Early Childhood Routines and Adolescent Health & Well-Being: Associations From a US Urban Cohort of Children With Socioeconomic Disadvantage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To investigate longitudinal associations between the presence of early childhood routines– predictable and repeatable functional practices that promote healthy growth, development, and relationships – and adolescent health outcomes. Design Secondary data analysis. Setting 20 large U.S. cities. Subjects 2943 children with socioeconomic disadvantage from the Future of Families cohort. Measures Routines at age 3 (shared family meals, bedtime routine, daily reading); outcomes later in the same children at age 15 (healthy routines, overall health, psychological well-being). Analysis Descriptive statistics, regression analyses. Results We detected longitudinal associations between early childhood routines and later adolescent routines (increased count of shared family meals by parent report [IRR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.24, P = 0.007], bedtime routine and daily reading by adolescent report [aOR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.67, P = 0.008; aOR 1.18, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.38, P = 0.04; respectively]). A bedtime routine in early childhood was associated with excellent health in adolescence (aOR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.79, P = 0.004]. Adolescent routines were concurrently associated with overall health and psychological well-being. We also detected two longitudinal patterns of associations suggesting multiple mechanisms for how early childhood routines influence later health and well-being. Conclusion Early childhood routines predict adolescent routines, and may contribute to long term adolescent health outcomes. Future studies may promote childhood routines during critical developmental stages as a strength-based strategy to promote long-term health and well-being.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".