MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117708799 · doi:10.18060/24205

Protective Factors using the Life Course Perspective in Maternal and Child Health

2020· article· en· W3117708799 on OpenAlex
Abraham Salinas‐Miranda, Lindsey King, Hamisu M. Salihu, Roneé E. Wilson, Susan Nash, Sarah Collins, Estrellita Berry, Deborah Austin, Kenneth Scarborough, Evangeline Best, Lillian Cox, Georgette King, Carrie Hepburn, Conchita Burpee, Richard Briscoe, Julie A. Baldwin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueENGAGE! · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsReach Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife course approachPsychological resilienceParticipatory action researchFocus groupSocial supportPerspective (graphical)Health literacyEnvironmental healthHealth equityGerontologyPsychologyProtective factorCommunity-based participatory researchPublic healthMedicineCommunity healthHealth careDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyNursingSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The life course perspective, a valuable theoretical framework for investigating racial disparities in birth outcomes, examines the cumulative exposure of risk and protective factors throughout the life span. Although risk and protective exposures are equally vital to health, most studies have focused solely on the risk factor exposures faced by vulnerable populations. In clear contrast to the traditional public health approach which emphasizes a deficit model, strengths-based approaches can elucidate pathways on protective factors that foster resilience. Such positive perspectives represent a paradigm shift that views communities as valuable assets that have the capacity to fully engage themselves and their residents to achieve optimal health. Participatory action research methods are well-suited to apply a strengths-based approach to understand health disparities. Our study aimed to explore maternal and child health protective factors, from community residents’ perspective. We conducted 10 community-based participatory focus groups with community residents Tampa, Florida guided by the life course perspective. A total of 78 residents participated in ten focus groups. Perceived protective factors during pregnancy included self-esteem, spirituality, pregnancy support, good nutrition, prenatal care, and community resources. Protective factors for non-pregnant women were self-esteem, spirituality, social support, health literacy, community support and community resources, and societal factors. For children and adolescents, relevant protective factors were self-esteem, positive role models, nutrition and physical activity, and community support. The identified factors are community assets or strengths that mitigate or eliminate maternal and child health risks in families and communities residing in low-income neighborhoods, which must be considered in developing effective maternal and child health 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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.256
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.218 · 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