Title |
Parents’ Nonstandard Work Schedules and Child Well-Being: A Critical Review of the Literature
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Prevention, September 2013
|
DOI | 10.1007/s10935-013-0318-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jianghong Li, Sarah E. Johnson, Wen-Jui Han, Sonia Andrews, Garth Kendall, Lyndall Strazdins, Alfred Dockery |
Abstract |
This paper provides a comprehensive review of empirical evidence linking parental nonstandard work schedules to four main child developmental outcomes: internalizing and externalizing problems, cognitive development, and body mass index. We evaluated the studies based on theory and methodological rigor (longitudinal data, representative samples, consideration of selection and information bias, confounders, moderators, and mediators). Of 23 studies published between 1980 and 2012 that met the selection criteria, 21 reported significant associations between nonstandard work schedules and an adverse child developmental outcome. The associations were partially mediated through parental depressive symptoms, low quality parenting, reduced parent-child interaction and closeness, and a less supportive home environment. These associations were more pronounced in disadvantaged families and when parents worked such schedules full time. We discuss the nuance, strengths, and limitations of the existing studies, and propose recommendations for future research. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 67% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | <1% |
Czechia | 1 | <1% |
Australia | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 196 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 16% |
Researcher | 27 | 14% |
Student > Master | 24 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 20 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 5% |
Other | 30 | 15% |
Unknown | 58 | 29% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 33 | 17% |
Social Sciences | 29 | 15% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 11% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 11 | 6% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 4% |
Other | 31 | 16% |
Unknown | 66 | 33% |