Factors affecting participation in Sure Start programmes: a qualitative investigation of parents' views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of the present study were to examine the factors that parents identify as promoting or hindering participation in Sure Start programmes, and to identify methods for enhancing parents' engagement with Sure Start. A qualitative, in-depth interview study was conducted with parents registered with two local Sure Start programmes based in the East Midlands, UK, and located in inner city areas with a range of health and social problems associated with social exclusion and disadvantage. Sixty parents, guardians or carers of children living in both Sure Start areas were recruited during autumn of 2004 on the basis of whether they were identified as a 'frequent user' or 'non-frequent user' of Sure Start services. The data were analysed using a thematic approach supported by NVivo computer software, and explanatory themes were subsequently tested for completeness and adequacy. The results of the study indicated that parents who used Sure Start services were positive about the benefits that they obtained for themselves and their children, in particular in overcoming a sense of isolation. Parents who were non-frequent users identified a number of practical reasons that prevented them using Sure Start services, although parents also recognised a loss of confidence and trust in the local communities summarised in the phrase 'keeping myself to myself'. Parents' awareness of the targeted nature of Sure Start can also lead to stigma and reluctance to use services. It is concluded that continued investment of time and effort in maintaining communication networks between Sure Start staff and local parents is vital if parents and children are to make the best use of Sure Start 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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".