Mother-Child Programs for Incarcerated Mothers and Children and Associated Health Outcomes: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing incarceration of women disrupts fertility, family formation, parenting and mother-child relationships. It is common in many jurisdictions, including Canada, to mitigate the harm of separation from the primary parent through programs allowing children to co-reside with their mothers in prison. In this scoping review, we asked the following questions: (1) What are the characteristics of residential mother-child programs in carceral facilities? (2) Who is eligible to participate? (3) How do these programs make a difference to maternal and child health outcomes? METHOD: We use the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for systematic scoping reviews. This approach includes a three-step search strategy developed with a clinical research librarian. Databases searched include MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Gender Studies Abstracts, Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations. The search yielded 1,499 titles and abstracts, of which 27 met the criteria for inclusion. RESULTS: Conducted from 1989 to 2019, across 12 countries, the studies included qualitative and quantitative methods. None was based in Canada. The most common outcomes among the studies included attachment, development, infection, neonatal outcomes, mental health, pregnancy and general experiences. DISCUSSION: Although supporting attachment, mother-child program participation is complex and challenging. High morbidity in the incarcerated population and lack of data collection before and after program participation prevent conclusions, and wide variations in contexts prevent comparisons. BENEFITS: This scoping review illustrates the complexity of maternal and child health outcomes associated with mother-child programs. Initiation or continuation of or changes to such programs must be made with careful consideration.
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 | 0.012 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".