The perils of overprotective parenting: fathers' perspectives explored
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The dominant discourse of popular media appears to paint a disparaging picture of parents deemed overly concerned about their children's safety. Child injury prevention interventions frequently focus on influencing parenting behaviours. Fathers are increasingly involved in childcare, highlighting the need to understand their perspectives on overprotective parenting as it relates to considerations of injury prevention while actively engaged with their children. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were carried out with 32 fathers of children aged 2-7 years in a Canadian urban setting. Interview questions investigated fathers' injury prevention attitudes and practices, and their beliefs regarding overprotection. Data analysis was guided by grounded theory methods. RESULTS: Fathers noted the subjective nature of overprotection, citing family, social and situational factors that shaped their views. Fathers viewed overprotective parents as experiencing excessive fears that were manifested in lack of willingness to risk physical or psychological injury. They described overprotective parenting as including over-involvement in and excessive restriction of children's activities; and expressed concerns that the results of these behaviours would be children lacking self-confidence and crucial life skills. CONCLUSION: Fathers viewed as problematic overprotective parenting behaviours that limit access to opportunities for physical risk taking in an attempt to prevent mostly minor injuries. The injury prevention field may benefit from considering fathers' perspectives when designing programmes to minimize the likelihood that safety initiatives may be perceived as promoting overprotection of children. Framing safety messages in ways that align with fathers' views could involve promoting appropriate protection and encouraging an active lifestyle.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".