Responsive caregiving, opportunities for early learning, and children’s safety and security during COVID-19: A rapid review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction During the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been drastic changes in family life and programs and services that promote and protect early childhood development. Global stakeholders have raised concerns that the pandemic is putting enormous strain on parents and other caregivers, compromising capabilities and enabling environments for nurturing care of young children and therefore likely impacting children’s development. Methodology This rapid review takes stock of emerging research on nurturing care for young children during the COVID-19 crisis. Two databases were searched in addition to an extensive search for grey literature, drawing on 112 scholarly and scientific studies from more than 30 countries that have examined components of nurturing care during the pandemic, namely: responsive caregiving, early learning and play, and children’s safety and security. Results There are some reports of unexpected positive benefits of the pandemic on families, including increased father involvement in caregiving. But more commonly, the studies’ findings reveal numerous issues of concern, including parental and caregiver mental health difficulties and less responsive parent-child relationships, increased screen time among children, limited opportunities for outdoor play, and fractured systems for responding to potential child neglect and maltreatment. Evidence suggests limited access and challenges in the provision of remote learning for the youngest learners, such as those in early childhood education. Conclusion The findings can inform global stakeholders, who have advocated for increased support and funding to ensure young children and other caregivers are supported and protected during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is an urgent need for action-oriented implementation studies – those that go beyond identifying trends and begin to pinpoint “what works” to effectively promote and protect nurturing care during emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Key questions What is already known? The most fundamental promotive experiences in the early years of life to reach optimal development come from nurturing care and protection received from parents, family, and community, which have lifelong benefits including improved health and wellbeing. Health and other emergencies are detrimental to the provision of nurturing care. What are the new findings? Findings from this rapid review reveal numerous areas of concern, including families reporting mental health difficulties and less responsive parent-child relationships, increased screen time among children, limited opportunities for outdoor play, and fractured systems for responding to potential child neglect and maltreatment. As with other features of this pandemic, not all families are affected equally: financially vulnerable families are much more likely to experience negative ramifications. The pandemic is also disproportionately affecting parents and other caregivers with young children, particularly mothers, those with pre-existing mental health difficulties, and those caring for children with disabilities. What do the new findings imply? Findings highlight the need for action by governments, civil society, international and community-based organizations to improve support for families so that the pandemic does not break the provision of nurturing care and wipe out decades of progress, especially for vulnerable families and 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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".