Investigating child-facing practitioners' understanding of adversity and its impact on children's development and service provision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adversity during childhood is a common risk factor for poorer outcomes across physical, mental, and social health. Despite growing evidence and policy around preventing adversity and its sequalae, the incidence of adversity in childhood remains high. Child-facing practitioners (CfPs) may be well-placed to identify adversity and address its impact on children. This study investigated the understanding of adversity and current practice of CfPs working in the Education system, Healthcare and Social Care in England. An anonymous online survey was completed by 113 CfPs between April and June 2022. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Participating CfPs' reported using a range of assessment tools and direct observation, but there was a lack of consistency in the extent to which different types of adversity were explored in assessments. CfPs working in the Education system and Healthcare reported only liaising with Social Care services when a current worker was known to be involved with the family, or to make a referral. Indeed, a quarter of respondents from the Education system and Healthcare only considered early life experiences when capacity allowed. Over half of the CfPs in this survey 'did not know' or 'did not agree' that public services offer interventions to support families experiencing domestic abuse, parental mental health difficulties and addiction, or the impact of these adversities on children's wellbeing. The study highlights that CfPs could benefit from further training about the prevalence and impact of adversity to inform service delivery. A review of CfPs' routine assessments is needed to ensure that children's exposure to adversity is routinely identified; this will facilitate families to access appropriate support to mitigate the impact of such experiences.
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".