MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089509285 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00516

Father Involvement in Early Childhood Care: Insights From a MEL System in a Behavior Change Intervention Among Rural Indian Parents

2020· article· en· W3089509285 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sapna Nair, Shivani Chandramohan, Nandhini Sundaravathanam, Arvind Balaji Rajasekaran, Rathish Sekhar

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGrand Challenges CanadaPorticus Foundation
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Behavior changeMedicineEarly childhoodGerontologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyFamily medicineNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Fathers’ involvement in care and early initiation of cognitive development activities have a positive impact on a child’s social-behavioral, cognitive-academic and emotional-psychological development. This research study, conducted in Tamil Nadu in south India (2017-19), employed a Cluster Randomized Trial to test the impact of techno-social innovations in improving the involvement of fathers in child-care on child development outcomes. Qualitative studies were used to inform the trial and provide insights into pathways of change. Objective: This paper discusses the design, implementation and results of the study through the monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) framework to provide an understanding of the perceptions among parents and service providers surrounding early child development, the adaptations and learnings through the intervention period, and changes that were brought about through the intervention. Methods: The study was at a Proof of Concept stage, and the primary learning objective was to keep the learning process going through the period of the study, as well as obtain evidence to inform future model development. The measurement for change process in the study occurred in three distinct yet interconnected stages. In the first stage, the program was planned, and the design was refined for both the implementation and evaluation of the project. The next stage was the actual implementation: with a learning loop during the execution of the main intervention. The third stage was intended to reflect on the adaptations and pathways to change through the project period and collate evidence for model refinement. Results & Discussion: The data collected from the formative research was used to design, develop and implement the intervention. Lessons in coordination with the government program not only brought policy visibility, access to secondary data, and enabled field research, but also provided access to a workforce with immense field knowledge and presence in the rural underserved population. In order to continuously inform the implementation process of the intervention, the feedback loops allowed for adaptions to be made at each stage. The findings provide insights for programming early childhood development interventions, especially interventions regarding improving father’s involvement in child-care, and ways to leverage evidence in these interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207