From financial hardship to child difficulties: main and moderating effects of perceived social support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an unequivocal relationship between socio-economic status and child well-being. The Family Stress Model of economic hardship proposes that this relationship is mediated by financial hardship, parenting stress and parenting behaviours. In this study, the Family Stress Model is tested and analysis is extended to examine main and moderating effects of social support. METHODS: A survey incorporating well-validated measures of financial hardship, parenting stress, parenting behaviours and child difficulties was sent to 1296 parents who had utilized universal family support services in Alberta, Canada. A total of 923 parents (71%) responded. Hierarchical linear regression was employed to investigate the mediating roles of financial hardship, parenting stress and parenting behaviours, and to investigate main and moderating influences of parental social support. RESULTS: The study findings generally support the Family Stress Model. The relationship between socio-economic status and child difficulties was mediated by financial hardship and parenting stress. Higher levels of parental social support were associated with lower levels of parenting stress, ineffective parenting and child difficulties. Parental social support was important irrespective of parenting stress levels. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings add to the now critical mass of data showing that parent-child health and well-being is inextricably linked with parental social support. While there is a burgeoning literature on parent training, far less research attention has been given to the development and evaluation of strategies to strengthen parents' social relationships. This is an important direction for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".