Parental stress and child stimulation practices: examining associations with child developmental outcomes over time in Kenya and Zambia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Parental stress often arises when parenting demands exceed the expected and actual resources available for the parents to succeed in the parenting role. Parental stress is an important contributor to parent-child relationships. This in turn affects opportunities to engage their children in stimulating activities which could improve children’s development outcomes. However, limited evidence exists from sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) on the association between parental stress, caregiving practices and child developmental outcomes. Methods The findings reported in this paper were derived from data collected through previously conducted longitudinal nurturing care evaluation studies in Kisumu and Nairobi Counties in Kenya, and Chisamba District in Zambia. A total of 341 caregivers and their children who participated in the three rounds of data collection were included in this study. A Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel model (RI-CLPM) was used to determine the association between caregivers’ parenting stress, child stimulation practices, and child developmental outcomes. Results The findings showed that caregiver stimulation practices were positively associated with children’s developmental outcomes. The findings on the associations between parental stress and caregiver’s stimulation practices and children’s developmental outcomes were not universally supported. Conclusion The findings show that improved caregiver stimulation practices are likely to improve children’s developmental outcomes. The policy implications of the findings from this study focus on improving parenting practices by addressing predictors of parental stress. This includes creating awareness and subsidising childcare services to alleviate the costs related to childcare. Trial registration PACTR20180774832663
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".