US Parents’ Acceptance of Learning About Mindfulness Practices for Parents and Children: National Cross-sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mindfulness practices are associated with improved health and well-being for children. Few studies have assessed parents' acceptance of learning about mindfulness practices. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess parents' beliefs and interest in learning about mindfulness, including from their health care provider, and differences across demographic backgrounds. METHODS: We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of parents with children aged 0-18 years in October 2018. Measures included beliefs and interest in learning about mindfulness. These measures were compared across demographic backgrounds using chi-square analysis. Multivariate linear and logistic regression analyses were used to perform adjusted comparisons between demographic backgrounds. RESULTS: Participants (N=3000) were 87% (n=2621) female and 82.5% (n=2466) Caucasian. Most (n=1913, 64.2%) reported beliefs that mindfulness can be beneficial when parenting, 56.4% (n=1595) showed interest in learning about mindfulness to help their child stay healthy, and 40.8% (n=1214) reported interest in learning about mindfulness from their health care provider. Parents with a college degree 49.6% (n=444) were more likely to report interest in learning about mindfulness from a health care provider compared to those without 37.1% (n=768; P<.001). Parents interested in learning about mindfulness were more likely to be male 62.6% (n=223; P<.001). There was no significant difference in interest in learning about mindfulness from a health care provider based on race. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that many parents believe mindfulness can be beneficial while parenting and are interested in learning how mindfulness could help their child stay healthy. Findings suggest there is an opportunity to educate families about mindfulness practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".