A qualitative study reporting maternal perceptions of the importance of play for healthy growth and development in the first two years of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In order for infants and toddlers to meet recommended movement guidelines, their caregivers need to encourage play daily. This study used a qualitative approach to understand how mothers perceive and promote play and physical activity during the first 2 years of life. METHODS: Mothers with children between 0 and 24 months were recruited from the SAMRC/Wits Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit in Soweto, South Africa. 19 mothers agreed to participate and were grouped into three focus group discussions (FGDs) by age of the child: 0-6-months, 7-14-months, and 15-24-months. Thereafter, 12 mothers (4 from each FGD) were selected for inclusion in in-depth interviews (IDIs). After coding and theme/sub-theme identification had been completed for all IDIs, a process of cross-cutting theme identification and confirmation across FGDs and IDIs was carried out. RESULTS: The mothers were (mean ± SD) 27 (6) years old. All mothers had attended secondary school, but only nine had matriculated. Only one mother was married (and lived with the child's father), and the majority (n = 15) were unemployed. Most children were male (63%) and were aged 11 (7) months. Four main themes emerged: 1) Physical activity as an indicator for health, 2) Promoting play and development, 3) Gender bias in play, and 4) Screen time. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that developmental attainment was the most important outcome for mothers, and so focussing intervention content on the promotion of child development through movement is advised. Screen time was freely available to children, and we recommend educating mothers on the movement guidelines, with a particular focus on the detrimental effects of screen time in this age group. Mothers reported many barriers to promoting play, and these are essential to consider when designing interventions in this context, in order to allow for equal opportunities for play to be provided to all children.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".