Parenting Skills and Emotional Availability: An RCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a responsive stimulation intervention delivered to caregivers of young children either alone or integrated with nutrition interventions would benefit parenting skills and emotional availability to promote children's development and growth compared with either a nutrition intervention alone or the usual standard of care. METHODS: A cluster randomized factorial effectiveness trial was implemented in an impoverished community in Pakistan. The 4 trial arms were control (usual standard of care), responsive stimulation (responsive care and stimulation), enhanced nutrition (education and multiple micronutrients), and a combination of both enriched interventions. The 4 intervention packages were delivered by community health workers to 1489 mother-infant dyads in the first 2 years of life. Parenting skills and emotional availability indexed by mother-child interaction, caregiving environment, knowledge and practices pertaining to early childhood care and feeding, and maternal depressive symptoms were assessed at multiple intervals. An intention-to-treat factorial analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Intervention groups were comparable at baseline. Responsive stimulation significantly benefitted parenting skills with large effect sizes on mother-child interaction (Cohen's d 0.8), caregiving environment (Cohen's d 0.9-1.0), and knowledge and practices (Cohen's d 0.7-1.1) compared with small-modest significant effects as a result of nutrition intervention on mother-child interaction and caregiving environment only (Cohen's d 0.4 and 0.2, respectively). The combined intervention had a small significant effect on decreasing maternal depressive symptoms over time (Cohen's d 0-0.2). CONCLUSIONS: A responsive stimulation intervention can promote positive caregiving behaviors among impoverished families. Additional research is needed on interventions to reduce maternal depressive symptoms.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".