A qualitative study of maternal and paternal parenting knowledge and practices in rural Mozambique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Providing nurturing care for young children is essential for promoting early child development (ECD). However, there is limited knowledge about how mothers and fathers across diverse contexts in sub-Saharan Africa care for their children and from whom they receive guidance and support in their caregiving roles. We aimed to examine caregivers' nurturing care practices and sources of parenting knowledge in rural Mozambique. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis using data from a qualitative evaluation of a pilot intervention to improve nurturing care for early child health and development within existing health systems. The evaluation was conducted across three primary care health facilities and their catchment areas in Nampula province, Mozambique. For this study, we analyzed data from in-depth interviews conducted with 36 caregivers (32 mothers and 4 fathers) to investigate mothers' and fathers' daily caregiving experiences. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Caregivers described various caregiving roles relating to general caregiving of young children (e.g., feeding, bathing, caring for child's health) and stimulation (e.g., play and communication) activities. Mothers more commonly engaged in general caregiving activities than fathers, whereas both mothers and fathers engaged in stimulation activities. Other family members, including siblings, grandparents, and aunts/uncles, were also actively engaged in general caregiving activities. With respect to sources of parenting knowledge, caregivers received parenting guidance and support primarily from their own mothers/parents and facility-based health providers. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of adopting a holistic approach involving caregivers and their context and reveal potential strategies to promote caregiving and ECD in rural Mozambique and similar contexts.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".