Neighbourhood characteristics, lifestyle factors, and child development: Secondary analysis of the All our families cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Neighbourhood characteristics have been found to influence child development, but little is known about lifestyle factors that may moderate this relationship, which can provide modifiable targets for policies and programing. This study investigated the association between neighbourhood characteristics (e.g., deprivation, disorder) during pregnancy and child development at age 5 in relation to various lifestyle factors (e.g., physical activity, parent-child reading, community resource use) during early childhood. Methods: A secondary analysis was conducted using multilevel modeling of data from the All Our Families cohort, recruited in Canada from 2008 to 2010. Participants self-reported on demographics during pregnancy, lifestyle factors at 3 years, and child development at 5 years using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3). Neighbourhood deprivation was evaluated using the Vancouver Area Deprivation Index (VANDIX), while disorder was measured using police services' community crime reports. Results: Geocoded information was available for 2,444 participants. After adjusting for covariates, multilevel modeling indicated a significant negative association between neighbourhood deprivation and overall child development (b = -.726, 95% CI: -1.344, -.120). Parent-child reading was found to be a significant moderator of the effect of neighbourhood disorder (b = .005, 95% CI: .001, .009). There were no statistically significant moderation effects for physical activity or community resource use. Conclusion: Neighbourhood deprivation during pregnancy is associated with early child development. Parent-child reading may function as a protective factor in the presence of higher neighbourhood disorder. Overall, neighbourhood-level effects should be considered in policies and community programs that promote family and child well-being.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".