Supporting Early Childhood During the COVID-19 Pandemic Between Crisis and Care: Emotional and Educational Challenges for Immigrant Mothers and ECEC Services in Italy

Abstract

The socio-emotional impact and educational inequalities caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in vulnerable children, particularly those from disadvantaged immigrant families, require further investigation, especially in preschool-aged children. This study, based on a sample of 110 foreign-born mothers living in a northern Italian region who completed an online questionnaire, explores emotional and behavioral problems in children and parenting quality across three time points: before, during, and after the COVID-19 lockdown. It also examines mothers’ perceptions of their remote relationship with early childhood education centers during the lockdown. Findings show that children’s behavioral problems increased after the onset of the pandemic, particularly in contexts characterized by negative family climates and dysfunctional parenting. The study highlights the protective role of early childhood education services in supporting parental practices and offering children a sense of normalcy during a time of crisis. These findings offer valuable insights to guide professionals in designing parenting support initiatives that take into account the long-term psychological and educational impact of the pandemic on preschool children and immigrant families.

1. Introduction

Coping with the COVID-19 pandemic represented an unexpected and critical event that abruptly disrupted personal, family, and collective adaptation processes, with long-term consequences (Brooks et al., 2020; Feinberg et al., 2022; Provenzi & Tronick, 2020). This disruption was particularly severe for children and families already experiencing psychosocial vulnerability, such as immigrant families. The term immigrant families can encompass a range of configurations, including situations in which a foreign spouse joins a partner who has already emigrated to Italy, as well as families formed in Italy by foreign nationals. There are also families composed of refugees, asylum seekers, mixed couples, and transnational households. Immigrant families, like native families, are therefore represented by a plurality of models—a plurality that, in the case of foreign families, is further enriched by ethnic, religious, linguistic, and cultural diversity (Silva, 2006). In this study, however, the term is used specifically to refer to low-income and socially disadvantaged households in which both parents hold foreign citizenship and are economic migrants.

Such families are often regarded as vulnerable, as they are exposed to heightened risks not only of economic poverty but also of educational deprivation and psychosocial distress—conditions that can have profound consequences for their children’s well-being and development (Sani, 2021; Silva, 2006).

Numerous studies have highlighted how economic and low-income migrants were disproportionately affected by the pandemic, experiencing elevated psychological stress due to job loss, limited access to healthcare services, and increased risk of exposure to COVID-19 (Clark et al., 2020; Hamilton et al., 2022; Non et al., 2025). In the Italian context, for example, the pandemic has intensified the socioeconomic disadvantages faced by immigrant households: while in 2019, 24% of foreign families were living in absolute poverty (compared with 5% of Italian families), by 2021 this figure had increased to 30% (ISTAT, 2022; Paterno et al., 2023).

Moreover, public health measures aimed at containing the virus significantly curtailed access to usual support networks, leading to widespread “social disconnection,” which had a particularly negative impact on the most vulnerable populations (Provenzi & Tronick, 2020). This was undoubtedly the case for immigrant families in Italy. As Pastore (2021, p. 30) notes, “exogenous shocks—that is, traumatic and catastrophic events such as pandemics—tend to reinforce pre-existing fault lines of inequality, including those specifically related to migration.” Although immigrant families do not represent a homogeneous social category (Favaro et al., 2006), they frequently experience acculturative stress, particularly in cases of recent migration. Such stress is often fueled by experiences of discrimination, language barriers, limited economic opportunities, and restricted access to welfare services, and may be further exacerbated by critical events such as the COVID-19 health crisis (Non et al., 2025).

1.1. Raising Children During the Pandemic: Family Experiences and Maternal Stress in the Context of COVID-19

Several studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic reported increased levels of parental stress across various countries. For example, Cameron et al. (2020) found that a significant proportion of Canadian parents of children aged 0–8 were at risk of a mental health crisis, particularly experiencing symptoms of depression and anxiety. Similarly, Gómez-Salgado et al. (2020), in their study of psychological distress in Spain, reported that parenting children under 16 during the pandemic was associated with higher levels of parental psychological distress. Adams-Prassl et al. (2020) and Zafar et al. (2021) identified financial hardship, concerns about children’s education, and general uncertainty as major stressors—particularly for parents who had lost jobs or experienced a reduction in income. McGill et al. (2022) also demonstrated the link between financial stress and children’s socio-emotional difficulties, with parenting behavior acting as a mediating factor. Likewise, Spinelli et al. (2020, 2021), studying a sample of Italian children, found that the impact of quarantine on children’s emotional and behavioral problems was mediated by both individual and dyadic parental stress. Parents who reported greater difficulties in coping with quarantine also showed higher stress levels, which in turn exacerbated their children’s problems (Thomson et al., 2021).

The crucial role of the family in fostering early childhood resilience has therefore been seriously challenged by the unprecedented conditions of the pandemic—especially for families already in a state of psychosocial vulnerability, such as immigrant families (García et al., 2023). In a study conducted with foreign citizens in a metropolitan city in northern Italy, the fear of experiencing severe economic hardship, the risk of job loss, and profound uncertainty about the future were reported as the main concerns during the pandemic, with significantly higher percentages among foreign women (Menonna & Papavero, 2021a). According to the analysis of the Italian context conducted by Sani (2021), in immigrant families it is not always the case that both parents are employed and, when they are, their jobs are typically irregular, poorly paid, and often informal. For such families, the prolonged absence from work during the lockdown not only meant being left without any source of income for several months, but also being excluded from the financial support and compensation measures provided by the State to those who had to suspend formal employment. As Sani (2021, p. 58) further notes, the types of jobs typically carried out by immigrants, not only in Italy but across Europe, fall within the classification of key workers—that is, employment in essential services such as healthcare, care work, cleaning, and agriculture. Because these services remained indispensable during the pandemic, many of these workers were not only at greater risk of infection compared to others, but also faced additional economic difficulties stemming from precarious working conditions (Fasani & Mazza, 2025). Moreover, due to the nature of their employment—largely manual and low-skilled—immigrant workers were generally unable to shift to remote work. Finally, another critical issue must be highlighted, namely housing conditions. During the period of enforced home confinement, the quality of housing became an important factor: many immigrant families, like Italian families living in comparable economic circumstances, were forced to endure the challenges of small, overcrowded dwellings in disadvantaged neighborhoods with limited access to services (Petrillo, 2019). This overall picture of socioeconomic vulnerability also characterizes the sample of our study.

Moreover, immigrant families received less social support than native-born families during the pandemic (Nair et al., 2024; Non et al., 2025). The role of social support has been widely studied for its direct and moderating effects on parental mental health, parenting practices, and acculturation processes (Levitt et al., 2005; S. W. Liu et al., 2020; Seo et al., 2018). For instance, S. W. Liu et al. (2020) found that social support significantly mediated the relationship between parental stress and positive parenting behaviors.

However, during the pandemic, both emotional support (e.g., networks of family, neighbors, and compatriots) and instrumental support (e.g., help with childcare, service availability and accessibility) were substantially lacking. In line with the socio-ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), “without the active involvement of ‘health guarantors’ for minors—including parents, caregivers, teachers, and pediatricians—well-being, resilience, response, and recovery can be undermined” (Mantovani et al., 2021, p. 36).

Overall, the COVID-19 crisis disproportionately affected vulnerable immigrant families and their children, impacting their health, education, employment and social integration in general (Sani, 2021).

As widely emphasized in the literature, during the pandemic, mothers in particular experienced heightened stress due to the emotional and practical challenges of remote work, 24/7 childcare, limited access to public spaces, and the need to juggle paid work with increased domestic responsibilities (Jarvers et al., 2023; Jing et al., 2024; Joo & Lee, 2022; Nair et al., 2024; Non et al., 2025; Thomson et al., 2021). According to the daily hassles theory (DeLongis et al., 1982), everyday challenges in dealing with the child in particular lead to increased parenting stress, which is therefore likely to be particularly pronounced among mothers. The findings of these studies indicate that mothers—particularly those with low incomes and in conditions of greater social marginalization—reported higher levels of concern and stress, exacerbated by the need for constant supervision of their children, the management of their school activities, and the lack of domestic support. The increase in domestic and caregiving responsibilities thus represented an additional source of stress compared to fathers, resulting in heightened psychological distress, such as anxiety, depressive symptoms, panic attacks, and sleep disturbances. This, in turn, negatively affected the quality of mother–child interactions and was associated with an increase in children’s internalizing problems (e.g., anxiety, depression) and externalizing problems (e.g., oppositional behavior, rule-breaking). Research focusing specifically on immigrant mothers of preschool-aged children further indicates that cultural stress, barriers to economic and healthcare assistance, and social marginalization have contributed to greater psychological vulnerability among mothers (García et al., 2023; Nair et al., 2024; Menonna & Papavero, 2021b; Non et al., 2025).

Moreover, social disconnection and greater obstacles in accessing the support of a ‘co-mothering’ network—identified in the sociological and anthropological literature as a typical resource for many immigrant women from Eastern Europe, South America, and Africa (Balsamo, 2003; Di Vita et al., 2010)—have partly undermined the sense of parental competence that derives from sharing socially normative and reassuring traditions and rituals. This enforced disconnection has thus weakened the sharing of a ‘lived culture’ (Moro, 2002), which can otherwise sustain both the sense of identity and the transition to parenthood within the migratory experience.

1.2. Reimagining Connection: Parent–Preschool Teacher Relationships in the Era of Remote Learning

Social and educational institutions played a key role during the pandemic in implementing targeted interventions—often remotely—designed to promote resilience and reduce parental stress, ultimately supporting children and families in coping with the psychosocial impact of COVID-19.

Research on the pandemic’s impact on vulnerable families has largely focused on emotional difficulties during lockdown and challenges related to distance learning in school-aged children. However, studies addressing the 0–6 age group remain limited, despite the fact that the closure of early childhood education services significantly reduced opportunities for development and increased educational poverty among young children.

As stated in the Fourth National Plan for Childhood, “early childhood education institutions play a fundamental mediating role, increasingly asserting themselves as places of prevention, integration, and the transmission of educational values and knowledge” (Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociali, 2016, p. 17). This role is particularly relevant in today’s context of cultural complexity and diversity.

The quality of the relationship between parents and preschool teachers is widely recognized as a key component of early childhood education, with numerous and lasting benefits for children’s learning and development. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many support systems—including parent–teacher relationships—were strained (Chen & Rivera-Vernazza, 2023; Tal et al., 2022; Yildiz et al., 2023).

In Italy, during the national lockdown (March–May 2020), early childhood education centers faced the unprecedented challenge of maintaining meaningful connections with children and families in the absence of in-person contact—especially difficult for the most vulnerable households. To mitigate feelings of isolation and prevent disruption in children’s educational experiences, Italy introduced LEAD (Legami Educativi a Distanza—Remote Educational Relationships), a model distinct from the standard distance learning (DAD—Didattica a Distanza—Remote Learning) used for older students. LEAD aimed to sustain the educational ecosystem by preserving connections between educators and children, educators and parents, children with peers, and parents with one another (Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito—Commissione Infanzia Sistema Integrato Zero-Sei, 2020). Unlike traditional distance learning, LEAD emphasized interaction and emotional presence. The challenge was to reconstruct and redefine relationships across what Lawrence-Lightfoot (2004) described as the “borderland” between school and family. This transition from in-person to remote education demanded a renegotiation of the educational alliance between teachers and families. Whereas parents normally brought their own cultural and educational frameworks into the school environment, the LEAD model reversed this flow: the school entered the home, requiring new forms of mediation and participation (Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito—Commissione Infanzia Sistema Integrato Zero-Sei, 2020).

Although distance learning was still a new domain for many early childhood professionals in Italy—particularly in terms of pedagogical and digital competence (Lucisano, 2020; Picca et al., 2021)—the pandemic prompted a creative and varied response across communities. Educators were tasked with offering engaging and developmentally appropriate experiences online, while supporting parents in involving their children.

Remote learning posed considerable difficulties for young children, who often rely on multisensory, social, and individualized support not easily replicated through digital platforms. It also placed substantial demands on parents, who had to actively mediate learning, manage daily routines, and act as facilitators of the educational process. For many families, especially those with multiple children, it was extremely challenging to provide adequate learning environments within the home (Crawford, 2021).

Immigrant families from low socioeconomic backgrounds faced additional barriers, including limited access to technology and internet, and often lacked the digital and language skills necessary to engage with online education. High levels of parental involvement were expected in tasks such as lesson planning, environmental setup, and communication with teachers (Borup et al., 2015; F. Liu et al., 2010). Non-Italian-speaking parents were frequently unable to understand instructions, and thus could not support their children’s learning. The absence of multilingual school staff and the lack of technological resources—like devices and internet connectivity—exacerbated pre-existing linguistic and cultural barriers that hinder communication and collaboration between schools and immigrant families, even outside crisis situations (Chen & Rivera-Vernazza, 2023; Kayama & Yamakawa, 2020).

1.3. Aims of the Current Study

This study presents an online cross-sectional survey aimed at investigating emotional and behavioral problems in children, the quality of maternal parenting, and experiences with LEAD among immigrant families with preschool-aged children in the Italian region of Piedmont. A relatively small number of studies have explored these variables and their interrelations within samples of foreign-born families with young children. The study had three main objectives:

• To examine mothers’ perceptions of their children’s emotional and behavioral difficulties by comparing three time periods—before the COVID-19 health emergency, during the lockdown, and in the months that followed—while also considering children’s gender and age differences;
• To analyze the impact of the lockdown on parenting and its association with children’s problematic behaviors;
• To explore the relationship between immigrant mothers and early childhood education services during the lockdown period.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Procedures

Once authorization was obtained from the University Ethics Committee, we contacted local nurseries and preschools, which then distributed the link to the online survey (hosted on Google Forms) to families. In Italy, early childhood education currently consists of two programs: nursery schools for children under the age of three, and preschools for children aged 3 to 6. Attendance at these institutions is not mandatory for this age group. The study was conducted in the Piedmont region of northwestern Italy, within a broader public engagement project designed to support families with young children and early childhood services after the lockdown. Since participation from immigrant families came almost exclusively from mothers (only nine fathers took part), the analysis focused solely on the experiences of immigrant mothers.

Therefore, to be eligible for the survey, participants had to be migrant mothers residing in the Piedmont region of Italy with at least one child under the age of six. Informed consent was obtained on the introductory page of the online questionnaire, which explained the purpose of the study and confirmed compliance with ethical standards and data protection regulations. To ensure participants’ confidentiality, all responses were collected and analyzed anonymously.

The data were collected between July and September 2020.

2.2. Measurements

A socio-demographic questionnaire, a battery of 4 independent scales to investigate the risk of maladjustment in children and families during the COVID-19 health emergency and a series of questions on LEAD were asked. This is a retrospective rather than a longitudinal study, as all data were collected at a single point in time. Participants were asked to evaluate their children’s behaviors and their own parenting styles both at the time of the survey and with reference to the months preceding the lockdown and the period prior to the pandemic crisis.

2.2.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Families

Data were collected on age, nationality, educational level, family structure, and employment status of the mothers. Information was also gathered on the child’s age, gender, and the type of early childhood education institution attended.

2.2.2. Risk of Maladjustment

To assess the risk of maladjustment in children and families during the COVID-19 health emergency, a set of four independent, ad hoc scales was developed. The scales were developed following a review of the relevant empirical literature, which identified the most commonly reported psychosocial risks and parenting stressors. They were designed to capture precisely those dimensions recognized by expert researchers as typical consequences of pandemic-related stress among children and parents in both native-born and immigrant families.

(1)

Children’s Behavioral and Emotional Problems Pre- and Post-Lockdown. This scale includes 12 items measuring children’s behavioral and emotional symptoms. Parents were asked to rate the extent to which each symptom applied using a 4-point Likert scale (from “not at all” to “very much”) across three time periods: before the health emergency, during the lockdown, and after the lockdown. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.799, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (χ² = 503.38, df = 66, p < 0.001), indicating suitability for factor analysis. A principal component analysis with Varimax rotation extracted three factors (see

Table 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis: Problem behaviors and emotional distress between pre-emergency and post-lockdown in children.

	Factor Loadings
	1	2	3
Tenseness, irritability	0.845	0.169	0.092
Opposition to rules	0.785	0.114	0.083
Difficulty staying still	0.676	−0.079	0.035
Difficulty sleeping	0.572	0.549	−0.044
Fear of strangers	0.072	0.868	0.224
Difficulties in separating from parents	0.353	0.739	−0.042
Generalized anxiety	0.309	0.703	0.331
Food refusal	0.241	0.624	0.179
Anxiety when faced with novelty	0.301	0.588	0.203
Fear of disease	0.024	0.095	0.766
Excessive hunger	0.136	−0.007	0.704
Somatic symptoms	0.158	0.504	0.512

), accounting for 62.2% of the total variance, with all items loading above 0.35: Factor 1 Restlessness and Oppositionality (26.09% variance explained); Factor 2 Anxiety Disorders (19.66% variance explained); Factor 3 Psychosomatic Symptoms (16.47% variance explained). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for the three subscales was α = 0.79, α = 0.74, and α = 0.58, respectively.

(2)

Children’s Regressive Behaviors and Emotion Regulation Difficulties During Lockdown. This scale consists of 7 items assessing signs of regression in autonomy (e.g., “Although he/she was previously able to do it independently, he/she expressed the need for help with eating”) and difficulties in emotion regulation (e.g., “He/she expressed the need to have an adult nearby to fall asleep”). Parents were asked to indicate whether each behavior was: “same as before the lockdown,” “less than before the lockdown,” “more than before the lockdown,” or “not applicable.”

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.717, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (χ² = 124.08, df = 21, p < 0.001), confirming the appropriateness of factor analysis. A principal component analysis with Varimax rotation identified two factors (see

Table 2. Exploratory Factor Analysis: Children regressive behaviors and emotional regulation difficulties during lockdown.

	Factor Loadings
	1	2
Increased demand for help in dressing	0.952	0.074
Increased need for help with eating	0.921	0.047
Increased demand for help in the bathroom	0.880	0.010
Increased request to be picked up	−0.052	0.903
More frequent search for the transitional object	0.296	0.773
More frequent use of the dummy	0.422	0.717
Greater request for adult closeness for sleeping	0.048	0.488

), accounting for 71.2% of the total variance, with all items loading above 0.35: Factor 1 Regression in Autonomy (44.97% variance explained); Factor 2 Emotional Regulation Difficulties (26.26% variance explained). The two subscales demonstrated internal consistency coefficients of α = 0.85 and α = 0.69, respectively.

(3)

Children’s Fears and Anxieties in the Post-Lockdown Period. This scale includes 6 items assessing fears related to the resumption of normal life following the lockdown (e.g., “After lockdown, did your child show fear when going out and approaching unfamiliar adults?”; “Did your child show fear or hesitation when engaging in familiar activities, such as running in the park or going on swings?”). Parents rated the presence of each behavior on a 3-point Likert scale: “not present at all,” “rarely present,” or “strongly present.”

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.862, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (χ² = 490.95, df = 15, p < 0.001), indicating suitability for factor analysis. A principal component analysis using Varimax rotation revealed a single factor (see

Table 3. Exploratory Factor Analysis: Children anxieties and fears in the post-lockdown period.

	Factor Loadings
	1
Fear of approaching familiar children	0.916
Fear of approaching unknown children	0.909
Fear or hesitancy in doing usual things	0.900
Fear in approaching familiar adults	0.874
Fear of approaching unfamiliar adults	0.871
Refusal to go out	0.521

), which explained 70.9% of the total variance, with all items loading above 0.35. The scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91.

(4)

Home Environment and Maternal Parenting During Lockdown. This scale consists of 8 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree), in which parents reflected on their relationship with their child during the lockdown period. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.555, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (χ² = 178.77, df = 28, p < 0.001), indicating that the data were appropriate for factor analysis.

A principal component analysis with Varimax rotation extracted three factors (see

Table 4. Exploratory Factor Analysis: Household environment and maternal parenting during lockdown.

	Factor Loadings
	1	2	3
I followed my child’s progress and growth more closely on a daily basis	0.801	0.113	0.103
It was enjoyable to have more time to spend with my child	0.796	−0.105	−0.234
I found new ways to be with my child	0.531	0.149	−0.160
There was a relaxed, quiet atmosphere at home	0.501	−0.284	0.072
I yelled at my child more than usual	−0.050	0.902	−0.095
I was more tense and irritable with my child	−0.095	0.864	0.201
Our rhythms (sleep/wake; meal times, etc.) were irregular	−0.061	0.006	0.894
We did not follow the rules we normally follow	0.082	0.096	0.877

), which together explained 64.8% of the total variance, with all items loading above 0.35: Factor 1 Relaxed/Balanced Parenting (22.87% variance explained); Factor 2 Over-Reactive Parenting (21.14% variance explained); Factor 3 Chaotic Parenting (20.84% variance explained). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for the three subscales was α = 0.65, α = 0.75, and α = 0.75, respectively.

2.2.3. Experience with LEAD

We gathered information on how frequently families had contact with their child’s early education institution during the COVID-19 health emergency, the types of remote education programs offered, the activities most appreciated by both parents and children, and the children’s emotional experiences associated with participation in the LEAD initiatives. We also investigated whether mothers sought emotional support and educational guidance from educators and teachers.

2.3. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29). To address missing values, listwise deletion was employed when the remaining sample size was deemed sufficiently robust. Descriptive statistics were computed to examine the distribution of all study variables. Paired-sample t-tests were subsequently conducted to assess changes in children’s emotional and behavioral difficulties across the pre-lockdown, lockdown, and post-lockdown periods. In addition, analyses of variance (ANOVA), correlation analyses, and multiple regression models were employed to investigate the associations between maternal parenting quality and children’s psychosocial adjustment during the pandemic. Finally, the study examined the extent to which LEAD initiative functioned as an effective resource in supporting the educational needs of preschool-aged children and in promoting positive parenting practices.

2.4. Participants

The research sample comprised 110 foreign-national mothers of preschool-aged children. They were recent immigrants from both EU and non-EU countries, as under current Italian legislation, citizenship can be obtained after four years of residence for EU nationals and ten years for non-EU nationals. The mothers ranged in age from 24 to 49 years (M = 34.85, SD = 5.09) and primarily resided in a large city in northern Italy (96.4%). The participants represented a range of nationalities, with the majority being Romanian (53.6%), followed by Moldovan (10%), Moroccan (6.4%), and Peruvian (5.5%). This distribution reflects the characteristics of immigrant families in Italy (ISTAT, 2022).

Regarding educational attainment, 46.4% of the mothers had a medium level of education (upper secondary school), 30% had a high level (university or postgraduate degree), and 23.6% had a low level of education (no secondary or vocational qualification). Despite their good level of education, during the lockdown period, 71.8% of participants were not engaged in paid work. Following the lockdown, 41.8% remained without employment, 46.4% had jobs outside the home (mainly domestic workers (54.9%) and unskilled workers (11.8%)), 7.3% worked both remotely and on-site (mainly office workers), and 4.5% worked exclusively from home. From an occupational perspective as well, the sample reflects the loss of socioeconomic status—marked by the devaluation of previous professional skills—widely observed among foreign workers in the Italian labor market (Bonetti & Fiorucci, 2006).

In terms of marital status, most were either married (66.4%) or cohabiting (25.5%). Cohabiting partners were also without regular paid employment during the lockdown, although to a lesser extent than women (36.4% of men versus 71.8% of women). At the time of the survey, only 13.6% of them remained unemployed.

With regard to housing conditions, the majority of families lived in neighborhoods identified as being at higher risk of economic and educational poverty. Overall, participating mothers belonged to socioeconomically disadvantaged households, highly vulnerable to pandemic-related stressors.

The children described in the study (47.3% female) ranged in age from one to six years (M = 3.13, SD = 1.43). Regarding educational attendance, 50% of the children were enrolled in nursery school, 47.3% in preschool, and 2.7% were not attending any early childhood education institution.

3. Results

3.1. Problematic Behaviors and Emotional Problems in Children

Parental assessments of their children’s problematic behaviors prior to the lockdown revealed no statistically significant gender differences, except in the case of separation difficulties, which were reported more frequently for girls (

Table 5. Problematic Behaviors in Children Before, During and After Lockdown.

Behavior	Phase	Gender	M	SD	ANOVA	Paired-Samples t-Test
Difficulty keeping still	Before lockdown	M	1.98	0.81	n.s.	M	F
		F	2.08	0.95		B/D *	B/D **
	During lockdown	M	2.27	0.97	n.s.	t = −2.432 p < 0.05	n.s.
		F	2.25	0.86		B/A	B/A
	After lockdown	M	2.21	0.87	n.s.	t = −2.207 p < 0.05	n.s.
		F	2.09	0.95
Tenseness, irritability	Before lockdown	M	1.58	0.62	n.s.	M	F
		F	1.78	0.82		B/D	B/D
	During lockdown	M	2.01	0.84	n.s.	t = −3.569 p < 0.01	t = −1.708 p < 0.05
		F	2.00	0.92
	After lockdown	M	1.75	0.73	n.s.	A/B	A/B
		F	1.76	0.87		t = −1.646 p < 0.05	n.s.
Difficulty sleeping	Before lockdown	M	1.55	0.79	n.s.	M	F
		F	1.81	0.93		B/D	B/D
	During lockdown	M	1.87	1.01	n.s.	t = −2.754 p < 0.05	n.s.
		F	1.98	0.91
	After lockdown	M	1.62	0.72	n.s.	B/A	B/A
		F	1.65	0.78		n.s	n.s.
Food refusal	Before lockdown	M	1.55	0.79	n.s.	M	F
		F	1.69	0.72		B/D	B/D
	During lockdown	M	1.67	0.84	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.
		F	1.73	0.68
	After lockdown	M	1.58	0.77	n.s.	B/A	B/A
		F	1.71	0.72		n.s.	n.s.
Excessive hunger	Before lockdown	M	1.29	0.49	n.s.	M	F
		F	1.32	0.61		B/D	B/D
	During lockdown	M	1.31	0.59	n.s.	n.s.	t = −2.210 p < 0.05
		F	1.52	0.82
	After lockdown	M	1.20	0.44	n.s.	B/A	B/A
		F	1.26	0.56		n.s.	n.s.
Fear of disease	Before lockdown	M	1.22	0.65	n.s.	M	F
		F	1.38	0.79		B/D	B/D
	During lockdown	M	1.24	0.50	F = 3.721 p < 0.05	n.s.	n.s.
		F	1.48	0.78
	After lockdown	M	1.12	0.32	F = 6.474 p < 0.05	B/A	B/A
		F	1.40	0.77		t = 1.763 p < 0.05	n.s.
Difficulties separating from parental figures	Before lockdown	M	1.74	0.82	F = 4.792 p < 0.05	M	F
		F	2.11	0.96		B/D	B/D
	During lockdown	M	2.05	1.08	n.s.	t = −2.465 p < 0.01	n.s.
		F	2.32	1.04
	After lockdown	M	1.93	1.02	n.s.	B/A	B/A
		F	2.15	1.07		t = −1.499 p < 0.05	n.s.
Fear of strangers	Before lockdown	M	1.53	0.62	n.s.	M	F
		F	1.69	0.80		B/D	B/D
	During lockdown	M	1.70	0.89	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.
		F	1.65	0.83
	After lockdown	M	1.58	0.72	n.s.	B/A	B/A
		F	1.59	0.77		n.s.	n.s.
Generalized anxiety	Before lockdown	M	1.31	0.68	n.s.	M	F
		F	1.36	0.76		B/D	B/D
	During lockdown	M	1.50	0.75	n.s.	t = −1.901 p < 0.05	t = −2.366 p < 0.05
		F	1.59	0.79
	After lockdown	M	1.46	0.70	n.s.	B/A	B/A
		F	1.38	0.71		n.s.	n.s.
Somatic symptoms	Before lockdown	M	1.10	0.36	n.s.	M	F
		F	1.09	0.45		B/D	B/D
	During lockdown	M	1.15	0.55	n.s.	n.s	n.s.
		F	1.19	0.56
	After lockdown	M	1.10	0.30	n.s.	B/A	B/A
		F	1.21	0.57		n.s.	t = −1.767 p < 0.05
Opposition to rules	Before lockdown	M	1.77	0.77	n.s.	M	F
		F	1.65	0.76		B/D	B/D
	During lockdown	M	1.89	0.85	n.s.	n.s.	t = −3.512 p < 0.05
		F	2.00	0.88
	After lockdown	M	1.81	0.88	n.s.	B/A	B/A
		F	1.86	0.97		n.s.	t = −1.850 p < 0.05
Anxiety when faced with novelty	Before lockdown	M	1.57	0.77	n.s.	M	F
		F	1.73	0.95		B/D	B/D
	During lockdown	M	1.75	0.78	n.s.	t = −1.806 p < 0.05	n.s.
		F	1.90	0.93
	After lockdown	M	1.69	0.73	n.s.	B/A	B/A
		F	1.75	0.79		n.s.	n.s.

* B/D: Before the lockdown/during the lockdown; ** B/A: Before the lockdown/after the lockdown.

). However, compared to the pre-pandemic period, mothers observed a significant increase in stress-related symptoms and behavioral difficulties in their children during the lockdown. These included heightened anxiety, restlessness, rule defiance, irritability, separation anxiety, and trouble falling asleep (Table 5).

To compare children’s behavioral difficulties across the three time points—before, during, and after the lockdown—we conducted paired-samples t-tests, analyzing male and female children separately (Table 5). Several gender-specific differences emerged. During the lockdown, boys were more likely to exhibit irritability, hyperactivity, separation difficulties, and sleep disturbances. In contrast, girls tended to manifest their distress through elevated anxiety, increased appetite, and oppositional behavior.

Although levels of distress generally decreased in the post-lockdown period, not all symptoms returned to pre-pandemic levels. For instance, boys continued to experience significantly more difficulty with calming down and separating from their parents than before the pandemic. Girls, on the other hand, still showed elevated levels of oppositional behavior and somatic complaints compared to the pre-pandemic phase.

In terms of age-related differences, the data show that children aged 0–3 experienced greater difficulty separating from their parents, both before the pandemic and after the lockdown. This is supported by the analysis of variance (pre-lockdown: F = 5.285, p < 0.05; post-lockdown: F = 11.655, p < 0.01). However, during the lockdown itself, no statistically significant differences were observed between younger and older children.

Approximately one-third of the sample exhibited regressive behaviors and difficulties in emotional regulation more frequently during the lockdown than before. Specifically, children more often expressed a desire to be held (41.8%), clung to transitional objects (31.2%), or needed an adult nearby to fall asleep (26.4%). Emotional symptoms were also common, such as unexplained crying (31.4%) or sadness (40%), a lack of interest in previously enjoyed games (27.8%), and fear of the dark (28.4%).

Parents also reported regressions in previously acquired skills related to autonomy. These included eating independently (23.1%), dressing themselves (22.8%), and using the toilet without assistance (22.7%). No significant differences emerged based on the child’s gender or age group in relation to these behaviors.

In the post-lockdown period, new fears specifically associated with returning to normal life began to emerge. These included fear of approaching others—particularly unfamiliar adults (strong in 22% of cases; occasional in 34%) and unknown children (strong in 14%; occasional in 25%)—as well as hesitation to engage in familiar activities (strong in 10%; occasional in 19%) and fear of going outdoors (strong in 11%; occasional in 13%). Again, no significant differences were found based on the children’s gender or age.

3.2. Household Environment During Lockdown and Children’s Problematic Behaviors

Analysis of the full sample indicated that mothers generally recalled the lockdown period as a time marked by a calm and relaxed home environment. Many emphasized the joy of spending extended time with their children and the opportunity to directly observe their development. Reports of difficulties—such as maintaining daily routines, increased irritability, or over-reactive parenting behaviors—were mentioned less frequently (

Table 6. Maternal Parenting During Lockdown.

	Range	M	SD
It was enjoyable to have more time to spend with my child	1–4	3.73	0.73
I found new ways to be with my child	1–4	3.72	0.79
I followed my child’s progress and growth more closely on a daily basis	1–4	3.65	0.86
There was a relaxed, quiet atmosphere at home	1–4	3.10	1.07
Scale Relaxed/Balanced Parenting: total scores	4–16	14.20	2.27
I was more tense and irritable with my child	1–4	1.94	1.15
I yelled at my child more than usual	1–4	1.67	0.94
Scale Over-Reactive Parenting: total scores	2–8	3.60	1.88
Our rhythms (sleep/wake; meal times, etc.) were irregular	1–4	2.30	1.19
We did not follow the rules we normally follow	1–4	2.28	1.23
Scale Chaotic Parenting: total scores	2–8	4.58	2.16

).

Analysis of variance revealed no significant differences based on the gender or age of the children, with two exceptions. The item “It was enjoyable to have more time to spend with my child” was reported significantly more often by mothers of female children (F = 7.557; p < 0.01), while the item “We did not follow the rules we normally followed” was more frequently endorsed by mothers of older children (F = 4.447; p < 0.05). Conversely, the number of children in the household had a notable impact on the quality of the home environment. Families with multiple children of varying ages and needs experienced greater parenting stress: these mothers were more likely to report being irritable with their children (F = 10.107; p < 0.005) and to admit yelling at them more frequently (F = 4.646; p < 0.05). In contrast, mothers of only one child were more likely to express appreciation for the opportunity to spend more time together during lockdown (F = 7.959; p < 0.01). Finally, mothers who were not engaged in work during the lockdown were especially likely to report that they valued the chance to observe their child’s daily development (F = 6.749; p < 0.05).

A multiple linear regression was conducted to examine whether maternal parenting styles—Relaxed/Balanced, Over-Reactive, and Chaotic—predicted children’s behavioral difficulties during the COVID-19 lockdown. Preliminary checks confirmed no multicollinearity among predictors and significant bivariate correlations with the outcome variable (Tolerance > 0.7; VIF < 2).

The model was statistically significant (F(3, 106) = 6.39, p = 0.001), explaining approximately 15% of the variance in children’s behavioral difficulties (R² = 0.15, adjusted R² = 0.13). The overall model fit was moderate (R = 0.39). Over-Reactive parenting emerged as a significant positive predictor (β = 0.22, 95% CI [0.11, 1.31], t = 2.40, p = 0.01), indicating that higher levels of over-reactivity were associated with greater behavioral difficulties. Conversely, Relaxed/Balanced parenting was a significant negative predictor (β = −0.21, 95% CI [−1.06, −0.08], t = −2.34, p = 0.02), suggesting that lower levels of relaxed parenting were associated with increased difficulties. Chaotic parenting contributed less strongly but remained significant (β = 0.19, 95% CI [0.03, 1.05], t = 2.20, p = 0.03).

3.3. Parental Engagement with Early Childhood Education Services During the COVID-19 Lockdown: Perceptions of Immigrant Mothers

The vast majority of respondents indicated that early childhood education services maintained communication with families during the lockdown period. Only 6.4% of mothers reported a complete interruption of contact, attributing this to factors such as inadequate internet access, limited parental engagement, child distress during remote interactions, perceived disengagement by educational staff, or insufficient outreach efforts by the institution. Overall, 74.5% of mothers stated that services sustained communication from the onset of the lockdown, most frequently on a weekly basis (33.6%). Notably, continuity of contact was reported more frequently by parents of children enrolled in preschool programs compared to those in nursery settings (Chi-square = 12.31; df = 4; p < 0.05).

As detailed in

Table 7. Educational Proposals During Lockdown.

Educational Proposals	% Respondents
Sending videos	80.6%
Indicating activities to do at home	67.0%
Occasions of online socializing for children	39.8%
Suggesting resources available online	20.4%
Online encounters for parents	20.4%
Online workshops for groups of children	19.4%
Opportunities of one-to-one conversation between parent and teacher	19.4%
Encounters for parents on educational themes	13.6%
Informational emails	19.4%
Sending worksheets to be completed	10.7%

, the most common educational strategies implemented during this period included the dissemination of pre-recorded video content by educators and the provision of home-based learning activities. Structured opportunities for virtual peer interaction were also frequently reported. Conversely, synchronous remote sessions targeting parents and one-to-one consultations between educators and families were less frequently mentioned. Mothers of children attending preschool programs were significantly more likely to report the receipt of instructional worksheets (Chi-square = 5.791; p < 0.005).

The activities most valued by mothers were those most commonly implemented by early childhood services during the lockdown: educator-recorded videos (57.3%) and suggested home-based activities (37.9%). Additional forms of support—such as virtual meetings for children (23.3%) and creative workshops (17.5%)—were also appreciated, though to a lesser extent. Conversely, parent-directed activities, including online meetings (5.8%) and sessions on parenting topics (2.9%), were rarely prioritized. A slightly higher proportion of mothers (9.7%) valued face-to-face meetings with educators. No statistically significant differences emerged based on the type of educational setting (nursery vs. preschool).

Children’s preferences, as reported by mothers, aligned closely with those of their parents: videos from educators (50.5%) and home-based activities (36.9%) were most frequently appreciated. Peer interaction via online platforms was also positively received (28.2%), particularly among preschoolers. Workshops (9.7%), digital resources (6.8%), and worksheets (5.8%) were less favorably viewed. Children’s responses to remote educational offerings were predominantly positive: emotional reactions included joy upon seeing educators (51.5%) and classmates (35.9%)—particularly among preschool attendees (χ² = 14.94; p < 0.001)—as well as curiosity (35.0%), more common among younger children (χ² = 6.43; p < 0.05), and interest (22.3%). Negative reactions such as disinterest (6.4%), boredom (5.5%), and discomfort (4.5%) were infrequent. No significant gender differences were observed.

A substantial proportion of mothers (42.7%) reported a need to discuss parenting concerns or child behavioral issues with early childhood staff during lockdown. This need was significantly associated with observed behavioral difficulties in children, including irritability (Rho = 0.301; p < 0.01), anxiety (Rho = 0.334; p < 0.001), oppositionality (Rho = 0.356; p < 0.001), sleep onset problems (Rho = 0.268; p < 0.01), food-related issues such as refusal (Rho = 0.240; p < 0.05) and excessive hunger (Rho = 0.249; p < 0.05), and poor adaptation to novelty (Rho = 0.220; p < 0.05). A desire to have an adult nearby at bedtime (Rho = 0.283; p < 0.01) was also significantly correlated with this need. Among those who expressed such a need, 68.1% reported having the opportunity to engage in dialogue with educational staff. Of these, 59.6% expressed high satisfaction with the response received, 21.3% moderate satisfaction, 19.1% low satisfaction, and 4.3% no satisfaction. Satisfaction levels did not vary significantly across socio-demographic variables, including maternal age, number of children, educational attainment, employment status during lockdown, child gender, or institutional affiliation.

Finally, mothers with higher levels of dysfunctional parenting reported a greater need to consult with educators and to receive emotional and educational support. Specifically, those who sought support from educational services showed significantly higher levels of Over-Reactive parenting, F(1, 105) = 5.49, p = 0.02, and significantly lower levels of Relaxed/Balanced parenting, F(1, 105) = 11.91, p = 0.001.

4. Discussion and Implications of the Study

The aim of this study was to investigate immigrant mothers’ perceptions of their children’s emotional and behavioral difficulties during the period spanning the pre-pandemic and post-lockdown phases, and to examine how these problems related to maternal parenting styles during the COVID-19 lockdown. The study also explored how early childhood education and care (ECEC) services interacted with both children and families during the 2020 lockdown, based on the mothers’ reports.

Findings concerning the emotional impact of the pandemic align with those from similar studies conducted with Italian families (Ammaniti, 2020; Arace et al., 2021; Di Giorgio et al., 2021; Pisano et al., 2020; Prino et al., 2023). Our data confirm an emergence or exacerbation of a range of emotional and behavioral issues in children during lockdown, including nervousness, restlessness, anxiety, health-related fears, oppositional behavior, sleep and eating disturbances, difficulty adapting to change, and increased separation anxiety, as also highlighted by international systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Alcon et al., 2024; Jing et al., 2024).

Regression analysis indicated a significant association between child distress and maternal parenting quality, consistent with other studies (Jarvers et al., 2023; Joo & Lee, 2022), findings confirmed that over-reactive parenting was associated with higher levels of behavioral and emotional problems in children, whereas more balanced and responsive parenting appeared to serve as a protective factor. The quality of parenting therefore plays a mediating role in the impact of the pandemic on children’s emotional well-being, as also demonstrated by Joo and Lee (2022), who found that the pandemic increased parental stress levels—especially among mothers—which, in turn, negatively affected parenting and caregiving practices, resulting in a rise in both internalizing and externalizing problems among preschool children. Similarly, more recent studies (Marsolek & Dowell, 2025; Rodríguez-Toscano et al., 2025) concluded that optimal relationships with primary caregivers during the pandemic emergency were associated with fewer clinically significant symptoms in preschool-aged children.

In many cases, these stress responses in children persisted into the post-lockdown period, manifesting in new fears related to re-entry into social life, particularly fear of strangers, which complicated the re-establishment of daily routines. Other studies have also highlighted the persistence of emotional and behavioral difficulties in children in the aftermath of the pandemic wave, emphasizing the importance of longitudinal research to monitor family mental health conditions and improve access to social and healthcare services (Cameron et al., 2025; Jarvers et al., 2023).

The regression to earlier developmental behaviors was also noted in our study. Many children exhibited a renewed need for adult presence (e.g., to fall asleep, eat, dress, or use the toilet), even when they had previously achieved autonomy in these tasks. In response to these regressions, many mothers reported the need to consult educators and teachers, who were then required to help families interpret these behaviors not as pathological, but as expressions of emotional distress and a need for affective security in the face of uncertainty.

Overall, mothers appeared to cope relatively well with the lockdown and several of them reported positive aspects of the experience, such as increased time spent with their children and the opportunity to observe their development firsthand. Other studies have also found that, despite the challenges, the lockdown represented an opportunity for some parents to strengthen family relationships, reporting that they were able to spend more quality time with their children, experience a greater sense of closeness, and observe resilient behaviors in their children (Thomson et al., 2021).

Nevertheless, higher levels of stress were reported among mothers with more than one child and those balancing paid employment, with increased irritability and over-reactivity toward children. It is therefore plausible to hypothesize that the presence of fewer stressors—such as caring for only one young child or not having to balance domestic responsibilities with paid employment—may have supported maternal resilience, thereby explaining the moderate levels of stress reported by the sample, contrary to what is commonly indicated by studies on immigrant families during the pandemic (Non et al., 2025). Moreover, the medium-to-high educational level of the mothers in our sample, as well as their integration into the early childhood education service network, may have served as protective resources that enabled them to cope more adaptively with the stress of the pandemic, counteracting the stress factors resulting from one’s precarious economic and housing conditions. As also demonstrated by Jarvers et al. (2023), mothers with higher educational attainment appeared better able to mitigate behavioral problems in their children, likely reflecting enhanced stress management skills and greater access to educational resources.

Nevertheless, changes to household routines and family rules—common across the sample—may have further contributed to children’s sense of confusion and insecurity. As highlighted by Zhao et al. (2023), home chaos—characterized by disorganization and a lack of routines—constitutes a risk factor that negatively affects children’s resilience, particularly among those from immigrant families.

In this context, support from educational staff through ongoing dialogue was often sought and valued by mothers.

Regarding the interactions between families and ECEC services, the study found that the activities most appreciated by mothers and children—such as video messages from educators and suggested at-home activities—were also the most frequently offered. Children generally responded with positive emotions when given opportunities to engage with educators and peers online. These findings align with previous Italian studies, which reported that families generally evaluated LEAD initiatives positively, viewing them as useful for supporting children’s development and alleviating their sense of isolation (Mantovani et al., 2020; Nossa et al., 2021).

A notable finding is the low level of interest expressed by mothers in activities targeting adults (e.g., online parenting meetings or informational workshops). This highlights a potential area for development, as ECEC services play a crucial role in fostering informal support networks and social integration, especially for immigrant families (Scarzello et al., 2022). It is plausible that under conditions of heightened stress, mothers prioritized the continuity of their children’s educational experience and their relational well-being, making child-focused content—such as educator-created videos and at-home tasks—particularly meaningful. This finding can also be interpreted in light of a study involving parents of preschool-aged children with a migratory background similar to that of our sample, which highlights that immigrant mothers particularly value the role of nursery and preschool in didactic caregiving (Bornstein, 2002)—that is, providing opportunities for learning Italian, drawing, reading, and socializing with peers (Naldini et al., 2019). The lower participation of immigrant mothers in online activities aimed at adults may also indicate a non-linear integration process. According to some sociological studies, acculturation—namely the acquisition of the language and norms of the host country—does not necessarily coincide with structural integration, that is, the entry of migrants into primary and secondary groups within the receiving society (Gans, 1992). In the context of early childhood education services, this may manifest as remaining on the margins, accessing services selectively, or even challenging them by responding in unexpected ways to educational initiatives (Caponio & Santero, 2019).

The high number of immigrant mothers who reached out to educational staff for individual support with behavioral and educational concerns, along with their overall satisfaction with these interactions, indicates a sustained relationship of trust between families and professionals—despite the limitations imposed by physical distancing. For mothers demonstrating dysfunctional parenting patterns, the need for guidance and support appeared especially pressing. Educators and teachers served as important sources of emotional and pedagogical support, assisting mothers in navigating their children’s complex emotional responses. A robust body of literature has demonstrated that strong partnerships between families and educational institutions function as protective factors for children’s well-being and development from early childhood onward (Coelho et al., 2019; Cottle & Alexander, 2014; Galindo & Sheldon, 2012). These relationships become even more critical during crises, which often amplify existing vulnerabilities related to marginalization, social isolation, and educational disadvantage.

In summary, the findings underscore the critical role that Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) services played during the pandemic in supporting parenting, particularly among vulnerable families at risk of social exclusion, such as immigrant households. These results also offer valuable insights for professionals seeking to reassess and refine the types of support provided during crisis situations, with the aim of better aligning interventions with the emotional and educational needs of immigrant families and reinforcing their engagement with ECEC services as a pathway to inclusive and equitable early childhood education. In this regard, the findings of our study suggest that it is important for professionals to develop a deeper understanding of the role that migrant parents attribute to early childhood education services in their children’s integration and socialization processes, as well as the expectations they hold regarding partnership and support for their educational role (Dereli & Türk-Kurtça, 2022). This should also include an awareness of potential resistance or mistrust, which can arise when—and sometimes clash between—different cultural frameworks that do not always share the same values and educational goals. Creating opportunities to strengthen partnerships with parents, while supporting the development of warm and responsive relationships with their children, constitutes a protective factor that is associated with better emotional, social, and cognitive competence in children from low-income and socially vulnerable families (Bornstein, 2013). In the case of immigrant families, the partnership between the family and ECEC services can also represent an important opportunity to build a plural identity (Silva, 2006) that addresses the challenge of constructing a hybrid educational culture (Bornstein et al., 2011). Our study underscores the importance of engaging not only mothers, who typically bear primary responsibility for the care and upbringing of young children, but also fathers. While fathers are generally less involved than mothers in native families, they are often entirely excluded from interactions with health, social, and early childhood education services in immigrant families.

Strengths and Limits

This study makes a valuable contribution to the literature on children’s emotional responses to the COVID-19 pandemic by focusing on a population that has been largely underrepresented in mainstream research: preschool-aged children from low-income immigrant families, a group characterized by economic and socio-cultural vulnerability. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the sampling strategy—mediated through educators and teachers—primarily reached immigrant families who were already somewhat integrated into the early childhood education system and had at least a basic proficiency in the Italian language. The sample likely excluded the most vulnerable immigrant mothers, including those with lower educational attainment, poorer socioeconomic status, those who had limited or no contact with ECEC services, or whose children did not attend early childhood education programs prior to the pandemic.

In addition, the use of an online survey limited participation to mothers with access to digital technology and familiarity with its use. Immigrant parents without regular access to smartphones, computers, or the internet, or those constrained by demanding paid and unpaid work schedules, were effectively excluded from the study. Their experiences may differ substantially from those captured in this research, particularly among families facing greater economic hardship or deeper social exclusion.

Furthermore, the study relied on a cross-sectional design and self-reported data from a single informant. Given the retrospective nature of the reports and that they were provided solely by mothers, sampling and recall biases cannot be ruled out. A longitudinal design incorporating multiple informants—such as educators or teachers once in-person activities resumed—would have offered a more comprehensive perspective, limiting potential measurement bias associated with the use of self-reported measures. The absence of standardized or validated measures also limits the robustness of result interpretation. Moreover, although most research has highlighted more negative consequences of the pandemic for mothers, it would have been valuable to also investigate fathers’ perspectives, as suggested, for example, by the work of Cameron et al. (2025); the inclusion of fathers could also have introduced valuable insights and potentially different outcomes. As such, the findings cannot be considered representative of all immigrant families in Italy with preschool-aged children. Nonetheless, they help to identify key risk and protective factors that can inform targeted interventions, not only in crisis contexts but also in ongoing efforts to support child well-being and development.

5. Conclusions

Our findings, consistent with both national and international literature, confirm the presence of significant psychological stress among families with young children during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. They further highlight the strong association between parenting practices and children’s emotional and behavioral adjustment (Brown et al., 2020; Canzi et al., 2021; Cerniglia et al., 2020; Morelli et al., 2021; Spinelli et al., 2021). In line with the spillover hypothesis, parents’ emotional responses can either amplify children’s vulnerability to stress or, conversely, promote resilience in the face of adversity (Brooks et al., 2020). Within this framework, early childhood education and care (ECEC) services play a pivotal role in supporting families by facilitating the early recognition of stress symptoms and fostering sensitive parental responses to children’s emotional needs. This perspective aligns with what Perks and Cluver (2020) term the “parental vaccine,” a metaphor for the protective function of responsive and emotionally attuned parenting. High-quality ECEC services are thus essential not only for supporting children’s developmental trajectories, but also for enhancing social cohesion and mitigating the psychological consequences of adverse events—particularly in the context of growing social challenges that increasingly affect parental resilience (Richter et al., 2025). Overall, pandemic experiences have reinforced the conviction regarding the fundamental importance of investing in trusting relationships with families, particularly the most vulnerable. This goal can only be achieved through high-quality ongoing training and emotional support for staff, whose role in cooperating with parents and supporting families proved crucial during the pandemic. During this period, parents’ awareness of the importance of early childhood educators and teachers increased significantly, recognizing them not only as caregivers but also as facilitators of children’s development and learning (Demissie & Pearse, 2025; Hemmerich et al., 2021; Levickis et al., 2023; Van Laere et al., 2021).