| Literature DB >> 35761318 |
Kenneth Okelo1, Silas Onyango2, Dawn Murdock3, Kaylie Cordingley3, Kelvin Munsongo4, George Nyamor5, Patricia Kitsao-Wekulo2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fathers are often perceived to be mainly responsible for the provision of the family's economic needs. However, past studies have demonstrated that fathers' involvement in parenting has great significance for the child's holistic growth and development. Few studies have investigated fathers' roles in the nurturing care of young children, particularly responsive care and stimulation, in sub-Saharan Africa. The study reported here was carried out as part of a larger study that sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the Moments That Matter (MTM) program in improving the nurturing care of young children in rural communities in Zambia and Kenya. The MTM program uses a parenting empowerment approach to promote bonding and interactions between caregivers and their children within the home, focusing on responsive care, early learning, and security and safety so that children reach their full developmental potential. Trained volunteers facilitated monthly primary caregiver support and learning groups and ECD home visits. Fathers were encouraged to participate in the home visits and to attend some of the group meetings on specific topics. The study reported in this paper aimed to establish the impact of the parenting empowerment program in promoting more gender-equal attitudes and practices on parenting among fathers (who were not the primary caregivers).Entities:
Keywords: And holistic development; Childcare; Early childhood development; Early learning; Fathers’ perceptions; Fathers’ practices; Fathers’ roles; Parenting; Responsive care; Stimulation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35761318 PMCID: PMC9238051 DOI: 10.1186/s40359-022-00866-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychol ISSN: 2050-7283
Fig. 1Pathways of change of the Moments That Matter Program
Tools used during each phase of data collection
| Kenya | Zambia | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interview type | Pre-implementation | Mid-intervention | Post-intervention | Pre-implementation | Mid-intervention | Post-intervention |
| Focused group discussions | 13 | 12 | 16 | 15 | 9 | 9 |
| In-depth interviews | 15 | 15 | 17 | 18 | 17 | 47 |
| Key informant interviews | 6 | 9 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
Participant characteristics
| Interview type | Participant category | Gender | Marital status | Education level | Main occupation | Mean age | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Not married | Married | Primary and below | Post primary | Employed | Self-employed | Unemployed | |||
| In-depth interviews | ECD promoter | 8 | 19 | 3 | 24 | 7 | 20 | 3 | 28 | 0 | 33 |
| Lead ECD promoter | 6 | 10 | 2 | 14 | 2 | 14 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 30 | |
| ECD committee: chair, other officials, member | 14 | 7 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 21 | 15 | 6 | 0 | 42 | |
| Focused group discussions | Primary caregivers | 0 | 72 | 10.8 | 61.2 | 54 | 18 | 8 | 40 | 24 | 32 |
| Fathers | 24 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 12 | 12 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 38 | |
| MTM-trained faith leaders | 14 | 6 | 0 | 20 | 5 | 15 | 11 | 9 | 0 | 35 | |
| CHVs | 12 | 31 | 2 | 41 | 32 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 39 | |
| Key informant interviews | Program staff | 2 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 40 |
| Policy implementers | 2 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 42 | |