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey

School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, UK

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0002-5270-5905

s.semrapinar@gmail.com

Kristiina Uriko

Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, School of Natural Sciences and Health, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0003-0644-4473

kristiina.uriko@tlu.ee

Seda Ardahan Sevgili

Ege University, Nursing Faculty, Department of Pediatric Nursing, İzmir, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0001-6544-2588

sedardahan@gmail.com

Elif Bulut

Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing, Child Health Nursing, Tokat, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

elf.bayrak@hotmail.com

Rajesh Shigdel

Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Alrek helseklynge, blokk D, Årstadveien 175009, Bergen, Norway

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

rajesh.shigdel@uib.no

Demet Gülaldı

Department of Child Development, Uskudar University, Faculty of Health Science, Istanbul, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0002-8971-9737

demet.gulaldi@uskudar.edu.tr

Otília Freitas

RISE-HEALTH-UMa, RISE-HEALTH-UMa ; Escola Superior de Saúde da Universidade da Madeira, Funchal, Portugal

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

omsfreitas@staff.uma.pt

Aycin Ezgi Onel

Ege University, Nursing Faculty, Department of Pediatric Nursing, İzmir, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0002-4720-6685

aycinezgiakaydin@gmail.com

Pelin Dikmen-Yildiz

Department of Psychology, Kirklareli University, Kirklareli, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0002-0496-3897

pelindikmen@gmail.com

Carmen Power

Independent Psychologist, Researcher, Educator, Consultant, Bristol, UK

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

carmenpower7@gmail.com

Alena Lochmannová

Department of Infectious Diseases and Travel Medicine, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0001-7822-0204

alena.Lochmannova@lfp.cuni.cz

Dora d'Orsi

William James Center for Research, Ispa–Instituto Universitário, Rua Jardim do Tabaco, 34, 1149-041 Lisbon, Portugal, Lisbon, Portugal

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0003-0537-1815

dora.duarte@ispa.pt

Özlem Koç

Department of Midwifery, Tarsus University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Tarsus, Mersin Province, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

ozlemkoc@tarsus.edu.tr

Tuğçe Sönmez

Department of Midwifery, Tarsus University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Tarsus, Mersin Province, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

tugcesonmez@tarsus.edu.tr

Tânia Brandão

William James Center for Research, Ispa–Instituto Universitário, Rua Jardim do Tabaco, 34, 1149-041 Lisbon, Portugal, Lisbon, Portugal

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

taniabrandao60@hotmail.com

Diana Azevedo

ICVS/3B's – PT Government Associate Laboratory, Braga/Guimarães, Portugal

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0003-2848-3748

dianafpa@hotmail.com

Lence Miloseva

Department of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Goce Delcev University Stip, Shtip, North Macedonia

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0001-7574-0327

lence.miloseva@ugd.edu.mk

Edanur Tar Bolacali

Department of Pediatric Nursing, Kirsehir Ahi Evran University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Kırşehir, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0001-8821-8554

edanurtar.1107@gmail.com

Bahar Aksoy

Department of Pediatric Nursing, Akdeniz University, Kumluca Faculty of Health Sciences, Antalya, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0003-0466-5918

baharaksoy6161@gmail.com

Mirlinda Markaj

Department of Health Psychology, Comenius University in Bratislava, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Bratislava, Bratislava Region, Slovakia

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

mirlindamarkaj@gmail.com

Gilberta Sousa

RISE-HEALTH-UMa, RISE-HEALTH-UMa ; Escola Superior de Saúde da Universidade da Madeira, Funchal, Portugal

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

gilberta@staff.uma.pt

Burcu Kömürcü Akik

Department of Psychology, Ankara University, Faculty of Languages and History-Geography, Ankara, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

komurcuburcu@hotmail.com

Nicola Carone

Department of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0003-3696-9641

nicola.carone@uniroma2.it

Pinar Gencpinar

Department of Pediatric Neurology, Izmir Katip Celebi University Neuroscience Center, Izmir, İzmir, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

pinargencpinar@gmail.com

Ayça Demir Yıldırım

Department of Midwifery, Uskudar University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0001-8385-3954

ayca.demiryildirim@uskudar.edu.tr

Hazal Özdemir Koyu

Gazi University, Nursing Faculty, Department of Pediatric Nursing,, Ankara, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

hazalozdemirkoyu@gazi.edu.tr

Wilson Abreu

Nursing School of the University of Porto, Porto, 4200-072, Portugal

RISE-Health, Nursing School of the University of Porto, Porto, 4200-072, Portugal

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

wjabreu@esenf.pt

Tuğba Yılmaz Esencan

Department of Midwifery, Uskudar University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0002-8748-0793

tugba.yilmazesencan@uskudar.edu.tr

Margarida Reis Santos

RISE-Health, Nursing School of the University of Porto, Porto, 4200-072, Portugal

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0002-7948-9317

margarida.reis.santos@gmail.com

Mario Santos

CARE - Research Center on Health and Social Sciences, Polytechnic Institute of Portalegre, Lisbon, Portugal

Iscte - Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Portalegre, Portugal

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0002-4804-1843

mariojdssantos@gmail.com

Remziye Can

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk Vocational and Technical High School, Eskişehir, Turkey

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0002-0254-5958

drremziyecan@gmail.com

Anna-Lena Zietlow

Faculty of Psychology, Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Review & Editing

anna-lena.zietlow@tu-dresden.de

Rafael Caparros-Gonzalez

Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria Ibs, Granada, Spain

Departamento de Enfermería, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Granad, Granada, Spain

Roles

Co-Author, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0002-0565-1123

rcg477@ugr.es

Downloads over the last 12 months:

Cited by

via Crossref

View citing articles

Collaborative development of a scoping review protocol to map instruments assessing the parent–infant relationship: An International Initiative from COST Action TREASURE

List of Authors

Peer review

Publication information

Included in

Funding data

Metrics

Keywords

Comments

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Comments

Publication information

Included in

Funding data

Metrics

Keywords

Comments

Authors & roles

Sónia Brandão

Anat Talmon

Ewa Gieysztor

Patrícia Souto

Andreia Soares Goncalves

Rosa Silva

Patrícia Gonçalves

Paula Prata

Özlem Şensoy

Esra Ardahan Akgül

Semra Pinar

Kristiina Uriko

Seda Ardahan Sevgili

Elif Bulut

Rajesh Shigdel

Demet Gülaldı

Otília Freitas

Aycin Ezgi Onel

Pelin Dikmen-Yildiz

Carmen Power

Alena Lochmannová

Dora d'Orsi

Özlem Koç

Tuğçe Sönmez

Tânia Brandão

Diana Azevedo

Lence Miloseva

Edanur Tar Bolacali

Bahar Aksoy

Mirlinda Markaj

Gilberta Sousa

Burcu Kömürcü Akik

Nicola Carone

Pinar Gencpinar

Ayça Demir Yıldırım

Hazal Özdemir Koyu

Wilson Abreu

Tuğba Yılmaz Esencan

Margarida Reis Santos

Mario Santos

Remziye Can

Anna-Lena Zietlow

Rafael Caparros-Gonzalez

Downloads over the last 12 months:

Cited by

via Crossref