Maternal perceived safety and parenting practices with young children: a cross-sectional analysis from 15 low-income and middle-income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Social environments can influence parents' caregiving capacities and the quality of nurturing care provided to children. These links, in turn, can shape children's developmental outcomes over the life course. We aimed to examine the relationship between maternal perceived safety at home and in the neighbourhood and maternal parenting practices in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Method: We combined cross-sectional data from the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys in 15 LMICs (2018-2019). Mothers of children aged 36-59 months were included in the sample. We assessed maternal perceived safety at home and in the neighbourhood and two parenting outcomes of maternal stimulation and discipline. We used multiple logistic regression models to estimate the associations while adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and maternal well-being in the pooled sample. Also, analyses were performed for each country separately. Results: After adjusting for covariates, maternal perceived safety at home was associated with increased odds of high maternal stimulation (OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01; 1.32) and lower odds of aggressive psychological discipline (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.77; 0.98). Maternal perception of safety in the neighbourhood was associated with lower odds of aggressive psychological discipline (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.71; 0.88), aggressive physical discipline (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.77; 0.98) and non-violent discipline (OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63; 0.95). Conclusion: Maternal perceived safety at home and in the neighbourhood was positively associated with improved parenting behaviours with young children in LMICs. Interventions that address safety and security at home and across communities may have the potential to enhance maternal well-being and parenting practices to promote integral child development.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".