Determining Holistic Child Well-being: Critical Reflections on Theory and Dominant Models

Abstract

The concept of child well-being has been receiving growing attention within policy, academic research and literature. However, a precise definition of the concept of 'well-being' is problematic and continues to be debated and discussed within various scientific fields. A number of international studies and models have highlighted selected indicators as being necessary in the measuring of well-being in children, and have served as international definitions and standards for child and family policy development. Yet, these models show differences in the indicators, which they recognize as being significant. In this article, the authors will attempt to reflect upon the following questions: What indicators are the dominant international models of child well-being highlighting as important? What type of theoretical approaches do these models represent? Are there gaps between the indicators presented in these models and those raised as important in theory? The aim is to reflect upon and establish a critical dialogue around what are considered to be the most important indicators for measuring child well-being, and whether these indicators represent a holistic and multidimensional approach to child well-being, as outlined in literature. This will be done through an analysis of what the authors deemed as the dominant international models used to measure and define child well-being; the key indicators recognized through these models as being important; and reflections and discussions against a theoretical backdrop.

Physical Activity as a Part of Children’s Quality of Life Model

“…The Child Development Index (2012) focuses exclusively on three broad indicators: health, nutrition and education. This model is considered by Marjanen et al (2017) to be limited in terms of indicators and therefore does not reflect a holistic approach to well-being; besides, it does not sufficiently allow for an understanding of a child's will, in other words, its subjective measurement.…”

Nationally and regionally representative analysis of 1.65 million children aged under 5 years using a child-based human development index: A multi-country cross-sectional study

“…Despite the overwhelming evidence of the associations between the core dimensions of human capabilities, few comprehensive measures presently exist to track investments in all 3 dimensions of the HDI jointly. Our illustrative computation of a child-based capability index -a child-based version of the HDI-relates to a handful of parallel initiatives that have focused on summary metrics of health [49], of education and health [31,50], and of children's wellbeing [51,52] (see S2 Text for additional details). The World Bank, for instance, introduced a Human Capital Index in 2018, which combines indicators of health and education into a measure of the human capital that a child born today can expect to obtain by her 18th birthday [31].…”

The Subjective Well-Being of Children Internationally and in Finland

“…National definitions and priorities may also vary greatly. For example, definitions have links to existing national policy programmes, to the nature of the services and to the cultural understanding of the family and its structure [1]. In the OECD and UN documents, child well-being is identified as an important issue ([10], [11]).…”

“…The further development of well-being indicators is topical in Finland and internationally. International objective well-being indicators are numerous, largely based on health care data [1] .Societal concerns about the well-being of children have increased and the need to measure subjective well-being information has been raised internationally; validated well-being indicators and further development are needed ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). There is political will and data collected through subjective well-being indicators could also be used to support political decisions ([4], [6]).…”