Underrepresented Caregivers in Research on Prenatal Alcohol Exposure: A Meta-Analysis and Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Families of children with prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) are diverse, raising children through birth, adoption, or fostering, including kinship care. Research has shown that caregivers of children with PAE often experience unique difficulties with parenting, which may differ across types of caregivers. Understanding the range of needs of these families is critical for program development; therefore, it is important to know which caregivers are represented in this research and how. Methods The current meta-analysis and scoping review examined the demographic characteristics of caregivers and children included in quantitative PAE caregiver-related research. Systematic database searches using key terms led to the inclusion of 15 relevant studies involving 593 participants in total. Results Most caregivers in the studies were adoptive parents, female, middled-aged, White, partnered, had obtained a high school education or higher, and resided in the United States. Most studies included caregivers of school-aged children diagnosed with FASD. Most studies recruited participants through pre-established lists and databases, collected data in person and for research purposes, and studied parenting stress. Attempts to study differences in representation based on research methods were unsuccessful due to a lack of differences within the literature. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that (a) non-adoptive parents, (b) caregivers who were male, non-White, non-partnered, less educated, and living outside of the United States, and (c) caregivers of adolescents, and caregivers raising children with PAE who have not received an FASD diagnosis are currently underrepresented in the research; however, this literature is limited and requires further research.
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 | 0.046 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".