Information and Support Needs among Parents of Young Children in a Region of Canada: A Cross‐Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the information and support needs among parents of young children in a region of Canada. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: A cross-sectional survey was mailed to a stratified random sample of 1,064 parents of children aged 6 years and under. Of the 359 respondents, the majority were Caucasian, female, married, and well educated. MEASURES: An investigator designed questionnaire measured preferred sources of parenting information and support, sources and modes of program delivery, and perceived barriers to accessing information and programs. RESULTS: Breastfeeding, car seat safety, caring for a new baby, supporting their child's development, and sleep issues were considered "somewhat" or "very" important by 95.8% of respondents. Informal sources of support were rated as more important and more valuable than formal supports. The internet, drop-in programs for parents and children, books, organized play groups, classes and information sessions were identified as the most preferred modes to access parenting information. Respondents reported a lack of knowledge and awareness of programs, lack of time, lack of child care, and inconvenient scheduling as the top barriers to accessing information and programs. CONCLUSIONS: Parents want information to support their parenting. These results have implications for planning and implementation of future parenting information and support programs and services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".