Does Place Matter? An International Comparison of Early Childhood Development Outcomes between the Metropolitan Areas of Melbourne, Australia and Montreal, Canada

Abstract

There is strong consensus about the importance of early childhood development (ECD) for improving population health and closing the health inequity gap. Environmental features and public policies across sectors and jurisdictions are known to influence ECD. International comparisons provide valuable opportunities to better understand the impact of these ecological determinants on ECD. This study compared ECD outcomes between metropolitan Melbourne (Australia) and Montreal (Canada), and contrasted disparities across demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Methods: Population wide surveys using the Early Development Instrument (EDI) were conducted among 4–6 years-old children in both Montreal and Melbourne in 2012, measuring five domains of ECD: 1-Physical Health/Well-Being (PHYS); 2-Social Competence (SOC); 3-Emotional Maturity (EMOT); 4-Language/Cognitive Development (COGN); and 5-Communication Skills/General Knowledge (COMM). Descriptive analyses of summary EDI indicators and domain indicators (including median scores and interquartile ranges) were compared between metropolitan areas, using their respective 95% confident intervals (CIs). Analyses were performed using Stata software (v14). Results: The proportion of children developmentally vulnerable in at least one domain of ECD was 26.8% (95% CIs: 26.2, 27.3) in Montreal vs. 19.2% (95% CIs: 18.8, 19.5) in Melbourne. The Melbourne advantage was greatest for EMOT and COGN (11.5% vs. 6.9%; 13.0% vs. 5.8%). In both Montreal and Melbourne, boys, immigrants, children not speaking the language of the majority at home, and those living in the most deprived areas were at greater risk of being developmentally vulnerable. Relative risks as a function of home language and area-level deprivation subgroups were smaller in Montreal than in Melbourne. Conclusion: This study shows that Melbourne’s children globally experience better ECD outcomes than Montreal’s children, but that inequity gaps are greater in Melbourne for language and area-level deprivation subgroups. Further research is warranted to identify the environmental factors, policies, and programs that account for these observed differences.

Association of Local Variation in Neighborhood Disadvantage in Metropolitan Areas With Youth Neurocognition and Brain Structure

“…The meaning and correlates of neighborhood disadvantage across cities are heterogeneous, and thus variation exists in potential mechanisms of neighborhood effects . Studies have also found evidence that neighborhood disparities vary by geographic location for some cognitive and developmental outcomes and that the implications of experimental changes in children’s neighborhoods vary across cities . These findings raise the questions of whether the association between neighborhood disadvantage, neurocognition, and brain structure varies across the US and whether the associations can be attributed to the overall differences in characteristics between metropolitan areas or the local variation within each metropolitan area.…”

Childhood Socioeconomic Status and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus among Mid-late Chinese: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

“…Optimal SEMs were developed by inspecting the significance of constructs' theoretical relevance and path coefficients to fit the data and obtain theoretically sense. lower CSES tend to be surrounded by poorer sanitation, higher burden of disease, less medical service, narrower living space, and even less food availability (41,42), thereby they have worse physical qualities from childhood and suffer higher levels of inflammation related to T2DM (43,44).…”

Where are the vulnerable children? Identification and comparison of clusters of young children with health and developmental vulnerabilities across Queensland

“…Our recent study in Queensland, Australia [25] analyzed spatial structures of preschool attendance and developmental vulnerabilities. Dea et al [26] compared early children's development outcomes in metropolitan areas. Watts et al [27] explored support practices in schools using AEDC data.…”