Adolescent mothers: resilience, family health work and health‐promoting practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This paper reports a study examining the relationships among mother's resilience, family health promotion (i.e. health work) and mother's health-promoting lifestyle practices in single-parent families led by adolescent mothers by testing hypotheses derived from the Developmental Model of Health and Nursing. BACKGROUND: Research on families led by adolescent mothers has focussed primarily on negative maternal and child outcomes while ignoring the capacities of these families, including their efforts to promote the health and well-being of both mothers and children. METHODS: This replication study was conducted with convenience sample of 41 adolescent mothers recruited using a variety of strategies. Mothers were asked to provide verbal responses to items on three study instruments: The Resilience Scale, a measure of mother's resilience, the Health Options Scale, a measure of family health work and the Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile a measure of mother's health promoting lifestyle practices, as well as a demographic questionnaire. RESULTS: Consistent with the theory, moderate positive relationships were observed between mothers' resilience and both family health work (r = 0.34, P = 0.01) and mothers' health-promoting lifestyle practices (r = 0.42, P < 0.001). As predicted, moderate correlations were also observed between health work and mother's health promoting lifestyle practices (r = 0.62, P < 0.001). With the effects of employment status and professional support held constant, mother's resilience and health work explained 30.2% of the variance in mother's health-promoting lifestyle practices. CONCLUSIONS: The study validates theoretical relationships among concepts in the developmental model of health and nursing and contributes to better understanding health promotion in families led by adolescent mothers.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".