Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
Way of publication
- Open Access (2)
Keywords
- health (3)
- scoping review (3)
- Child (2)
- Family (2)
- Socioeconomic factors (2)
- Socioeconomic health inequalities (2)
- early childhood (2)
- health inequalities (2)
- Gesundheitsleistungen (1)
- Health status disparities (1)
Institute
Real time computerbased visual feedback improves visual acuity in downbeat nystagmus, a pilot study
(2016)
Modeling the initial 3D distribution of sediment structures of an artificial hydrological catchment
(2012)
Do families have moderating or mediating effects on early health inequalities? A scoping review
(2021)
Background
During early childhood, families have a crucial impact on children's health behaviour, health, and development (bhd). However, a family's socioeconomic position (SEP) determines both the parental behaviour, living conditions, and child health. To understand how family characteristics may influence the development of health inequalities, this scoping review synthesised research on their mediating and moderating effects.
Methods
The review followed the guidelines of the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. The search included German and English peer-reviewed articles published between January 1st, 2000 and December 19th, 2019. The search in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus used both free text terms in the title/abstract and index terms within linked keyword blocks: (1) family characteristics, (2) inequalities, (3) income, education, occupation, (4) bhd, (5) newborn, infant, toddler, preschooler. Two researchers independently examined eligibility for inclusion in two rounds (title/abstract; full-text).
Results
Of 7,089 articles identified, ten sources were included that studied family characteristics and health inequalities among 0-6 years olds. Parental rules, stress, and screentime, and TV in bedroom showed mediating effects on inequalities in behaviour problems or children's screentime. Families' negativity, single parenthood, and the number of children in the household moderated differences in impairment, health, behaviour problems, development or breastfeeding initiation.
Conclusions
The effect of family characteristics on early health inequalities has been sparsely investigated. The evidence supported models of family stress and investment. Further research is needed to comprehensively understand this association.
Key messages
Family characteristics contribute to health inequalities.
Taking families’ stress and investment into account could improve targeted prevention efforts aimed at reducing health inequalities.
Background: By explaining the development of health inequalities, eco-social theories highlight the importance of social environments that children are embedded in. The most important environment during early childhood is the family, as it profoundly influences children’s health through various characteristics. These include family processes,
family structure/size, and living conditions, and are closely linked to the socioeconomic position (SEP) of the family. Although it is known that the SEP contributes to health inequalities in early childhood, the effects of family characteristics on health inequalities remain unclear. The objective of this scoping review is to synthesise existing research on the mediating and moderating effects of family characteristics on socioeconomic health inequalities (HI) during early childhood in high-income countries.
Methods: This review followed the methodology of “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews”. To identify German and English scientific peer-reviewed literature published from January 1st, 2000, to December 19th,
2019, the following search term blocks were linked with the logical operator “AND”: (1) family structure/size, processes, living conditions, (2) inequalities, disparities, diversities, (3) income, education, occupation, (4) health and (5) young children. The search covered the electronic databases PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus.
Results: The search yielded 7,089 records. After title/abstract and full-text screening, only ten peer-reviewed articles were included in the synthesis, which analysed the effects of family characteristics on HI in early childhood. Family processes (i.e., rules /descriptive norms, stress, parental screen time, parent–child conflicts) are identified to have mediating or moderating effects. While families’ living conditions (i.e., TVs in children’s bedrooms) are suggested as
mediating factors, family structure/size (i.e., single parenthood, number of children in the household) appear to moderate health inequalities. Conclusion: Family characteristics contribute to health inequalities in early childhood. The results provide overall
support of models of family stress and family investment. However, knowledge gaps remain regarding the role of family health literacy, regarding a wide range of children’s health outcomes (e.g., oral health, inflammation parameters, weight, and height), and the development of health inequalities over the life course starting at birth.
Characteristics of early childhood education and care (ECEC) centers might be relevant for children’s health. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the association between meso-level characteristics (MLCs) of ECEC centers with children’s health, health behavior, and wellbeing. Five databases were searched for quantitative and qualitative research articles published in English or German since 1 January 2000 on health, health behavior, and wellbeing of children aged 0 to 6 years considering MLCs of ECEC centers. Two authors screened 10,396 potentially eligible manuscripts and identified 117 papers, including 3077 examinations of the association between MLCs and children’s health indicators (Kappas > 0.91). Five categories of MLCs were identified: (1) structural characteristics, (2) equipment/furnishings, (3) location, (4) facilities/environment, (5) culture/activities/policies/practices, and 6) staff. Only very few studies found an association of MLCs with body weight/obesity, and general health and wellbeing. Especially physical activity and mental health were related to MLCs. In general, the location (rural vs. urban, neighborhood status) seemed to be a relevant health aspect. MLCs of ECEC centers appeared relevant for child health indicators to different degrees. Future research should focus on these associations, in detail, to identify concrete ECEC indicators that can support health promotion in early childhood.
The role of regional health policy for socioeconomic inequality in health services utilization
(2022)
Background
“J1” is a preventative routine examination in Germany recommended for adolescents at the age of 12-14 years. In contrast to the well-established U1-U9 examinations for younger children, with participation rates above 90%, the attendance of the J1 examination is approximately only 40%. The most frequent reason for not attending J1 is the unawareness of this examination. “Ticket to J1” is an intervention including an information leaflet introduced in Bavaria in 2017 to inform adolescents about J1. The aims of the present analysis are to investigate (1) if the regional policy was effective in increasing the attendance in J1, (2) if the effects vary by family socioeconomic status (SES), and (3) which meso-level characteristics of the healthcare system correlate with attendance rates in J1.
Methods
We used anonymised data of a large statutory health insurance in Germany for the timeframe of 2016-2018. To investigate the effect of the policy, a difference-in-differences design at the individual level was used. Assuming a parallel trend at the level of federal states, the likelihood of attendance in J1 of 13- and 14-year-olds was compared between Bavaria and other federal German states before and after policy introduction. All analyses were additionally stratified by SES.
Results
The introduction of “Ticket to J1” increased participation in J1 by 1% after controlling for all confounders. Furthermore, the effect was stronger for children from families with lower SES (an increase of 5%). Density of pediatricians was positively significantly correlated with participation in J1.
Discussion
Regional health policy intervention had a significant positive impact on attendance of J1 and appears to have the potential to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in healthcare utilization. Informing adolescents about J1 seems to increase the attendance, in particular for children from families with lower SES.
Background: In Germany, various preventive services are offered to children and adolescents. These include regular standardized examinations (so called U/J examinations) and several vaccinations. Although strongly recommended, most of them are not mandatory. Our aim is to identify factors associated with the use of U/J examinations and vaccination against diphtheria, hepatitis B, Hib, pertussis, polio, and tetanus. While previous research has focused on sociodemographic factors, we also include socioeconomic, behavioral, and psychosocial factors.
Methods: We analyzed cross-sectional data from 15,023 participants (aged 0-17 years) of the nationwide representative KiGGS Wave 2 Survey. Participation in U/J examinations was assessed using a questionnaire, filled out by participants and/or their parents. Information on vaccination status was drawn from the participants' vaccination booklets. To identify relevant determinants for the use of preventive examinations and vaccinations, unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were employed with up to 16 different independent variables.
Results: Various independent variables showed an association with the use of preventive services. Higher socioeconomic status, absence of migration background, and lower household size were associated with significantly higher utilization of U examinations. Parents' marital status, area of residence, behavioral and psychosocial factors yielded insignificant results for most U/J examinations. Higher vaccination rates were found for children with no migration background, with residence in eastern Germany, lower household size, and with married parents.
Conclusion: This study attempted to depict the influence of sociodemographic, psychosocial, and behavioral factors on the use of several preventive services. Our results indicate that predominantly sociodemographic variables influence the use of preventive services. Further efforts should be made to investigate the interplay of different determinants of healthcare use in children and adolescents.
Background
Children's overweight is associated with many factors, including their living situation, in particular their family's socioeconomic position (SEP) and family characteristics. Research on the extent to which family characteristics account for a social gradient in overweight in early life is scarce. This study evaluated whether family characteristics explain SEP differences in the risk of overweight in early childhood.
Methods
The study used baseline data of 3-6 year-old children (n = 1,116) from the intervention ‘Ene mene fit’ conducted at kindergartens in Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Data included overweight (body mass index > 90 percentile) and parents’ reports on their education and family characteristics associated with overweight (child consumes: sweets in front of TV, soft drinks; family joined time: outdoor, breakfast, sports; cooking; child sets table; role model). Model-based single mediation analyses decomposed the total effect of highest parental education on overweight into direct (unmediated) and indirect (mediated) effects (OR, 95% CI).
Results
Girls and boys with low parental education had higher odds for overweight than children with high/medium education. Among boys, low education influenced the risk of overweight via indirect effects of i. ‘sweets consumption in front of TV’ (OR = 1.31, 1.05-1.59) and ii. ‘no joined sports’ (OR = 1.14, 1.00-1.44). The direct effect of low education only remained significant when ‘no joined sports’ was considered (OR = 2.19, 1.11-5.19). Among girls, family characteristics measured here did not explain SEP differences in overweight.
Conclusions
The family characteristics ‘sweets consumption in front of TV’ and ‘no joined sports’ contribute to inequalities in overweight among boys, but not among girls. Therefore, more gender-sensitive research is needed to identify family risk and protective characteristics that explain health inequalities among both boys and girls.
Children’s overweight is strongly associated with family socioeconomic position (SEP) and family characteristics (FC). There is limited research on the extent to which FC account for a socioeconomic gradient in childhood overweight. This study examined whether FC explain SEP differences in the prevalence of overweight. The study used baseline data of preschool-aged children from the German ‘PReschool INtervention Study’. The sample (n = 872, 48% girls) was recruited at kindergartens in Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Data included children’s measured weight status and parents’ reports on socioeconomic indicators (e.g., school education, vocational education, income) and FC. Variables represent main determinants of overweight (nutrition: sweets consumption in front of TV, soft drink consumption, regular breakfast, child sets table; physical activity: outdoor sports; parental role model). In single mediation analyses indirect effects of SEP on overweight were analysed (OR[95%CI]). Preschool girls and boys with low parental education had higher odds for overweight than children with high parental education. Among boys, low levels of parental education contributed to the odds of overweight via indirect effects by both factors ‘sweets consumption in front of TV’ (OR = 1.31[1.05–1.59]) and ‘no sports’ (OR = 1.14[1.01–1.38]). Among girls, FC measured did not explain SEP differences in overweight. Family nutrition and parental/family physical activity contribute to inequalities in overweight among preschool boys, but not girls. Research is needed to identify FC that explain inequalities in overweight for both.
Introduction: Early childhood is an important life stage which is crucial for determining health and health inequalities in later life. At the meso-level (institutional-level), early childcare facilities (eg, kindergartens, preschools) are the most important agent of socialisation next to families in young children aged 06 years. In recent years, an increasing amount of studies has focused on contextual and compositional characteristics of early childcare facilities and their association with health (eg, self-rated health), health behaviour (eg, physical activity) and well-being (eg, emotional well-being) in this age group. However, as currently no overview of the available literature on this topic exists, we will conduct a scoping review including various study designs (eg, cross-sectional studies, prospective studies, qualitative studies).
Methods and analysis: We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. A systematic search of the following scientific databases will be conducted: PubMed/Medline, PsycInfo, Sociological Abstracts, Education Resources Information Center and The Cochrane Library. During the selection process, we will follow a two-step process. First, two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts of all potentially eligible articles by applying a set of previously defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. After the completion of the title/abstract screening, full texts of the remaining articles will be screened following the same procedure. To determine inter-rater agreement between reviewers, we will calculate Cohen’s Kappa after both steps. Key characteristics (eg, country of origin, sample size, study design) of included articles will be extracted. We will map the evidence available by providing a summary table on the key characteristics extracted and by presenting the associations using various types of illustrations.
Ethics and dissemination: Since no primary data will be collected for this review, ethical approval is not required. Our findings will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international conferences.
Einleitung Die J1 ist eine Vorsorgeuntersuchung, die für Kinder zwischen 12 und 14 Jahren empfohlen ist. Im Gegensatz zu den etablierten U1- bis U9-Untersuchungen für jüngere Kinder mit Teilnahmeraten über 90% liegt die Teilnahme bei der J1 bei etwa 40%. Ein Grund für die mangelnde Teilnahme an der J1 ist die geringe Bekanntheit bei Eltern und Kindern. Mehrere Bundesländer haben Einladungswesen eingeführt, um Jugendliche zur Teilnahme an der J1 zu motivieren. Die Einladung „Dein Ticket zur J1“ wurde Mitte 2017 in Bayern eingeführt. Das „Ticket“ ist ein Informationsflyer über die J1 in einer jugendgerechten Gestaltung. Die vorliegende Analyse untersuchte, ob die regionale Informationskampagne zu einer Steigerung der Teilnahme an der J1 geführt hat, ob die Effekte mit dem sozioökonomischen Status der Familie (SES) variieren und welche Meso-Ebene-Merkmale des Gesundheitssystems mit der J1-Teilnahme korrelieren.
Methoden Um die Wirkung der Intervention zu untersuchen, wurden bundesweite anonymisierte Routinedaten der Techniker Krankenkasse aus den Jahren 2016-2018 sowie ein Difference-in-Differences-Design auf individueller Ebene verwendet. Unter der Annahme eines parallelen Trends auf Bundesländerebene wurde die J1-Teilnahme von 13- und 14-Jährigen in Bayern mit anderen Bundesländern vor und nach der Intervention verglichen. Zusätzlich wurde die Analyse für die verschiedenen SES-Gruppen durchgeführt. Wir untersuchten auch, ob Faktoren auf Mesoebene des Gesundheitssystems mit der Teilnahme an der J1 korrelierten.
Ergebnisse Die Einführung von „Dein Ticket zur J1“ erhöhte die Teilnahme an der J1 um 1 %. Obwohl eine höhere Bildung und berufliche Stellung der Eltern positiv mit der J1-Teilnahme korrelierten, war der Effekt der Intervention bei Kindern aus Familien mit niedrigerem SES stärker (Anstieg um 5 %). Die Kinderarztdichte auf Kreisebene korrelierte zudem positiv mit der Teilnahme an der J1.
Schlussfolgerung Die Intervention hat das Potenzial, die sozioökonomische Ungleichheit bei der Inanspruchnahme von Gesundheitsleistungen zu verringern, da die Effekte für Kinder aus Familien mit niedrigerem SES stärker waren. Es bedarf jedoch weiterer Maßnahmen, um Jugendliche über die J1 und die damit verbundenen gesundheitlichen Vorteile zu informieren. Zukünftige Studien sollten untersuchen, von welchen weiteren Faktoren die Wirksamkeit der Intervention abhängt, wie z. B. die Art und Anzahl der Kommunikationskanäle.