The Nurturing Care Framework (NCF) calls for establishing a global monitoring and accountability systems for early childhood development (ECD). Major gaps to build low‐cost and large‐scale ECD monitoring systems at the local level remain. In this manuscript, we describe the process of selecting nurturing care indicators at the municipal level from existing routine information systems to develop the Brazilian Early Childhood Friendly Index (IMAPI). Three methodological steps developed through a participatory decision‐making process were followed. First, a literature review identified potential indicators to translate the NCF domains. Four technical panels composed of stakeholders from federal, state and municipal levels were consulted to identify data sources, their availability at the municipal level and the strengths and weakness of each potential indicator. Second, national and international ECD experts participated in two surveys to score, following a SMART approach, the expected performance of each nurturing care indicator. This information was used to develop analytical weights for each indicator. Third, informed by strengths and weaknesses pointed out in the previous steps, the IMAPI team reached consensus on 31 nurturing care indicators across the five NCF domains (Good health [n = 14], Adequate nutrition [4], Responsive caregiving [1], Opportunities for early learning [7] and Security and safety [4]). IMAPI represents the first attempt to select nurturing care indicators at the municipal level using data from existing routine information systems.
Providing an enabling nurturing care environment for early childhood development (ECD) that cuts across the five domains of the Nurturing Care Framework (i.e., good health, adequate nutrition, opportunities for early learning, security and safety and responsive caregiving) has become a global priority. Brazil is home to approximately 18.5 million children under 5 years of age, of which 13% are at risk of poor development due to socio‐economic inequalities. We explored whether the Early Childhood Friendly Municipal Index (IMAPI) can detect inequities in nurturing care ECD environments across the 5570 Brazilian municipalities. We examined the validity of the IMAPI scores and conducted descriptive analyses for assessing sociodemographic inequities by nurturing care domains and between and within regions. The strong correlations between school achievement (positive) and socially vulnerable children (negative) confirmed the IMAPI as a multidimensional nurturing care indicator. Low IMAPI scores were more frequent in the North (72.7%) and Northeast (63.3%) regions and in small (47.7%) and medium (43.3%) size municipalities. Conversely, high IMAPI scores were more frequent in the more prosperous South (52.9%) and Southeast (41.2%) regions and in metropolitan areas (41.2%). The security and safety domain had the lowest mean differences (MDs) among Brazilian regions (MD = 5) and population size (MD = 3). Between‐region analyses confirmed inequities between the North/Northeast and South/Southeast. The biggest within‐region inequity gaps were found in the Northeast (from −22 to 15) and the North (−21 to 19). The IMAPI distinguished the nurturing care ECD environments across Brazilian municipalities and can inform equitable and intersectoral multilevel decision making.
The Brazilian Early Childhood Friendly Municipal Index (IMAPI) is a population‐based approach to monitor the nurturing care environment for early childhood development (ECD) using routine information system data. It is unknown whether IMAPI can be applied to document metropolitan urban territorial differences in nurturing care environments. We used Brasilia, Brazil's capital with a large metropolitan population of 2,881,854 inhabitants divided into 31 districts, as a case study to examine whether disaggregation of nurturing care data can inform a more equitable prioritization for ECD in metropolitan areas. IMAPI scores were estimated at the municipal level (IMAPI‐M, 31 indicators) and at the district level (IMAPI‐D, 29 indicators). We developed a quantitative prioritization process for indicators in each IMAPI analysis, and those selected were jointly mapped in the socioecological model for the role of indicators in relation to the enabling environment for nurturing care. Out of 28 common nurturing care indicators across IMAPI analysis, only four were prioritized in both analyses: one from the Adequate nutrition, two from the Opportunities for early learning, and one from the Responsive caregiving domains. These four indicators were mapped as enabling policies, supportive services, and caregivers’ capabilities (socioecological model) and Effort, Coverage, and Quality (indicator's role). In conclusion, the different levels of nurturing care data disaggregation in the IMAPI can better inform decision‐making than each one individually, especially in metropolitan areas where municipalities and districts within metropolitan areas have relative decision‐making autonomy.
Background: Health impact assessment (HIA) is a widely used process that aims to identify the health impacts, positive or negative, of a policy or intervention that is not necessarily placed in the health sector. Most HIAs are done prospectively and aim to forecast expected health impacts under assumed policy implementation. HIAs may quantitatively and/or qualitatively assess health impacts, with this study focusing on the former. A variety of quantitative modelling methods exist that are used for forecasting health impacts, however, they differ in application area, data requirements, assumptions, risk modelling, complexities, limitations, strengths and comprehensibility. We reviewed relevant models, so as to provide public health researchers with considerations for HIA model choice. Methods: Based on an HIA expert consultation, combined with a narrative literature review, we identified the most relevant models that can be used for health impact forecasting. We narratively and comparatively reviewed the models, according to their fields of application, their configuration and purposes, counterfactual scenarios, underlying assumptions, health risk modelling, limitations and strengths. Results: Seven relevant models for health impacts forecasting were identified, consisting of I) comparative risk assessment (CRA), II) time series analysis (TSA), III) compartmental models (CM), IV) structural models (SM), V) agent-based models (ABM), VI) microsimulations (MS), and VII) artificial intelligence (AI)/ machine learning (ML). These models represent a variety in approaches and vary in the fields of HIA application, complexity and comprehensibility. We provide a set of criteria for HIA model choice. Researchers must consider that model input assumptions match the available data and parameter structures, the available resources, and that model outputs match the research question, meet expectations and are comprehensible to end-users. Conclusion: The reviewed models have specific characteristics, related to available data and parameter structures, computational implementation, interpretation and comprehensibility, which the researcher should critically consider before HIA model choice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.