Transnationalism and Caring for Migrant Families with Young Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Migrant families’ transnational ties may contribute to their hardships and/or may be a source of resiliency. A care approach that acknowledges these transnational ties may foster a positive identity and give coherence to experiences. We conducted an integrative review to determine if there is evidence that health and social services supporting migrant families with young children consider transnational ties during care with these families. Methods We searched 15 databases to identify relevant literature including empirical research and discussion papers reporting on a health or social program, service, intervention or care experience of migrant families during early childhood (pregnancy to age five) in a Western country (i.e., Canada, US, Europe or Australia). Information regarding if and how the intervention/service/program/care addressed transnationalism, were extracted and synthesized. Results Over 34,000 records were screened; 296 articles met inclusion criteria. Most literature was from the US. Care, programs and interventions examined included prenatal classes, doula support, maternity care, postpartum home visits, breastfeeding support, nutrition and feeding counseling, and parenting and early childcare programs. There is evidence that care-providers empathize and offer information on family reunification processes for families dealing with separation from loved ones and are open to and accommodate cultural traditions (e.g., feeding and parenting practices) originating from the home country; otherwise there is little evidence that transnational ties are addressed during care. Conclusions Significant knowledge gaps remain regarding whether and how care-providers’ take into account transnational ties, including distance care-giving of children or elderly, use of health services abroad, and receipt of advice and support from family back home, which may affect their relationships with families and/or the effectiveness of their interventions. Key messages Significant knowledge gaps remain regarding whether and how care-providers’ take into account transnational ties in early chilldhood care. More research is needed on transnationalism and the health and social care of migrant families.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".