No data, no problem, no action: parenting programs in low‐income countries. Making the social–emotional outcomes more visible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parenting programs are delivered in many low income countries in an effort to address the effects of insufficient cognitive stimulation, major social-emotional risk factors related to inadequate caregiver sensitivity and responsiveness, maternal depression, violence and biological risk factors. However, the outcomes of these programs are often untested because of methodological limitations in the existing evaluation tools available for cross-cultural research, and especially those related to social-emotional development and functioning. METHOD: This study takes an approach that involves organizing data from focus groups collected following caregiver participation in a parenting program, Learning Through Play (LTP) delivered in 11 low income countries. The LTP program has as its aim to increase parent knowledge and influence parental practice regarding the essential components of early development of children aged birth to 6 years. The purpose of systematically organizing focus group data was to illustrate a means by which program developers worldwide can discuss outcomes of program participation, particularly in social-emotional domains that have been overlooked in past studies on parenting programs. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The findings from this study suggest that qualitative outcome data can be organized to make the social-emotional outcomes of participation in parenting programs more visible.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".