Parenting Self‐Efficacy Within the First Year Postpartum in Non‐Birthing Parents: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parenting self-efficacy is a parent's belief in their ability to execute tasks related to raising children and providing them with care to ensure healthy development. While considerable research has been completed with birthing parents, the breadth of work that has been conducted on non-birthing parents is not known. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and analyze the literature on parenting self-efficacy in non-birthing parents within the first year postpartum. The search was completed on October 28, 2024. All qualitative and quantitative study designs were included. Titles, abstracts, and full text were screened by two reviewers. Overall, 125 studies reported on parenting self-efficacy in non-birthing parents. Over two-thirds (69.6%) of studies were published since 2011, with most being quantitative (91.2%). Only four studies included 2SLGBTQAA+ parents, only one of which reported on parenting self-efficacy differentiated by group. Over half (56.0%) of the studies used the term self-efficacy, followed by competence (28.0%) and confidence (16.0%). The measurement tool that was most used was the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale and the most common co-reported outcomes were depression and social support. In conclusion, while the field of research on parenting self-efficacy in non-birthing parents is growing, there is also a dearth of evidence on 2SLGTBQAA+ parents' parenting self-efficacy.
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 | 0.009 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".