Unsupported Single Motherhood and the Interpretation of Psychological Distress

Unsupported Single Motherhood and the Interpretation of Psychological Distress

A narrative review and conceptual model for support and recovery

Written by Jennae Michelle Tropea, RN

Revised research manuscript | October 20 2026

Abstract

This narrative review examines how unsupported single motherhood should be considered when interpreting psychological distress. Selected studies associate economic hardship and limited support with distress [1,2], and broader maternal research identifies associations involving cognitive labor [5], sleep and patience [6], and chronic stress and hair cortisol [7]. Experimental work examines judgments of single parents in relation to socioeconomic information [9]. These distinct findings do not establish a single causal chain, widespread bipolar misdiagnosis, or an explanation for every difficult interaction. The proposed model connects independently measured demands, unmet needs, continuous responsibility, and recovery opportunities as questions for research. Dependable relief is defined as a predictable transfer of responsibility, distinguished from nominal service access or merely having no immediate task. Contemporary intervention trials report different results across stress, symptoms, and parenting outcomes [13,14]; assistance cannot be assumed to change all of these together. Proposed studies should assess whether support actually meets needs, measure recovery and emotional outcomes separately, and examine observer judgments directly. Contextual inquiry, appropriate clinical assessment, and accountability for specific interactions are complementary recommendations of this review.

Keywords

Single motherhood; psychological distress; caregiving; cognitive labor; recovery; social support; stigma; parental burnout

Introduction

A description of a mother as irritable, overwhelmed, withdrawn, or emotionally inconsistent identifies an appearance or behavior. It does not, by itself, establish why that response occurred. Interpretation requires information about its timing, severity, consequences, and clinical context, as well as the demands under which the person is functioning. For the proposed assessment, candidate domains are financial provision, physical caregiving, household coordination, emotional support, and responsibility for contingencies. Their distribution and combination should be measured rather than inferred from single-parent status.

The proposed research question is whether assessments and everyday judgments adequately account for unsupported responsibility and restricted recovery. This paper recommends access to clinical assessment alongside inquiry into practical conditions. It does not use understandable circumstances as a rule for excluding treatment or overlooking harmful interactions. Equally, it does not treat a selected emotional response as sufficient evidence for a diagnosis: NIMH guidance calls for assessment of symptom severity, duration, frequency, lifetime course, and relevant history [8].

The argument of this paper is that unmet needs, actual caregiving responsibility, and recovery opportunities should be examined directly rather than inferred from family structure. Family structure alone should not be used to determine whether support is present or equitably distributed. Income also does not reveal who manages daily responsibilities or how much labor was required to obtain financial security. The proposed model therefore treats support as multidimensional and family-specific.

This review addresses three questions. What evidence links unsupported caregiving and resource scarcity to distress? What is known about the emotional responses and social judgments relevant to that distress? What interventions or research designs could establish whether meeting needs and enabling recovery improve outcomes? The focus is single mothers with dependent children. Literature on other mothers and parents is used as contextual evidence, with its limits identified.

Review approach

This is a critical narrative review and conceptual synthesis, not a systematic review, completed scoping review, or original empirical study. Targeted scholarly web lookups during the October 19, 2026 revision verified selected publications concerning single mothers, material hardship, social support, cognitive labor, sleep, cortisol, stigma, and parental accountability. The revision prioritizes sources within the current five-year window and current official diagnostic guidance. It does not claim an exhaustive search covering every publication from 2020 through 2026.

The synthesis draws on publicly accessible indexed abstracts, publisher text, author-provided articles, and an author-affiliated university record. These access levels are not interchangeable with comprehensive full-text appraisal. Source links identify the records available for checking the discussion; a bibliographic match alone does not verify a scientific assertion. Formal database exports, exhaustive screening, and independent duplicate review were not conducted. A structured editorial appraisal of the included records is reported below; it is not a validated risk-of-bias instrument or a substitute for complete full-text appraisal. No pooled effect estimate is presented.

Publication year is distinguished from data-collection year. Recent publication does not necessarily describe conditions in 2026. International studies are treated as context-dependent evidence rather than interchangeable estimates of US experience. Because studies differ in population, design, measurement, and intervention, the synthesis emphasizes what each study can establish and where extrapolation would be required.

Source-selection record and structured editorial appraisal

The October 20 update used targeted scholarly lookups with the phrases “single parents social support respite randomized trial stress parental burnout 2021 2025 null results,” “single mothers social support randomized trial stress 2024 2025,” “single married parents socioeconomic status stereotypes agency communion Daley 2025,” and “adult children parental estrangement attachment attribution nonresident father 2021 2026.” Direct DOI, PMID, publisher, and author-affiliated-record checks then supplied the records actually discussed. This was a purposive narrative process, not a preregistered search of every database or a census of publications through 2026.

The included corpus is the fourteen references listed below. Retention is justified by each source’s role in the question map: hardship and distress; cognitive responsibility; sleep and biological measurement; clinical interpretation; social judgment and stigma; parent–child relationships; and defined interventions. Null and mixed intervention findings and uncertain adjusted estimates remain in the synthesis. A favorable direction of effect is not an inclusion requirement. Other returned records are not silently treated as confirming evidence.

The following editorial appraisal applies the same questions to every included record: what design or evidence form is available, what access was obtained, what inference is relevant, and which extension would exceed the evidence. It is an explicit source-use assessment, not a validated risk-of-bias score, GRADE rating, or claim of comprehensive full-text methodological appraisal. Unassessed methods are not presumed adequate.

This appraisal governs the language used below. It supports a comparison of selected findings and a proposed research agenda, rather than a pooled causal conclusion or a guarantee that no relevant contrary literature exists. A subsequent systematic review would require its own prospectively specified search, screening, access, and appraisal procedures.

Material hardship and psychological distress

A Swedish population-based survey of 5,750 parents using 2022 data found higher odds of severe psychological distress among single mothers than partnered mothers [1]. The age-adjusted odds ratio was 2.4, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.8 to 3.3 [1]. Economic difficulties and limited social support together statistically accounted for 64% of excess odds among single mothers [1]. This is a model-based explanation of a group difference, not a percentage of mothers whose distress would necessarily disappear with assistance. The cross-sectional design also limits causal interpretation [1].

Martin and colleagues combined six evaluations involving 1,254 mothers with low incomes across three US cities, following economic hardships from the pandemic’s onset to more than three years later [2]. Income loss, job loss, and health-insurance loss were associated with maternal depression and anxiety [2]. In models assessing each hardship net of the others, income loss was associated with more than twice the odds of anxiety; job loss and insurance loss were associated with 50% and 90% greater odds of depression, respectively [2]. These are associations in a broader low-income maternal sample, which this review does not relabel as an unsupported-single-mother cohort. Future longitudinal research should compare hardship preceding symptoms, symptoms preceding employment changes, and common antecedents affecting both, rather than infer a single causal direction.

In UK household-panel research, single parents had the highest reported levels of distress, but adjustment for confounders produced uncertain estimates with wide confidence intervals [3]. This review treats those adjusted estimates as uncertain, rather than assigning the difference to one financial or social mechanism.

The review recommends direct assessment of hardship and support rather than using family structure as a substitute. Candidate assessment domains include housing and food security, income volatility, childcare availability, children’s support needs, discrimination, health, and dependable assistance. A hypothetical parent earning above a poverty threshold but facing unaffordable childcare illustrates why a study should record actual expenses and obligations as well as income. The example supplies no prevalence estimate or observed clinical outcome.

Continuous responsibility and invisible work

Weeks and Ruppanner measured cognitive domestic labor through a 21-task battery [4]. Building on that distinction, the proposed assessment would separately record anticipating needs, researching options, scheduling services, remembering deadlines, and monitoring outcomes. Whether task execution and responsibility transfer together should be measured, rather than presumed. These proposed variables do not establish the frequency or clinical effects of any particular arrangement.

A US survey of 3,000 parents measured 21 cognitive tasks [4]. Its subgroup of 460 parents without partners included 313 mothers and 147 fathers [4]. Single mothers reported primary responsibility for approximately 90% of daily cognitive tasks [4]. Single mothers’ general self-estimate was 0.84 compared with 0.88 for the task-based index; corresponding values for single fathers were 0.78 and 0.82 [4]. These are measures of reported responsibility, not precise shares of time or objectively observed work.

In a separate study of 322 mothers of young children, cognitive household labor was associated with depression, stress, burnout, overall mental health, and relationship functioning [5]. The study's abstract describes mothers' reported division of labor with their partners [5]. Its design does not establish effects unique to single mothers or demonstrate that workload causes illness [5].

Resource acquisition should be examined as an activity rather than inferred from the resources eventually present. A proposed interview module would distinguish inherited or preexisting assistance from income, qualifications, benefits, or care arrangements obtained through a caregiver’s subsequent effort. It would ask who performed that work, what alternatives existed, and what costs participants report. The additional proposition—that children or other observers sometimes mistake acquired resources for preexisting advantages—requires direct testing and is not established here.

Assessment should distinguish responsibility, performance, and recognition. Completed obligations document particular accomplishments; they do not measure subjective distress, sustainability, or the quality of every interaction. The proposed study should collect these as separate outcomes. This is a recommendation about inference and measurement, not a finding that successful mothers necessarily conceal illness or that effort establishes appropriate conduct.

Rest and recovery as central conditions

Recovery is a central variable in the proposed model. Consider a hypothetical hour without active childcare in which a parent still monitors messages and prepares the next day’s arrangements. The example distinguishes the absence of an immediate physical task from a transfer of responsibility. It does not establish how often this occurs or how restorative that hour would be. Research should ask participants about both retained duties and experienced restoration instead of assigning a physiological meaning to an empty calendar.

Dependable relief is defined here as a predictable and sufficiently available transfer of responsibility to a safe and capable caregiver. Recovery opportunity includes sleep, rest, personal healthcare, and periods when responsibility can be relinquished. These are proposed operational definitions, not a validated new scale. The proposed evaluation should measure opportunity for relief, sleep quality, and symptoms separately, rather than define improvement in one as proof of improvement in the others.

A longitudinal daily-diary study of mothers with infants associated poorer objective and subjective sleep quality with less patience the following day [6]. The abstract supports that specific association; this review does not attribute a verified next-day anger effect to it. The finding motivates direct measurement of sleep and patience, while leaving open whether a respite intervention would improve either outcome among single mothers of older children.

Proposed measures include sleep duration and continuity, overnight responsibility, off-duty periods, emergency backup, cancellations, and preparation or follow-up work associated with a break. Researchers should measure perceived ability to disengage alongside hours available. Whether regular predictable relief produces different outcomes from occasional assistance is a comparative research question, not an established effect in this review.

The hypothesis is that continuous responsibility combined with inadequate recovery contributes to emotional exhaustion and reactivity. It should be tested against alternatives, including physical illness, preexisting symptoms, child needs, work conditions, and ongoing relationship difficulties. Adequate recovery is important as a research target without being a promised cure.

Stress biology and clinical interpretation

In the proposed assessment, record hair cortisol and self-reported distress separately and avoid using either as a complete measure of the other. In two longitudinal maternal studies involving 144 and 102 participants, chronic stress was associated with higher hair cortisol concentrations [7]. The findings support investigation of a possible neuroendocrine pathway in those populations [7]. They do not identify the cause of an individual emotional response or demonstrate a mechanism specific to single motherhood.

Any proposed physiology study should prespecify its sampling method, timing, inclusion criteria, candidate confounders, and interpretation plan. It should report what its chosen measure can establish in the sampled population rather than presume that persistent adversity produces one uniformly elevated cortisol profile. The current maternal hair-cortisol investigation [7] supplies a specific empirical starting point; the wider single-parent mechanism proposed here remains to be tested.

The proposed model does not use financial hardship or continuous caregiving as diagnostic criteria. NIMH guidance requires clinical evaluation of bipolar symptom patterns and course [8]. Continued work or sacrificed sleep, considered alone, does not document a person’s biological state. This review therefore does not describe mothers as intentionally maintaining a trauma response, nor does it infer PTSD from responsibility or outward emotional variability.

Current NIMH guidance describes bipolar diagnosis as an assessment of symptom severity, duration, frequency, lifetime course, and relevant history [8]. This guidance supports clinical assessment rather than treating one selected response as a diagnosis. It does not estimate bipolar misdiagnosis in single mothers or establish a trend in informal psychiatric labeling. This review does not claim either estimate.

Clinical assessment and practical support should be considered together. A diagnosis does not make social hardship irrelevant, and contextual understanding does not eliminate the possibility of illness. Neither a stress explanation nor a psychiatric label establishes whether a particular harmful interaction occurred.

What observers see and what they may miss

Consider a hypothetical observer who hears an urgent request without knowing whether earlier requests went unanswered, or sees a response to a canceled arrangement without knowing what work commitment was affected. These cases define an information problem to investigate. They are not documented explanations of any particular family’s behavior and do not establish that observers usually lack the relevant context.

An assessment approach can begin with descriptions rather than inferred traits. Irritability includes a sharp tone, impatience, or raised voice; it requires questions about antecedents, frequency, severity, sleep, and consequences. Crying after an apparently minor setback requires understanding what the setback changes for the family. Urgent speech or repeated messages requires attention to deadlines and prior attempts to obtain help. Withdrawal or missed plans requires examination of time constraints, exhaustion, health, and preferences. Forgetfulness or indecision requires consideration of competing demands as well as clinical explanations.

Repeated checking and difficulty delegating should prompt inquiry rather than an automatic explanation. Candidate questions concern earlier assistance failures, current safety information, expectations, and symptoms requiring clinical assessment. These are proposed assessment domains, not demonstrated causes of the observed behavior. Researchers should not retrospectively assign every concern to stress or assume that every expression of vigilance is proportionate.

A further testable observer hypothesis is that documented task completion can be mistaken for evidence that assistance is unnecessary. A study could hold the completed work constant while varying information about sleep, healthcare access, or help received, then measure judgments and support recommendations. This design would test the hypothesis instead of presuming it true. Reports of difficult interactions should also be recorded and investigated without being dismissed as bias in advance.

There is experimental evidence that judgments of single parents depend partly on socioeconomic information. Across four experiments with 1,003 participants, Daley and colleagues generally found lower attributed agency and communion for single than married parents [9]. That disadvantage was not observed when single parents were described as financially well-off and well-educated [9]. These findings concern perceived qualities such as capability and warmth, not psychiatric diagnoses or responses to distress.

Qualitative interviews with 19 single mothers in Korea describe stigma, concealment, and isolation associated with single motherhood [10]. Such evidence demonstrates experiences of judgment within a specific cultural setting; it cannot establish their prevalence elsewhere or show that observers commonly apply bipolar labels.

The proposed attribution pathway has two components requiring separate evidence. First, burden and recovery may relate to emotional responses. Second, information about circumstances may affect how others interpret those responses. Findings supporting each component independently do not establish their connection. Direct studies should hold behavior constant while varying contextual information, and should measure blame, perceived capacity, support recommendations, and psychiatric labeling separately.

Proposed observer variables include family of origin, actual solo-caregiving experience, gender-role beliefs, and current support. Their associations with judgments remain to be tested. Household composition is not an adequate operational measure of experience or dependable assistance: researchers should ask about what people actually did and received. The study should permit accurate understanding among partnered observers and misunderstanding among single parents, rather than build the desired finding into its categories.

Children and unequal interpretations of parental responsibility

Future studies should ask children separately about each parent’s contributions, limits, rules, and interactions. They should also ask about desired closeness and expectations concerning a nonresident parent. These are proposed interview domains, not a conclusion that children ordinarily resent the resident caregiver or excuse an absent one. Independent accounts should remain available for comparison, without assuming either ingratitude or the completeness of an adult caregiver’s narrative.

A South African qualitative study drew on interviews with 19 young men and reported an idealized biological-father role involving economic support, active fathering, and social recognition [11]. These reported meanings do not establish how children evaluate resident mothers. This paper proposes measuring longing, idealization, and attributed responsibility separately. A wish for contact should not be coded as denial of responsibility unless participants actually express that interpretation.

A US longitudinal study reported periods of estrangement from mothers among 6% of respondents and from fathers among 26% [12]. These estimates concern estrangement, not blame, and are not specific to unsupported single-mother families. The review therefore does not use them to determine who was responsible for any particular separation or to infer a child’s motives.

The relevant research question is whether recognition of effort, desired closeness, actual parental constraints, and family accounts help explain variation in children’s judgments. Children’s perspectives should be elicited directly, using the same neutral questions about both parents. This topic warrants a bounded discussion here; a comprehensive explanation of adult-child estrangement requires a separate review.

Reducing unmet needs and evaluating change

The proposed response is support matched to documented needs. Financial security includes predictable coverage of essentials and emergencies. Practical help includes dependable childcare and task ownership. Emotional support includes appropriate help for children and support directed toward the parent. Recovery requires opportunities to sleep, obtain healthcare, and relinquish responsibility. A service should be evaluated by what it changes, not simply whether it was offered.

The intervention question should specify which practical need is addressed and which outcome is expected to change. The following contemporary trials provide different tests of defined interventions; neither authorizes a universal promise that assistance will resolve all symptoms or family conflict.

A Dutch randomized trial compared structured components delivered during two home visits with usual Supportive Parenting, assigning 74 mothers to the experimental group and 60 to control [13]. Stress was lower in the experimental group at the third and fourth assessments, with no between-group differences on the other reported outcomes [13]. Within the experimental group, anger increased and reported parental sense of competence decreased; those within-group changes should not be confused with between-group effects [13]. This review treats the study as a test of specified home-visiting components, not a test of meeting every single-parent resource need. Future evaluations should measure stress, symptoms, and parenting outcomes separately.

Baby’s First Years randomized 1,000 mother–infant dyads to $333 or $20 monthly; the four-year assessment found no statistically detectable group differences in maternal depression or anxiety [14]. This result constrains a universal claim that additional cash necessarily improves those measured outcomes [14]. It does not establish that income is irrelevant or that a package meeting practical, emotional, and recovery needs has already been tested successfully. The proposed resource model should be evaluated rather than assumed.

Accordingly, a coordinated support package is a proposal for evaluation, not an established treatment. Its components should follow a family’s stated needs and preferences. Receipt, reliability, adequacy, and workload should be measured separately. One implementation hypothesis is that applications, travel, preparation, or coordination offset some intended benefit. A study should record these activities and test that hypothesis rather than presume either benefit or burden.

Mental-health care should remain available throughout a support study. Persistent symptoms should prompt assessment of implementation, remaining unmet needs, and clinical questions. The proposed inference rule is deliberately limited: a symptom change alone does not identify its cause, and an intervention outcome alone does not establish whether an earlier diagnosis was correct. Researchers should retain access to independent clinical assessment rather than infer diagnoses from intervention response.

Research agenda

The first priority is a formal evidence map using reproducible searches in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and relevant social-science databases. Direct single-mother studies should be separated from broader-parent evidence. Study quality, selection, missing data, measurement, confounding, and country context should be appraised before stronger conclusions or quantitative pooling are attempted.

Original research could begin with interviews that identify what dependable relief means to single parents and which forms of help actually transfer responsibility. Recruitment should include families with varied incomes, child ages, cultural backgrounds, health needs, and relationship quality. Families with positive relationships are needed to avoid treating dysfunction as an inevitable outcome of single parenting.

A subsequent feasibility study could evaluate a needs-matched package before a larger comparative trial. Baseline and repeated measures should distinguish stress, sleep, irritability, exhaustion, functioning, and relationship quality. Daily diaries could examine shorter-term changes. Primary outcomes and meaningful effect sizes should be specified in advance, with sample size determined accordingly. Essential assistance should not be withheld for research purposes.

Observer judgments require a separate experiment. Hypothetical cases could present identical behavior while randomly varying accurate contextual information about workload, support, and recovery. The experiment could test the effect of supplied information on judgments; it could not establish the motives of particular relatives or clinicians. Longitudinal family processes would require different methods.

Children’s participation requires independent attention to consent, safety, privacy, and developmental stage. They should not be positioned as judges of a parent’s worth or pressured to validate a caregiver’s interpretation. Where family perspectives are compared, differences should be analyzed rather than automatically resolved in favor of one account.

Limitations

The evidence assembled is selective and heterogeneous. The source-by-source appraisal records the basis and limits of each use; it does not establish exhaustive coverage or the absence of selection bias across the wider literature. Several studies concern partnered mothers, infants, or culturally specific populations. Accessible abstracts sometimes provide less methodological detail than full texts. Most associations cannot establish direction or causality, and intervention findings do not support uniform benefits across outcomes. The review contains no original participant data and does not establish prevalence of public psychiatric labeling.

The conceptual model could become circular if unsupported caregiving were inferred from distress and then used to explain that same distress. Independent measures of demands, resources, and recovery are necessary. Similarly, the term resources must not be expanded after every null result to make the hypothesis impossible to disconfirm. Sufficiency and implementation criteria should be specified before testing.

The strongest claim supported at this stage is that circumstances and recovery deserve explicit assessment. The claims that adequate support eliminates distress, that financially secure separated families do not experience conflict, or that single mothers are widely misdiagnosed as bipolar remain unsupported by the evidence presented.

Conclusion

Single-parent status is a family-structure variable; the proposed study would additionally measure actual responsibility, dependable assistance, financial demands, cognitive work, and recovery opportunity. The Swedish survey supplies an association involving distress, hardship, and support [1]; cognitive-labor research supplies reported workload measures [4,5]; and the infant-mother diary study supplies a sleep–patience association [6]. These separate findings do not establish the proposed pathway from unsupported responsibility to outsiders’ psychiatric interpretations. That connection requires its own study.

Assessment should describe behavior, examine its timeline and impact, hear the parent’s account, and evaluate both clinical symptoms and circumstances. Research should test whether support reduces actual demands and improves specific outcomes, rather than treating service provision as equivalent to recovery. A contextual approach recognizes the work of maintaining a family while preserving access to appropriate care and accountability for particular actions.

Declarations

No original participant data were collected for this manuscript. The topic was motivated by lived experience; no identifiable family history is included as research evidence. Generative AI assisted literature discovery, organization, and drafting.

References

1. Unenge Hallerbäck M, Molarius A, Karlsson L, Sonnby K. Psychological distress in single fathers and mothers – a Swedish population-based study. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2026;54(5):495–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/14034948251332507. Source text: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40211615/.

2. Martin A, et al. Economic hardships during COVID-19 and maternal mental health: Combining samples with low incomes across three cities. Social Science & Medicine. 2025;366:117636. Published online December 14, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117636. Source text: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39731866/.

3. Green MJ, Craig P, Demou E, Katikireddi SV, Leyland AH, Pearce A. Understanding inequalities in mental health by family structure during COVID-19 lockdowns: Evidence from the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Annals of General Psychiatry. 2023;22:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12991-023-00454-1. Source text: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37280641/.

4. Weeks AC, Ruppanner L. A typology of US parents' mental loads: Core and episodic cognitive labor. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2025;87(3):966–989. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.13057. Source text: https://anacweeks.github.io/assets/pdf/Weeks_Ruppanner_2024_JMF.pdf.

5. Aviv E, Waizman Y, Kim E, Liu J, Rodsky E, Saxbe D. Cognitive household labor: Gender disparities and consequences for maternal mental health and wellbeing. Archives of Women’s Mental Health. 2025;28:5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-024-01490-w. Source text: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38951218/.

6. Ran-Peled D, Bar-Shachar Y, Horwitz A, Finkelstein O, Bar-Kalifa E, Meiri G, Tikotzky L. Objective and subjective sleep and caregiving feelings in mothers of infants: A longitudinal daily diary study. Sleep. 2022;45(7):zsac090. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsac090. Source text: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35429271/.

7. Rinne GR, Guardino CM, Soriano M, Dunkel Schetter C. Chronic stress and hair cortisol concentration in mothers: A two-study investigation. Stress and Health. 2024;40(6):e3493. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3493. Source text: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39579359/.

8. National Institute of Mental Health. Bipolar disorder. Revised 2025. Accessed October 19 2026. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/bipolar-disorder.

9. Daley JS, Ortiz N, Eagly AH. Impoverished ascriptions: Investigating stereotypes of single parents from a social role perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2025;42(1):291–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241288895. Source text: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02654075241288895.

10. Chung Y, Son S. No good choices: Concealing or disclosing single motherhood in Korea. Social Work Research. 2022;46(2):162–175. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svac002. Source text: https://pure.konkuk.ac.kr/en/publications/no-good-choices-concealing-or-disclosing-single-motherhood-in-kor/.

11. Mkhwanazi S, Jewkes R, Sikweyiya Y, Washington L, Gibbs A. Young men’s experiences of being fathered and absent father’s experience: A case study from urban informal settlements in South Africa. Journal of Applied Youth Studies. 2024;7:273–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43151-024-00118-1. Source text: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39417163/. Full text: https://d-nb.info/1352256312/34.

12. Reczek R, Stacey L, Thomeer MB. Parent–adult child estrangement in the United States by gender, race/ethnicity, and sexuality. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2023;85(2):494–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12898. Source text: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37304343/.

13. Van der Stouwe T, Leijten P, Asscher JJ, Deković M, van der Put CE. Adding structured components to home visitation to reduce mothers’ risk for child maltreatment: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Family Violence. 2024;39:483–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-023-00509-7. Source text: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36817847/.

14. Duncan GJ, et al. Cash transfers and their effect on maternal and young children’s health: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics. 2025;179(8):867–875. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.1612. Source text: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40522644/.