Paths Linking Maternal Resources for Care to Child Growth and Early Childhood Development in Bangladesh (P11-125-19)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to determine the paths through which resources for care were associated with child growth and development. We hypothesized that resources could have been directly associated with child outcomes or indirectly through care behaviors. Child growth could also have mediated the association between care resources and development. We used the baseline Alive & Thrive data from Bangladesh (n = 803 mothers and their 12–23.9-month children). Child outcomes were height-for-age z score (HAZ) and motor and language development. Care resources were maternal education, knowledge, height, body mass index (BMI), mental well-being, decision-making autonomy, employment, support in chores, and perceived support. Care included dietary diversity, cleanliness, immunization, stimulation, and adequate care. Path analyses accounting for potential confounders and clustering were used. Education, knowledge, health, autonomy and support were associated with child outcomes. Height (β = 0.054), BMI (β = 0.033), and mental well-being (β = 0.024) had direct associations with child HAZ. Knowledge (β = 0.0038) and perceived support (β = 0.013) were associated HAZ via immunization. Height (β = 0.034) and mental well-being (β = 0.015) were associated with motor development via HAZ. Knowledge (β = 0.0024) and perceived support (β = 0.0075) were associated with motor development via immunization and then HAZ. Autonomy (β = 0.085) and perceived support (β = -0.24) had a direct association with language. Education was associated with language via cleanliness (β = 0.011). Knowledge and perceived support had associations with language via cleanliness, and immunization and then HAZ. Height (β = 0.016), BMI (β = 0.0094), and mental well-being (β = 0.0070) were associated with language via HAZ. Care resources were associated with growth and development directly and via care. Child growth mediated the associations between resources and child development. Strengthening various maternal resources and integration of growth and development interventions may improve child outcomes. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the governments of Canada and Ireland through Alive & Thrive, managed by FHI 360, and the Patrice L. Engle Dissertation Grant in Global Early Child Development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".