Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Research from high-income countries suggests that increasing the availability of daycare can improve economic outcomes for mothers, but similar research from low- and middle-income countries is lacking.Methods: We systematically searched databases of published and unpublished literature for studies that measured the impact of daycare provision on social, economic, and health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries without language or publication date restrictions. We synthesized the evidence using both narrative review and random effects meta-analysis.Results: We found 2073 studies and included 13 after applying our exclusion criteria. For a 30 percentage point increase in daycare utilization we estimate that maternal employment increased by 6 percentage points (95% confidence interval: 4 to 8), but we found considerable between-study heterogeneity and evidence of effect measure modification within studies. The impact on maternal earnings was mixed, and few studies assessed the impact of daycare on non-economic outcomes.Conclusions: We found moderate but heterogeneous evidence that interventions to increase access to formal daycare increase maternal labor force participation. Future studies would benefit from assessing the impact of daycare on non-economic outcomes and understanding the heterogeneity between studies.
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 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.003 |
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".