Role of home nurturing environment on early childhood neurodevelopment: a community-based survey in Shanghai, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ages of 0-3 years are critical stages for children's neurodevelopment. However, the impact of the home nurturing environment on early childhood neurodevelopment remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To explore the role of the home nurturing environment on early childhood neurodevelopment and to provide evidence of an association between fostering quality home nurturing and achieving optimal neurodevelopment. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: An online cross-sectional survey using the stratified sampling method was conducted from 16 June, 2021 to 18, February, 2022 in all 13 communities of Minhang District, Shanghai. A total of 2,402 children aged 0-3 years with balanced sex distribution were included. METHODS: The quality of home nurturing environments was measured using validated Child Home Nurture Environment Scales. Neurodevelopment was measured using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire - Third edition (ASQ-3). Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling was used to analyze the association between the quality of home nurturing environments and neurodevelopment. RESULTS: Among children aged 0-1, neglect or restriction was reported as the most prevalent problem (8.02%) among home nurturing environment dimensions, and was associated with an increased risk of suspected fine motor development delay (OR = 2.82, 95% CI: 1.18-6.69, P = 0.019). Among children aged 1-3, inadequate parental warmth, as the foremost (16.10%) problem, was associated with an increased risk of suspected gross motor development delay (OR = 4.12, 95% CI: 1.35-12.53, P = 0.013) and suspected personal-social development delay (OR = 12.50, 95%CI: 1.48-105.36, P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: Poor home nurturing environments were associated with an increased risk of suspected early childhood neurodevelopment delay. There exists a need for services to guide for establishing a quality home nurturing environment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".