The literature was selected in three steps. Firstly, a search of literature was conducted through CNKI - China’s biggest literature search website - using the algorithm: “the Subject Word = FEGS.” Based on this, 417 pieces of literature were found. Secondly, using the inclusion criteria, 46 core journal papers were identified. The inclusion criteria were: “Literature should be published till 2022.12.31” and “Literature should be published in journals included by the CSSCI or PKU Core Journals.” CSSCI and PKU core journals are widely recognized and used by Chinese scholars due to their rigorous academic standards. These journals are selected through expert identification and screening processes. Thirdly, the following exclusion criteria were applied: “studies not identified as articles in the journals (e.g., book reviews, books, news, interviews, etc.)” and “literature which mentioned the term FEGS, but discusses other topics such as middle-school students’ morals, education or family integration of migrant children.” Authors then read all titles and abstracts to identify whether the studies met these criteria. Through this process, three papers were excluded, leaving 43 articles from the core journals to be discussed.

Content analysis was employed to analyze the 43 pieces of literature with respect to the categories identified: ① The years of publication. Because the earliest core journal paper was published in 2013, the overall time frame was from 2013.1.1 to 2022.12.31. ② Author affiliations through which the main academic fields can be found. ③ Themes. Four themes and 12 subthemes were grouped according to the purposes, methods, and results of the 43 papers. These were demand survey and status analysis, strategy exploration, legal construction, and experience learning, training and evaluation. For each theme, subthemes were described in detail. ④ Methods employed in the 43 pieces of literature were analyzed in order to understand the current characteristic of research methods. These were classified as non-empirical, qualitative interview, quantitative description, and quantitative explanatory and causal research. ⑤ The target groups. These included parents, grandparents, schoolteachers, community service center instructors, government administrators, and researchers. This paper selected literature strictly according to the selection process and conducted a re-examination. Following the selection, the authors read all the papers in detail and extracted the information relevant to each category. Content analysis was then used to classify and code them according to the categories, the findings of which are summarized in the following section.

As indicated in Table 1, the first paper from the core journal was published in 2013. Before 2021, the number of core journal papers was very small - only 14 papers. Nevertheless, in the two most recent years there have been 29 articles, more than twice the number of papers published previously.

The above results reveal that research on the FEGS has progressively increased, especially during the past two years. This indicates that such research is at an up-going stage and is influenced by government policies, as supported by the findings of Huang (2022).

Authors’ affiliations and disciplines

Table 2 summarizes the results regarding author affiliations. To prevent duplicate counting of affiliations in papers with multiple authors from the same institution, only the first author was considered. As indicated in Table 2, most authors are from universities, the majority of whom work in education colleges or law colleges. There are also numerous authors from education research institutes and law research institutes. Only two authors are from other organizations.

Scholars are mainly based in education colleges in Chinese universities because there are no child development and family studies disciplines in China. Furthermore, until now, only a few universities have been initiating the discipline of family education, so most scholars work in the field of preschool education, education policy, or principles of pedagogy. Notably, a significant amount of research comes from the legal field, implying that this is a crucial period for law construction and exploration of the FEGS in China.

Overall, 12 subthemes and four themes are classified and integrated into Table 3. These are Parent Demand Survey & FEGS Usage Status, Strategy & Content Exploration, Policy Analysis & Legal Construction, and Foreign Experience, Training & Evaluation.

Theme One: Parent Demand Survey and FEGS Usage Status

There were eight papers in total on this theme, consisting of two subthemes. With respect to the Parent Demand Survey, there are surveys for parents nationally, as well as for those with specific characteristics such as in certain regions or at a certain age. Jiang et al. (2022) analyzed the characteristics of the parents of 3415 primary- and middle-school students who participated in a national survey of 113 counties in nine provinces (autonomous regions or municipalities). Parents with specific characteristics were also studied by Cai and Xie (2017) who studied 114 parents of children aged 0-3 in Wuhan. Li et al. (2014) conducted a needs comparison of “post-80s” and “pre-80s” parent groups. They found that parents have a high demand for the FEGS, and according to their characteristics such as age, region, income and educational level the need for the FEGS also changes (Li et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2022). However, FEGS provision is insufficient compared with demand; hence, there is a mismatch between the provision and parents’ needs (Cai & Xie, 2017; Jiang et al., 2022).

Bian et al. (2021), Ju et al. (2022）and Liang and Bian (2022) studied FEGS usage status at schools and in communities based on a national survey of 113 counties in nine provinces (autonomous regions or municipalities). Lei and Xiang (2022) studied the interaction between parent education ability and the usage of the FEGS. Li and Ren (2013) discussed FEGS usage status for migrant and left-behind children families. All these authors emphasize the fact that the FEGS System has been established in schools and communities, but a gap remains with respect to meeting parents’ needs and policy requirements (Bian et al., 2021; Ju et al., 2022; Liang & Bian, 2022). Various institutions or platforms provide FEGS, including kindergartens, primary and secondary schools, community centers (stations), social organizations, and mass media. Among these, schools are most preferred by parents for obtaining the FEGS, while more than 90% of the schools surveyed have formed special teams responsible for providing the FEGS (Bian et al., 2021). The most common service modes for the FEGS are individual consultation, lectures, cooperation with other organizations (such as universities, communities, and social institutions), and inviting parents to share experiences. The service content is mainly concerned with children’s mental health and moral development, developmental rules, and methods for developing good behavior in children. However, neither the content nor the mode of the FEGS provided at school or in the community matches parents’ needs (Bian et al., 2021; Ju et al., 2022; Liang & Bian, 2022). In addition, scholars draw attention to other problems with the FEGS, including low professional standards among educators, inadequate training and assessment, insufficient funding, and a lack of ability to integrate resources. Moreover, families with migrant and left-behind children lack specific support policies and management systems, and the guidance targets are often not parents, but children (Li & Ren, 2013).

Theme Two: Strategy and Content Exploration

There were 16 papers on this theme, consisting of four subthemes: General Construction Strategies, Specific Construction Strategies, Government Purchasing Ways, and Education Thoughts. Regarding General Construction Strategies, scholars discuss establishing a national universal system and emphasize collaboration and coordination among multiple parties (government, school, and community) (Gao, 2021; Huang, 2018; Zhu, 2020). They also study ways to promote the FEGS System in rural areas, schools, communities, and off-campus public education institutions by identifying difficulties and solutions (Bai & Xia, 2022; Bian, Ju et al., 2022; Gao & Bian, 2022; Ji & Kang, 2022; Wang, 2021; Zhu, 2021). For instance, the government uses “Government Purchasing Ways” which means buying professional social services for parents from professional organizations. However, this approach still has numerous problems, including imperfect systems and immature markets that require further exploration and improvement (Liu & Wu, 2022; Xin & Fan, 2017). For the final subtheme, Education Thoughts, scholars primarily discuss parents’ incorrect concepts and emphasize the importance of having correct views on parenting and moral education for their children (Bian, 2021; Cai et al., 2021; Deng, 2015).

When analyzing this theme, the focus is on its mechanisms which include enhancing the responsibilities of government departments, fostering collaboration among multiple parties, and promoting equity. However, most studies focus on macro-level discussions and require a more detailed analysis of departmental responsibility and the development of parent education programs.

Theme Three: Policy Analysis and Legal Construction

Legal research on the FEGS is primarily found in Family Education Promotion Law studies. There was a total of 14 papers on this theme which consists of three sub-themes: Legal Construction before the Family Education Promotion Law, Effects and Improvements after Implementing the Family Education Promotion Law, and Overviews of Policy Development. Prior to the Family Education Promotion Law, several studies discuss legislative practice in the local area (Li, 2021), the law’s value, and content suggestions (Lao, 2021; Luo, 2018; Yang, 2022; Ye, 2020). Numerous studies focus on the rights and responsibilities of individuals, the country, and society and emphasize the organizational structure and obligations of the government (Cai & Hu, 2020; Li et al., 2022; Ye, 2021). After implementing the Family Education Promotion Law, studies primarily discuss its effects and suggestions for improvement. Due to the short implementation period of the law, the number of papers in this area is small. Scholars indicate that there are still numerous gaps between reality and regulation and propose building supplementary legal systems or policies (Bian, Tian et al., 2022; Ye & Yang, 2022). With respect to Overviews of Policies Development, scholars suggest that policy development now displays the characteristics of “government leadership” and of “emphasizing the comprehensiveness and integration of the FEGS System” (Kong, 2022).

Scholars argue that the purpose of family education legislation should be to improve parents’ capacity for family education (Ye, 2021; Yu & Yao, 2021). Furthermore, the key to achieving this is to identify and adjust the structure and responsibilities of government departments and promote follow-up support systems (Cai & Hu, 2020; Ye & Yang, 2022).

Theme Four: Foreign Experience, Training, and Evaluation

Scholars also explore several other topics in addition to the three main themes mentioned above. Because the number of studies involved is small, all are discussed under this theme. They comprise three papers on Foreign Experience Learning, one paper on Educator Training, and one paper on Evaluation of the current FEGS. Three papers examine experiences in the United States and Taiwan and introduce systems, models, and projects from a broad perspective (Luo, 2015; Wang & Lei, 2020). No practical studies on implementing projects in China are available. Regarding educator training, the study reviewed surveyed school teachers and found that they lack professional and systematic training and assessment on the FEGS (Zhang et al., 2021). Regarding evaluation, the study under review highlighted the general deficiency, regional differences, fragmented and partial assessment content, and difficulties through a national survey of 113 counties in nine provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities) (Liang et al., 2022).

The theme on which scholars focus most is Strategy and Content Exploration. These studies mainly discuss the basic characteristics and framework of the system, while lacking detailed analyses of specific programs. The second most common theme is Policy Analysis and Legal Construction. Studies on this theme emphasize the distribution of responsibilities of government departments and the development of supplementary policies. Studies on the Parent Demand Survey and FEGS Usage Status emphasize that although the FEGS is widely provided in schools and communities, it cannot meet the needs of parents. Studies on other topics are minimal and need future exploration. These show that although the scope of the theme is varied, research on every aspect remains at an exploratory stage.

As listed in Table 4, only 25.6% of the studies used qualitative-interview, quantitative-descriptive, quantitative-explanatory, causal, and mixed research methods. This means that 74.4% lacked an empirical basis. Moreover, scholars used quantitative methods more frequently than mixed and qualitative methods. Using methods based on empirical evidence enables researchers to obtain reliable and valid data, which can help them obtain more accurate conclusions and trusted solutions. The lack of empirical methods in these papers reveals that FEGS research is still in its infancy and requires more support from professional disciplines.

The research target group refers to the population investigated in the 11 papers that applied empirical methods. Table 5 summarizes the results. The research groups in these papers are diverse, including parents, grandparents, schoolteachers, government administrators, community service center instructors, and researchers. This is revealing in several aspects. Firstly, the studies attach the greatest importance to the needs of parents; secondly, school is the prominent place in which to provide the FEGS, whereas schoolteachers are the second most studied group; thirdly, the government, as the organizer of the FEGS, is also one of the critical research targets. However, there is a dearth of studies on community service center educators and researchers. This is because community service centers have only been initiated in economically developed areas (Bai & Xia, 2022). Furthermore, the discipline of family education has yet to be systematically established in most universities; therefore, the number of researchers in this area is small.