MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3036185966 · doi:10.7939/r3-5rrq-9p22

Economic Disadvantage, Caregiver Mental Health, Family Functioning, and Children’s Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Well-Being in Low-Income Families

2020· article· en· W3036185966 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lindsey L Howard

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantageMental healthPsychologySocial emotional learningLow incomeDevelopmental psychologyEmotional healthPsychiatryClinical psychologySociologySocioeconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Economic disadvantage continues to be of significant concern to many Canadian families and is at the forefront of many municipal, provincial, and federal government initiatives. The health consequences of living in low-income have been well-documented; however, the relationships between economic disadvantage, caregiver mental health, family functioning, and children’s social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes are less clear, particularly in vulnerable families, such as Foreign-Born Immigrants, Foreign-Born Refugees, Canadian-Born Indigenous, and those families with a lone caregiver. Previous theories of the relationships between income, parental mental health, and children’s outcomes have demonstrated that economic difficulties have a negative effect on parents’ emotions, behaviors, and relationships, which then have a negative influence on the caregivers’ ability to parent appropriately and family dynamics, which can, in turn, affect children’s outcomes. This study used data collected through the Family First Edmonton Project (FFE) to investigate: 1) the impact of economic disadvantage on caregiver mental health and family functioning and children’s social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes (internalizing, externalizing, behavioral symptoms, and adaptive skills); 2) the mediational effect of caregiver mental health and family functioning in the relationships between economic disadvantage and children’s outcomes; and 3) whether the relationships vary across groups that were included in the sample. The results reflected that economic disadvantage did not have the expected predictive impact on caregiver mental health, family functioning nor on children’s outcomes. The strongest predictor of children’s social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes was caregiver’s mental health, which was found consistently across groups and children’s outcomes. An exception was that caregiver’s mental health was not predictive of children’s adaptive skills in Canadian-Born Indigenous families. In the overall sample, there were small effects found between family functioning with children’s externalizing and internalizing problems but stronger relationships were found with behavioral symptoms and adaptive skills. Within represented groups, family functioning was a stronger predictor of children’s outcomes in Canadian-Born Indigenous and Canadian-Born Non-Indigenous Families, than for the Foreign-Born Immigrant and Refugee Families. For the Foreign-Born Immigrant families, family functioning had only predictive effects on children’s adaptive skills, whereas for Foreign-Born Refugees, family functioning was only predictive of children’s internalizing problems. This demonstrates that, for the two Canadian-Born groups, family functioning may have a wider range of influence on children’s outcomes than for Foreign-Born groups. These results demonstrate that regardless of economic situations, it is often factors within families that may exert the greatest effect on some children’s outcomes. Implications for research, intervention and policy are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta Library→Same topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving→French-language works237,207→