MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412969465 · doi:10.2196/64474

The Practice of Shaking in Disciplining Young Children in Lower-Income Communities of Bangladesh: Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study

2025· article· en· W4412969465 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fahmida Tofail

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Abuse and Related Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintExploratory researchPsychologySocioeconomicsSociologyPolitical scienceSocial sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Disciplining a child is a complex, multidimensional aspect of parenting, involving emotional guidance, behavioral correction, and consistent communication. Disciplinary practices applied to children may vary due to social, cultural, and geographic contexts. Among these practices, child shaking and its potentially severe consequences, including traumatic brain injury and long-term neurodevelopmental impairments, are more frequently documented in high-income countries. Although child shaking also occurs in low- and middle-income countries, particularly among infants, where it is primarily triggered by persistent crying, it is rarely reported in formal studies. Moreover, primary caregivers, particularly mothers, may not perceive shaking as a form of punitive discipline, and maternal depression is often associated with their caregiving attitude toward children. Furthermore, notable functional variations are also observed in the parenting practices of low-income urban and rural mothers, often influenced by divergent socioeconomic and environmental factors. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore caregivers' use of shaking as a disciplinary practice with young children in lower-income urban and rural communities in Bangladesh and identify the underlying factors associated with this behavior. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study in which we randomly interviewed 800 caregivers of children (aged <2 y) admitted to the hospitals of the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh, in urban Dhaka (n=520, 65%) and rural Matlab (n=280, 35%). We collected detailed information on how they disciplined their young children (index children), with particular emphasis on shaking behavior. The questionnaires also explored perceived causes and common beliefs related to child shaking, in addition to collecting information on sociodemographic characteristics and caregivers' depression. All analyses were conducted using SPSS software. RESULTS: Child shaking was higher in lower-income communities of Dhaka compared to rural Matlab (n=265, 51% vs n=52, 19%; P<.001). Mothers, as the primary caregivers, mostly used shaking as a disciplinary practice with their young children (n=491, 61%). Overall, 27% (n=214) of primary caregivers reported ever shaking a child below 2 years; among these, 62% (n=133) reported shaking at least 3 to 5 times. Crying and fussing were the main triggering factors (Dhaka: n=107, 62% vs Matlab: n=26, 67%) for shaking behavior, particularly in infants aged younger than 6 months. Approximately 56.6% (n=99) of the mothers in Dhaka and 28.2% (n=11) of the mothers in Matlab believed that shaking was either definitely or probably harmless. Maternal depression was significantly correlated (adjusted odds ratio 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04; P=.001) with shaking practices used by mothers. CONCLUSIONS: Shaking young children as a form of discipline is quite prevalent in lower-income communities of Bangladesh, where poverty and other stressors are common. Caregivers are not fully aware of the harmful side effects of infant shaking. Positive parenting programs need to be strengthened to reduce these harmful behaviors toward children to support their developmental potential.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicChild Abuse and Related TraumaFrench-language works237,207