Table 1.

Characteristics of included studies on social connectedness and related terms among parents with low‐incomes

First author (year)	Setting	Sample (N) characteristics	Study methods	Guiding theory	Intervention	Quality appraisal
Quantitative studies
Acri (2019)	US Poverty‐impacted community	N = 32 caregivers of children aged 7–11 91% female, 61% mothers 52% Black, 44% White, 67% non‐Hispanic/Latino, 30% household income <$10k/year Substudy of National Institute of Mental Health Study	Cross‐sectional descriptive Self‐report	None specified	4Rs and 2Ss	Level IIIB
Adaji (2019)	Nigeria Rural community	N = 161 mothers in low‐income setting 16.3% pregnant for first time 53.5% had 1–4 children 30.2% had >5 children	Prospective observational study Self‐report, group facilitator report, and objective measure	None specified	Prenatal care program based on centering pregnancy	Level IIIB
Booth (2020)	US Pittsburgh Urban	N = 185 low‐income adolescent males and their parents Adolescents: 56.44% White, 34.67% Black, 8.89% mixed race Parents: 89.6%–93.5% mothers; 64.89% White, 34.22% African American, <1% mixed race	Longitudinal descriptive study Secondary data from the Pitt Child & Mother Project Self‐report	Social disorganized theory	N/A	Level IIIA
Brisson (2012)	US Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio Urban	N = 1495 low‐income mothers (20% poverty rate or more) 43% Black, 48% Hispanic, 8% White	Longitudinal descriptive study Secondary data from welfare, children, and families: A Three‐cities study Self‐report	None specified	N/A	Level IIIA
Brisson (2019)	US Western United States Urban	N = 52 families (37 intervention group, 15 nontreatment group) 96% female, 45% Latino, 22% Black, 14% White in 3 low‐income neighborhoods	Quasi‐experimental study Self‐report	Ecological system theory	Your family, your neighborhood (YFYN)	Level IIB
McCloskey (2019)	US 20 large cities Urban	N = 3876 low‐income mothers, 48% Black, 25.9% Hispanic, 22.5% White	Cross‐sectional descriptive study secondary data from Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Self‐report	Pearlin's stress process model	N/A	Level IIIA
McLeigh (2018)	US South Carolina	N = 483 low‐income primary caregivers of children, 68.4% married, 12.8% separated/divorced 70.3% White, 23.6% Black, 3.7% Hispanic	Cross‐sectional descriptive study Self‐report and objective data	None specified	N/A	Level IIIA
Prendergast (2019)	US 20 large cities Urban	N =3529 children and their mothers	Longitudinal descriptive study Secondary data from Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Self‐report	Social ecological model	N/A	Level IIIA
Yuma‐Guerrero (2017)	US California	N = 2750 mothers 31.6% incomes at or below federal poverty line 52.8% Latina, 24.1% White, 6.2% Black	Cross‐sectional descriptive study Secondary data from the Geographic Research on Wellbeing study Self‐report	N/A	N/A	Level IIIB
Qualitative/mixed methods studies
Bess (2014)	US Nashville Urban	N = 69 parents of Children 0–4 in low‐income neighborhoods, 85% Black, 87% women, 81% single, 84% unemployed	Qualitative	Prilleltensky's model of well‐being	Tied together	Level IIIA
Curry (2019)	US Midwest Urban	N = 59 parent participants of 12 focus groups at six elementary schools Majority mothers	Qualitative	Social network theory	N/A	Level IIIA
Davison (2013)	US Urban	N = 89 low‐income parents/caregivers of children enrolled in HeadStart 91% female, 52% White, 22% Black, 10% Hispanic	Mixed‐methods (quantitative measures self‐report)	Family ecological model	N/A	Level IIIC
Eastwood (2014)	Australia Sydney Urban	N = 8 mothers in low‐income community	Qualitative	None specified	N/A	Level IIIB
Lipman (2010)	Canada Ontario Urban	N = 8 Single‐mothers, 50% income <$15,000	Qualitative	None specified	Community‐based program, unspecified	Level IIIB
Parsons (2019)	US Cincinnati Urban	N = 20 (15 mothers/grandmothers, 5 neighborhood “block captains”) 65% White, 30% Black, 5% mixed race Low‐income neighborhood residents	Qualitative	None specified	Healthy homes (HH) Block by block (HH)	Level IIIB